1986-01-15

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, every day Firefighters in Canada put their lives on the line to protect the lives and property of their fellow citizens. They rarely get the recognition they deserve. Instead of thanking these Canadians, the federal Government has decided they are another group which should be hit with a tax. This time it is the imposition of federal sales tax on firefighters' clothing. Is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) so anxious to reduce the deficit that he has decided that articles needed to protect human life are just another object on which to gather more revenue for the federal treasury? His response is typical. He compares the clothing which protects the lives of public servants with the tools of a carpenter or plumber. While no one disputes the contribution made by those trades, only the Minister of Finance could equate life-protecting clothing with a hammer.
The tax is a burden to municipalities and volunteer firemen across the country who offer their services free of charge to their communities. Quite often they have to raise the money themselves to buy the equipment. I call upon the Government to remove this tax. Instead of hindering the efforts of Canadian firefighters, the Government should at the very least thank them for a job very well done.
* *
*


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on October 21 some 4,500 barrels of Alaskan crude oil were spilled from the ARCO Anchorage in Port Angeles, Washington. According to world standards this was not a major spill but it has shown what inadequate procedures we have for dealing with any kind of spill. Local people have reported a lack of proper co-ordination between federal, provincial, and American officials responsible.
When patches of oil washed up on Vancouver Island beaches early in January, officials did not know if they came
from the Port Angeles' spill or as a result of the discharge of bilge by passing freighters. Hundreds of sea birds covered with the oil lost their protective insulation and died from exposure. No federal or provincial agency stepped in to co-ordinate the rescue of these birds. Instead, a group of 150 volunteers tried to rescue the birds with fishing nets and get them to the Victoria SPCA for cleaning. Unfortunately, with crude equipment, they were able to rescue only a few of the birds, and of these none survived.
Obviously we need better methods of monitoring passing freighters to prevent the dumping of bilge. We need co-ordination for small and medium spills as well as for major spills to minimize the damage that these oil spills cause. I call on the Government to study the recent spill and pollution in order to devise more effective methods for dealing with any spills that-


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


SASKATCHEWAN HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the matter of the proposed Husky heavy oil upgrader near Lloydminster, Saskatchewan. The need to assess this project is understandable in light of several changing factors since the original memorandum of understanding was signed in June of 1984.
As discussions now continue between the federal Government, Husky Oil, and the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, I encourage all the participants to commit themselves to seeing that this project becomes a reality. It is essential to the economy of my province of Saskatchewan that this project proceed.
Since the memorandum of understanding, our Government's Western Accord and the Budget of last May fulfilled some of the fiscal and pricing aspects. This is especially true with the elimination of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax. Given these changes, and the softening of world oil prices, it is vital that these discussions continue. It is also important that Husky find a second equity partner for the project. The Husky heavy oil upgrader will bring benefits to all Canada. For Saskatchewan alone the project will mean $3 billion for our economy, and over 5,000 jobs.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, tucked away in northern Manitoba, about 1,100 kilometres north of Winnipeg, is Tadoule Lake, a reserve community of 200 people. There are no roads to Tadoule Lake, and it needs a new airport. Last year the Chief and Council wanted to build an airport for $1.9 million and employ 15 to 20 people.
Well, Mr. Speaker, Santa Claus came early to Tadoule Lake. The NDP Premier came along in his big red suit, with visions of Mirabel dancing through his head, and decided to spend, not $1.9 million, but $3.3 million on this airport-$3.3 million to handle three flights a day-no jets, just small light aircraft.
Instead of spending $3.3 million on the airport, the NDP could have spent $1.9 million, as the Chief wanted. They could have employed local people, and spent the other $1.4 million on sewer and water, which they need. However, that makes sense and shows fiscal responsibility. The Chief and Council knew this. The NDP dreams of Mirabel in the north. Self-government is only a word to the NDP. There will be few jobs at Tadoule Lake on this $3.3 million investment because the hypocritical NDP looked elsewhere for a contract, and the jobs will go elsewhere as well.
The Chief is disappointed, the Council is disappointed, the Band is disappointed, I am disappointed, and Manitobans are disappointed with the NDP.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday Ricardo DiDone brought his sad story to Parliament Hill. He has been fasting since December 18 to draw to public attention the need to right a dreadful wrong, that of a court of justice considering whether it has the right to remove this man's son's rightful legal name.
Court documents attest to the mother taking the child and disappearing. Subsequently, when the mother was located, a trial over custody took place in Alberta which granted the mother of the child custody and the father visiting rights. During this period the mother married and her husband, under British Columbia jurisdiction, adopted Ricardo's natural son. DiDone objected and challenged the adoption. A court decision is pending, scheduled for January 20, as to the right of the new husband of the custodial mother to adopt Ricardo's son legally and change his name.
Here we have a non-custodial parent faced with the potential extinguishing of his rightful claim as the father of his child in B.C. jurisdiction, while in Alberta his paternity rights were acknowledged and visiting rights accorded. This is just one of many examples which have caused needless, painful hardship.
Through this case we see the inconsistency of provincial laws that allow this to occur.
There must be some way, through our federal and provincial Ministers of Justice, to come to an understanding with respect to their approach to divorce and family law. There should be a mutual undertaking to respect judgments of any provincial jurisdiction which has rendered a decision impacting upon the life of a child. That is why we must have a national central registry system with powers to intercede in cases where decisions are not respected, for it is the child who suffers, Mr. Speaker. That is the sad reality.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
1985 WEST COAST FISHING PLAN
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to call on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to initiate a full public inquiry into the 1985 West Coast Fishing Plan.
During the 1985 season it became abundantly clear to all involved that there was a serious problem with the methods used to collect data and set fishing quotas on the West Coast. The record salmon runs were not anticipated by the Department officials and consequently estimates by members of the biological branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were far too low.
This year's enormous surpluses in the salmon fishery on the Skeena River, in the Johnston Strait, the Nitinat areas and Qualicum River show just how inadequate was the 1985 plan. It is estimated that as much as $20 million could have been lost to the West Coast fishing industry this year. This situation occurred and fishermen were demanding to be allowed to fish the massive surplus while the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refused to admit that the plan was wrong and refused to allow them to fish.
It is absolutely critical that this inquiry take place before the 1986 Fishing Plan is developed, before the recently announced 200 jobs are cut in the Department, and before the proposed $65 million cut in departmental spending is put in place.
For years fishermen on the West Coast have complained about the lack of adequate staff to carry on the necessary data collection to develop appropriate fishing plans, and they have complained for years about inadequate resources to make sure-


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


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, along with the rest of Canada the Saskatchewan economy has been showing signs of strength since the election of a Progressive Conservative Government in September, 1984. Unemployment is down, job creation is up, and the over-all investment climate has improved dramatically.
The following facts and figures illustrate the size and magnitude of the improvements in the economy despite the fact that Saskatchewan has suffered a crippling drought for the second year in a row. Employment continues to climb in Saskatchewan; a total of 17,000 new jobs have been created since the election. The unemployment rate has fallen from 8.4 per cent in September, 1984, to 8.2 per cent today. Bankruptcies were down 9 per cent in the first 11 months of 1985 compared to the same period in 1984. Housing starts in urban areas for the month of December, 1985, were up 23.3 per cent compared to December, 1984.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that 36 per cent of Saskatchewan's small businesses plan to increase their level of capital investment in the months ahead and 22.9 per cent plan to increase their level of employment.
In the energy sector in the first 11 months, well completions totalled 3,406 compared to 2,624 over the same period last year. This represents an increase of almost 30 per cent since the election. Exports in the first 10 months of 1985 were up 7.1 per cent compared with the same period last year.


INDUSTRY
Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Ever since our Party has been in office, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have tried everything to make people believe that the Quebec Progressive Conservative Members have failed to defend provincial interests with vigour. How untrue! Our Government has shown a lot more awareness of the concerns of Quebec constituents than the Liberals ever did. A few examples immediately come to mind, namely Domtar, Hyundai, and time extensions with respect to Gulf and Petromont.
My constituents vividly recall the passive approach of Liberal Members and Ministers while, one after another, Montreal East refineries closed their doors. They did not have the courage to defend the interests of their constituents. They remained silent while their National Energy Program played havoc with the oil industry and led to the shutdown of several refineries, including three in Montreal East.
Oral Questions
Well, Mr. Speaker, we Conservative Members did take action. We fought on behalf of the people in our ridings, and not only when we found it convenient to do so.
The national policies implemented by our Government will benefit the country as a whole, and their impact can be felt already. I want to assure my constituents as well as all Quebecers and all Canadians that we Conservatives are committed to defend their interests with vigour and celerity so as to build-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but her time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: That wasn't bad, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I would like to put a question, if I might, to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Canadian dollar dropped to its lowest level in history.


Ms. Copps:: The Diefenbuck.


John Napier Turner: How much has it cost the Bank of Canada to intervene in the world exchange markets in order to maintain the Canadian dollar during the last two weeks, and particularly within the last 48 hours?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member as a former Finance Minister should know the answer to that question. That information is made available at the end of the month, the second business day of the month following the month of the transactions. That is when he will get his information.


Mr. Lapierre:: He does not know.


John Napier Turner: It is answers like that, Mr. Speaker, that are contributing to the confusion on the money markets and the exchange markets.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: No direction. No leadership.


John Napier Turner: Looking at all the indicators, Mr. Speaker, there is really no reason for the falling


Oral Questions
Canadian dollar except a recognition on world markets that there is little good management in the Canadian economy.


CONNECTION BETWEEN INTEREST RATES AND EXCHANGE RATE OF DOLLAR
John Napier Turner: My
supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he still hold to the position that he took in answering my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, that there is no connection between rising interest rates in Canada, prompted by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and the falling Canadian dollar?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me respond directly to both of those questions. There is a connection between the drop in the Canadian dollar and the rise in interest rates.


John Napier Turner: That is not what you said on Monday.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No. The correction which I would like to make to the implication that the Hon. Member has left is that the Bank of Canada is forcing interest rates up. That is not true. The Bank of Canada is moderating the increase in interest rates-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -as it is moderating the decline in the level of the Canadian dollar.


Mr. Rodriguez:: What does that mean?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There are certain things that are not within our control on the level of the Canadian dollar, that is, international commodity prices and international interest rates.
I do want to say to the Hon. Member and I will say it to the House, Mr. Speaker, that I am aware of the concern that has been expressed by some in the market-place that we are not showing a sufficient degree of resolve in dealing with the federal Government's deficit. I want to assure the House that we are firmly on track with the direction that we have set for ourselves. There will be a further decline in the deficit this year, and it will be indicated in the Budget for next year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER AND BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR APPEAR BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this matter, I want to ask the Minister whether he would be willing to appear with the Governor of the Bank of Canada before the House Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic
Affairs, in order to explain to Hon. Members and Canadians the reasons for our present interest rates and the drop of the Canadian dollar.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that is a question which Members of the House might well want to put to the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
I want to say to the Hon. Member that this House needs no lectures on interest rate policy from that Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: It is the same policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -who, during his term of office as Finance Minister of the country, saw the prime bank rate increase from 4.75 per cent to 9.5 per cent. Because the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice was making a lot of noise from his seat, during his term of office the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: What about the 22 per cent interest rates under the Liberals?


INDUSTRY
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, he said: We did not make the decision to close the refinery. How can he say such a thing? Is it not true that his own Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion declared in Montreal that he made the decision in the Gulf-Ultramar case with the interests of this country in mind, and is it not true that his Minister of Communications said on the radio that the Cabinet had made this decision? Who is telling the truth, the Prime Minister or his two Ministers?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is mistaken. Three refineries were closed down while he was a Minister of the Crown. Three refineries closed their doors when the Hon. Member for Papineau was a Minister of the Crown, and he remained absolutely silent. He did not say a single word to defend the interests of Montrealers and Quebecers. Now, as a result of a commercial


transaction, a fourth refinery has been affected, but we are working with the appropriate parties in order to save the refinery and not close it down as the Liberals did.


INQUIRY WHETHER PETRO-CANADA WAS WILLING TO BUY REFINERY IN MONTREAL EAST
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected for better, not for worse. Even his friends Louis Laberge and Peladeau are leaving him because they are so disappointed.
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform the House whether it is true that Petro-Canada was prepared to purchase the refinery in Montreal East and keep it open, but that the Cabinet preferred the transaction with Ultramar whose objective was to close down the refinery?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is utter nonsense! And as far as ... Everybody knows that when you were in Government, you people closed down three refineries in Montreal East.


An Hon. Member:: Unfortunately.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And this cost us 1,100 jobs in the industry. That is a fact. That is what happened. There was no question of having Petro-Canada intervene in this question. However, I can give my hon. friend the assurance that unlike Liberal members from the Montreal area who maintained complete silence and never protested even once to the former Minister when he closed down three refineries, the Hon. Member for Shawinigan, who closed three refineries in Quebec . . . Not one Liberal member here in the House protested, not even once. However, we are working with our Montreal caucus on keeping the refinery sector alive in Montreal East.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A minute ago he informed the House that he intends in his forthcoming Budget to reduce the deficit further. When he was in opposition, the Minister of Finance pointed out the following: "Higher interest rates mean lower growth, larger deficits and more debt". At the same time the present Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion when in opposition said: "A one percentage point increase in the interest rate means the loss of 25,000 jobs". Given the accuracy of both of these statements, would the Minister of Finance, now that he has responsibility, practise what he was preaching when he was in opposition and take steps to ensure that interest rates do not go up any higher?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, i think we have indicated very clearly by our actions since September 4, 1984, that we believe in exactly what the Hon. Member has just quoted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Since September 4 the typical one-year mortgage rate is down three percentage points. That is a savings of $104 per month for the average home owner. The typical three-year mortgage is down two and three-quarters per cent, and a typical five-year mortgage is down two and a half per cent. Because of this we have seen housing starts increase by about 25 per cent or 35 per cent, from 145,000 units to 185,000 units in the past year. We have seen investment intentions increase significantly from what they were back in September, 1984, when we came into office. That underlines the direction and the importance of the direction, which we are taking to get the economy moving.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT BANK OF CANADA HALT INCREASES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has simply been taking bad lessons from his Prime Minister. We are not talking about what was going on last fall. I agree with what he is saying about last fall. When American interest rates went down and we had no short run crisis to deal with, our interest rates went down too. We had those good benefits. The Minister knows last week all the interest rate tendencies were going up. If he believes what he preaches about low interest rates-and he said in recent days the crisis is temporary-will he phone the Governor of the Bank of Canada and say with regard to tomorrow's announcement, tomorrow should see no increase at all in the interest rate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to say quite clearly to the Hon. Member that neither the Governor of the Bank of Canada nor the Minister of Finance can wave a magic wand and say interest rates will be this or this or this. Interest rates are decided by the market-place. We have been doing everything in our power during the course of the last 16 months to get interest rates down. There have been, back in February and March last year, as well as currently, some upward pressures coming into the market-place, which we have tried to moderate. As the general direction of our economic policy has taken hold, the force of interest rates has been down, and I would expect that that would continue.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO BANK GOVERNOR
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister believes the economic crisis to be temporary, then it is all very simple. He must now put into practice what he said


Oral Questions
when sitting as a member of the Opposition and phone the Governor of the Bank of Canada to ask him not to increase interest rates.

My question to the Minister is this. Will he now do what he knows is the appropriate thing if he wants to keep jobs, if he wants to encourage home building and protect farms-tell the Governor of the Bank of Canada not to increase those rates tomorrow?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the same question that the Hon. Member just put to me about a minute ago. I would say to him, again, that he is a student of economics. I think that that is the course he took at university, at the London School of Economics. We cannot wave a magic wand and say this is what will happen with interest rates.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not a magic wand.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I ask the Hon. Member to look closely at the economic performance over the last 16 months. Some 450,000 jobs have been created. Investment intentions have jumped markedly.


John Edward Broadbent: And you're going to lose them all now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says we are going to lose all. I recall back in November, 1984, when we brought down the economic statement and the Hon. Member said 150,000 jobs were going to be destroyed by it. Mr. Speaker, 450,000 jobs were created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FRENCH PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I indicate the presence in our galleries today of a delegation of French parliamentarians, M. Charles Pistre, M. Pierre Bernard and Senator Jacques Durand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister
and concerns the question he was asked yesterday when he said that his Government had not made the decision to close the Gulf refinery.
On the program Le Point in which I took part with him, the Secretary of State mentioned that the Cabinet had been consulted. In addition, the Minister of Communication stated on the radio last Sunday that the Cabinet had made the decision.


An Hon. Member:: Question!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether Cabinet recommended to the President of the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion that the Gulf refinery be closed and the deal with Ultramar be approved?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that, by choosing to remain silent for three years when refineries were closing in east-end Montreal, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie lost all his credibility and failed in his duty to represent the interests of his constituents. That is what he did.
Mr. Speaker, the transaction .. . yes, I know that the Liberals do not like this and that they do not like good news such as announced by the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, contrary to the Liberal Government which closed three refineries, we are working with the people involved to find a new and appropriate use for the facilities involved. Instead of closing the refining industry in east-end Montreal, we are going to build it up, contrary to what the Liberals did.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I could tell the Prime Minister that in 1983-84, he did not do his job as a Member of the Oppposition. He must have been in the pay of the Americans at the time.


SITUATION IN MONTREAL EAST-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Could the Prime Minister tell us, in view of the fact that-


An Hon. Member:: He does not know what he is saying. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. May I have a question, please?


Jean-Claude Malépart: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is beginning to show some genuine interest in Montreal East, could he tell the House whether he supports the steps taken by the Bourassa Government to try to convince Ultramar to sell the Gulf refinery in Montreal East to Gaz Metropolitan, and


whether he would go as far as personally calling the Ultramar people to try and find a solution?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Quebecers and Montrealers are now aware that while the refineries were closing one after the other in Montreal East, this Hon. Member made a basic choice. His loyalty and dedication is to the Liberal Party and not his constituents. That is where he failed in his commitment to his constituents. That was his mistake.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Go on, go on!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As far as we are concerned, we are discussing the issue with interested parties in trying to save a Quebec industry, instead of undermining it, as the Liberals did.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, a moment ago, was talking about magic wands. He knows full well that every week the central bank intervenes in the money markets and buys and sells treasury bills to influence, if you will, the rates for that particular week. In a sense I am going to repeat a question. If, as the Minister said in the House of Commons in response to my question yesterday, this is a very temporary situation, will the Minister intervene with the central bank to ensure that tomorrow afternoon the interest rate does not go up, because I would suggest that, if it does, it will send out a very negative signal right across the country in terms of confidence in economic development?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not, in a sense going to, answer this question that has now been put three times. What I am going to do-


John Edward Broadbent: You didn't answer it yet.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I did answer it very clearly the first time the question was put. I would say to the Hon. Member that I look for his support when we come to Budget time. As the Hon. Member knows, if he has been speaking to people in the market-place, there is some uncertainty as to what is going to be in the Budget. However, I would look for his support in reinforcing the resolve which we have toward getting the Budget deficit under control and ensuring in that way that we will get interest rates down. A drop in the budgetary deficit is what will lead to lower interest rates, and that is what the Hon. Member wants and what I want.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know that earlier this week the chief
Oral Questions
economic Minister of Japan indicated that there are times when it is necessary for the Government to intervene in the market-place. Does the Minister of Finance not think that now is that time since interest rates are creeping up as a result of, in a sense, speculation in the money markets? Is it not time for the Minister to take his responsibility seriously and intervene with the central bank by stopping any further increase at this critical time for interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 responded to the question of the Leader of the Opposition and in that response I did indicate that the Government of Canada, through the Bank of Canada, does moderate influences upward and downward in both the exchange markets-


John Edward Broadbent: A magic wand, is it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Leader of the New
Democratic Party would listen, he might learn something. We moderate those influences in the money markets both in exchange rates and in interest rates. The Bank of Canada has been doing this on a regular basis over the past few months.


INDUSTRY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. If I wanted to take the same simplistic approach, I would remind him that on September 13, 1979, under a Conservative Government, it was bang, bang, bang for ITT at Port-Cartier, but I won't do that because that is not the point I want to make today. What does interest me, Mr. Speaker, is that we now have a chance to reopen the Port-Cartier plant, and the Prime Minister is well aware of the proposal made by Cascade Paper and the Quebec Government. Why can't the Prime Minister, who has let the people of Port-Cartier think he is going to reopen this plant, deliver the goods now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member may have a point to make, but why all the false statements?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Look who's talking.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why mislead the House and the people of this country? The fact is there is no connection between September 13, 1979 ... in fact, this company received grants from the provincial government at the time in order to set up... Things did not work out on the North Shore. In some areas, the unemployment rate went as high as forty-five per cent. For years, for five years, the people of Port-Cartier asked the Hon. Member's Government for help. The answer was


Oral Questions
always no. So the federal Government had to do something


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh! and is building a penitentiary in the area in order to relieve-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members might note that Mr. Malepart: I think we should pay your riding a visit.	it is not my time they are wasting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You can laugh, but 1 can assure the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie that the 500 workers in Port-Cartier who stand to benefit from this $60 million investment are delighted. On the North Shore, jobs are a serious matter, not something to be snickered at the way you are doing now.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET INTERESTED PARTIES
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is doing what he did to the Mayor of Port-Cartier and is now doing to the Government of Quebec: he is evading the issue. What I want to know is .. . The people of Matane are fed up as well. Thirteen mayors from the Matane area are on their way to Ottawa to get an answer about the paper mill. Is he going to ignore them as well?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I cannot hear anything at this point because of the noise from both sides of the House. May I have a question, please?


Jean-C. Lapierre: What I want to know from the Prime Minister, considering that nothing is happening in Matane or Port-Cartier because of the Government's neglect, is whether he is going to do something. Is he going to meet with the parties concerned and deliver the goods once and for all?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, for five years he was with the Department, he was a Liberal member. Every day, Matane and Port-Cartier were begging and beseeching-


André Ouellet: Peladeau voted for you because he wanted a change but he's against you now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Listen to what he's saying about Pierre
Peladeau, and the Journal de Montreal. Talking this way about Pierre Peladeau in the House of Commons is going to cost you. And as the instigator of Bill S-31 which was tabled to crush the francophones in Quebec, you have a nerve talking about unemployment. You would be ashamed-


INSURANCE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It is in regard to the national crisis in the insurance industry and its impact on day care, municipalities, community centres, school boards, and now our National Ski Team. While the Minister is working to develop higher standards for property and casualty insurance dealing with solvency and the capital base, and before she puts a package in place, will she take the opportunity to call in the heads of the major insurance companies operating in Canada and request them to extend last year's rates and last year's coverage to these organizations for a period of approximately six months so that they can survive? Will she agree to do that?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the House yesterday, premium rates are a matter of contract law and fall within provincial jurisdiction. In many cases the provincial Governments have taken some action on this front. I have indicated that I will co-operate with them to the fullest extent possible. 1 am in constant touch with the industry so that 1 know what is going on.


EFFECT ON MUNICIPALITIES AND SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. What the Canadian people, all provincial and municipal Governments, as well as the organizations are looking for is leadership, since this is a national problem. If the Minister is not prepared to call in the heads of the insurance companies will she at the very least work to provide the necessary financing in the short term to these organizations so that they can continue to operate, whether they are our ski teams in Europe, or elsewhere, or our day care centres? Will she agree to do this so that these organizations will be able to operate without fear of lawsuits?


Mr. Masse:: Chickens coming home to roost! [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Next?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has already been in touch with the National Ski Team. Members of the team met with him this morning. We have made every effort to co-operate and help facilitate solutions. I think that is our role.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Press reports indicate that about 12,000 veal calves in Quebec have been injected with an illegal chemical, trembolone acetate, and that some 2,000 carcasses of adulterated meat have been sold since last August. Will the Minister explain why he has allowed this illegal chemical to be used in commercial veal production since last May? Why has the Minister allowed this adulterated meat to be sold since last Angust?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question. I wish to respond as fully as I possibly can. I have been on top of the situation since we were first notified of it. I wish to tell Members of the House that, indeed, it was inspectors from Agriculture Canada, my own departmental meat inspectors, who detected the presence of this drug. We immediately notified officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare since a matter of this type does not fall under meat inspection legislation but, rather, under food and drug legislation. An investigation by the appropriate officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare is now going forward under food and drug legislation.


REQUEST FOR BAN ON SALE OF CARCASSES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister assure Canadian consumers that no more carcasses of this type will be allowed to be placed on supermarket shelves across the country? Will he also assure consumers that the meat which is already there will be withdrawn by whichever Government Department is responsible?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in assuring Canadian consumers with respect to that type of information. As the Hon. Member knows, we have the finest meat inspection system in the world. As a result of rather foolish questions raised by members of the Opposition with respect to a couple of other matters in the last three or four weeks, I received a communication from the World Health Organization endorsing our system. I can assure the Hon. Member that none of these carcasses will be moved at all. We are trying to determine whether or not, in fact, any carcasses have been moved into the system. It is impossible to say from the information I have at the moment. I have asked the question. Because of the nature of the drug, it is not really possible to determine whether or not any implanted meat has actually been moved into the system.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may want to finish his answer under Statements by Ministers.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister and it has to do with the conflicting statements of two of his Ministers concerning the Gulf-Ultramar issue in Montreal. Supported by Statistics Canada, the Quebec Government, Oil Week and the O'Farrell report, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stated that Montreal's refining capacity falls far short, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said exactly the opposite. Here is my question, Mr. Speaker: Once and for all, and to lay this matter to rest, can the Prime Minister tell us now whether he is prepared to table the O'Farrell report in the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is practically the same question the Hon. Member asked yesterday and he was given a very specific answer. Since then, in answer to questions-I think the Hon. Member did not listen to today's exchanges-I said we have been negociat-ing for quite some time in an attempt to come up with a formula which would make it possible to find alternative production uses for those facilities in Montreal East. What we want to do-


Jean-Claude Malépart: We have won.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You have won? The nerve you have! You drove the refining industry right into the ground and you have the nerve to claim a victory, if there has been a victory.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE PUBLIC ALL INFORMATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of credibility. I would like to have an answer because the Hon. Member for Duvernay changed his position concerning Gulf-Ultramar after obtaining full details from the Department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The preamble to the supplementary question is very long. Will the Hon. Member just put his question, please?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Here is my question, Mr. Speaker: Is the Prime Minister prepared to release all information available from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources now that the Department has briefed the Hon. Member for Duvernay? Is he now prepared to release that information in the Housejfor the benefit of the Hon. Members and all Canadians?


Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is a vexatious question. All relevant details have been made public. As the Minister said yesterday, more will be released in the House of Commons at the appropriate time, as they should be. That was promised yesterday. But what we want is to try to protect as many jobs as possible. This Government-if I may, I think the question of the NDP Member had to do with jobs, unless I am mistaken-this Government created 137,000 new jobs in Quebec within 15 months, whereas the former Government created 37,000 new jobs in 55 months. It is an outstanding performance with respect to job creation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect, this is now too long.


INSURANCE COVERAGE-DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY NATIONAL TEAMS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. It follows up on some of the concerns which have been expressed by my colleagues earlier this week. Press reports today concerning the inability of the National Ski Team to obtain liability insurance further highlight the serious problems affecting the insurance industry. Can the Minister tell the House what measures he will be taking to assist Canada's national sports teams obtain adequate insurance protection?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, and as has already been stated, the insurance problem within North America is a global one. It is being dealt with by the provinces in co-operation with the Government. However, as far as the Canadian National Ski Team is concerned, I have been in constant contact with the ski associations and officials within the industry and within the associations. We met earlier today to identify a number of options which are available to us. We are actively continuing the pursuit of those options. I am satisfied and hopeful that we will have a satisfactory conclusion before the end of January so that the ski team can continue to compete in the World Cup.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs what he was going to do about the insurance crisis. There is mounting evidence that insurance companies are acting in concert to increase premiums. These uncompetitive measures are causing many companies, municipalities, school boards, and even the Canadian Ski Team, as well as individuals, to go out of business or operate without insurance. Can the Minister do something now?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that we are monitoring the situation with much interest. But if he had evidence showing a lack of information, we would gladly examine it.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Alfonso Gagliano: On November 4, Mr. Speaker, the same Minister replied to me that the issue had been sent to the Minister's office for action. I should like to state as a fact that the City of Anjou is paying this year $300,000 more than last year in liability insurance alone.
Is the Minister now prepared, under the Combines Investigation Act, to fully investigate a situation which is becoming more and more serious each day because of unacceptable insurance increases?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, monitoring the situation on the market place remains the continuing responsibility of the Director under the Combines Investigation Act. He is monitoring the situation, and if he has reasons to believe that an investigation is warranted, he will initiate one immediately.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Some 1,700 farm families are facing foreclosure and eviction from their land. However, they have been given a ray of hope through the Farm Credit Corporation plan to save their farms. Can the Minister indicate when this plan might come into force and effect?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question and his concern. If any of those 1,700 farm families are clients of the FCC and under the jurisdiction of this Government, they need not fear eviction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: As the Hon. Member will know, last September 1 placed a moratorium on farm foreclosures under my jurisdiction and that of the FCC. That moratorium will remain in effect until such time as further measures are brought forward by this Government. I hope that will be in the very, very near future.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.

Last December 18 the Minister informed me that he would check whether the CN shops in Moncton were for sale. Can the Minister inform the House today of the status of the Moncton shops? Are they up for sale?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, no, the shops are not for sale. However, I have been advised by CN that Canadian General Electric has indicated an interest in assessing the potential for locomotive manufacture and assembly in Canada. That particular aspect is being investigated during the over-all assessment of CN's maintenance facilities across the country.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF JOB PROTECTION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the workers in Moncton are very, very worried about their jobs. With all the jobs which I have heard today have been created, I do not think too many have been created in New Brunswick. Will the Minister eliminate the uncertainty for the workers in Moncton and assure them that these jobs will be protected? Will he also assure them that the CN situation in Moncton will not develop into something comparable to the Gulf/Ultramar fiasco?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if there is any anxiety and fear being perpetrated in Moncton it is primarily as a result of the inaccuracies of opposition Members who are going around fanning the flames of fear and hysteria. I can assure the Hon. Member that CN is assessing in a very deliberate fashion its maintenance requirements all across the country, in Winnipeg, Moncton, and Montreal. When that assessment is concluded, some time later
Oral Questions
this year, and if there are any adjustments to be made, they will be announced in the usual manner.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that vastly increased expenditures for research and development are critical to Canada's industrial and economic future and the standard of living of its people. This includes, of course, university research. The previous Minister of Science and Technology promised a five-year plan for NSERC, and the present Minister indicated that, given some time, he will have a pleasant surprise. No surprises have been forthcoming.
Will the Minister explain why the Government has kept the NSERC five-year plan approval on the back-burner so long that the President of NSERC has had to develop a disaster scenario for university research funding?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with the Council of Natural Sciences and Engineering who are responsible for channelling public resources to universities for research and development. It was a very useful and productive meeting. I was able to receive advice from the Council and give them the necessary comfort to proceed with their planning in advance of the funding announcement by the Government.


FINANCING OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am still unclear, as 1 am sure the rest of the House is unclear, whether there will be approval of the NSERC five-year plan. Even more important, will the Government at long last produce an over-all strategy for research and development Financing? We have waited too long.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a five-year plan. The delay has been partially caused because of the ad hoc situation which has been in place for the last five years, and because my predecessor and I are insisting that there be more predictability and stability in the science community so they can proceed with their planning adequately. The Member just has to be a little more patient for a few more days.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for


Oral Questions
Canada Post. Canada is becoming a country where the only place older people can be sure of finding work is the Senate or Supreme Court. Typical of many people who have approached me is a constituent who applied to Canada Post, not for a permanent position subject to mandatory retirement, but for a part-time, seasonal position. She was told that she was not eligible because she was over 65.


Mr. Speaker:: May I have a question, please?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: This being contrary to government policy concerning age discrimination, what action can the Minister take to protect senior citizens' right to work?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can say that Canada Post is presently reviewing this matter. I can assure my colleague that his concerns are well taken and they will be examined and considered.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the present crisis of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar and the increase in interest rates, which of course have some international impact, I would like to ask the Minister if he has been invited this time to take part in the meeting of the group of the five industrialized countries that will be held next January 18 and 19 in London?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that I have been talking to Secretary Baker about this meeting. I have conveyed to him some of my concerns. I will be doing the same with other members of that group. There are five members in the group, the United States, U.K., Germany, France, and Japan. They are meeting for particular reasons, one of which is that they have by far the largest degree of trade and foreign exchange reserves. For that reason they are meeting as a steering committee in advance of the interim and development committee meetings which I will be attending later on this year.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL INTERVENE TO SECURE INVITATION FOR CANADA
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. In view of the importance for Canada to take part in this second meeting of the group of Five, has the Government made any representations to the President of the United States or to the White House and to other countries so that Canada, as a member of the group of seven, can at least be invited to discuss such an important issue which affects the value of the Canadian dollar and our international trade?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have indeed had discussions with appropriate officials, including President Reagan, about the exclusion of Canada from the group of five since its creation when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance of Canada.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, January 14, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of a desire to raise a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner).


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a very important question of privilege, and hope that you will give me an opportunity to express my view very briefly. We are all equal, Mr. Speaker, and you are the protector of our rights and privileges. As someone who is new in this House, I recognize that my knowledge of its traditions and procedures is limited. I do, however, believe that I must stand up for what I believe is fair and right.
Yesterday I asked for a supplementary question and was denied. Mr. Speaker, I have read some of the rulings of Speakers Jerome and Lamoureux on oral questions, and can only conclude that in today's context of real parliamentary reform, Speaker Lamoureux's ruling on March 6, 1973-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not like interrupting Members when they are raising questions of privilege, but I must ask the Member to come, not to the argument he wishes to make, if it is put before the House, but to the exact question of privilege he wishes to raise.


John Barry Turner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The independence and the enhancement of my role in the Chamber as a private Member, in fact that of private Members on all sides of this House, is changing. I submit to you, Sir, that my privilege of being treated equally during Question Period is being breached when I am not accorded, nor are my


constituents, the same rights as other Members when asking questions. I feel that this is wrong.
As this House reforms, I strongly believe that the practices of the Chair should reform with it in the true spirit of equality for all. Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be a matter that could be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. Should you rule that I have a prima facie case of privilege, then I am prepared to move that it be referred to the appropriate committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the Hon. Member's representations as a representation. I may say that I think it is perfectly normal for Government Members in any Government with any Speaker to raise that question. That question has been raised in every Parliament and every Speaker has dealt with the question in exactly the same way based on our precedents. There is no question of privilege here. The Hon. Member knows that, I think. He believes strongly that something should be changed. I can say to the Hon. Member that if Hon. Members want the whole issue of Question Period reviewed by one of the standing committees of the House, they have every mechanism to do that if they so wish.
I think the Hon. Member knows that I have strong views about Question Period, but I also know that our practices have been very clear in the past. As a matter of procedure and of the rules, the whole question of the granting of supplementary questions is completely within the discretion of the Chair. Our practices in that matter are also clear, and the Hon. Member knows that.


Mr. Malone:: Change the practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Members change sides in this House and immediately they change their view of what the practice should be. I accept that. I think I may say to the Hon. Member that Speakers in the past have made general comments about Question Period generally at some point in their mandate. I do intend to do that at some point in the not too distant future. However, on the question of whether more questions and more supplementaries should be granted to Government Members, I think I would be going against all the traditions of the House if I were to change the practice and tradition of the House without some instruction from the House itself.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Moe Mantha (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which deals with the deindexation of the family allowance. The petitioners consider the principle of universality too
Petitions
important to be tampered with. They wish to have full indexation reinstated.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 190 residents of Ayl-sham, Saskatchewan, who humbey pray and call upon Parliament to seek immediately changes to the Young Offenders Act for young offenders who commit serious crimes of violence against society, in order that they can be dealt with in an adult court.
[ Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, 1 have here a series of petitions which are all from the federal constituency of Louis-Hebert and which have been signed by hundreds of people who ask the Prime Minister of the Canadian Government to reconsider Bill C-70 so that family allowances paid to Canadian mothers can be fully re-indexed. These petitions are signed by a great number of residents of the Louis-Hebert constituency.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege of tabling a petition signed by members of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen from Alberta, Local No. 2. In this petition the signatories request that Parliament reverse the decision of the Government whereby the Unemployment Insurance Act was changed so that pension income was considered earned income in calculating benefits. These petitioners call upon Parliament to reverse that abhorrent regulation so that they can collect their unemployment insurance benefits.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty once again to present to this House today a petition signed by people from Moncton, Memramcook, Dieppe. The petition has to do with the situation at the CN shops in Moncton and asks the Government to protect the jobs at the CN Moncton shops.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility to present two petitions today in the House of Commons. One is from residents living in the federal riding of North York, and the other is from residents of my own riding


Petitions
of York West. Both petitions are protesting the sale-in fact, giveaway-of de Havilland, and are requesting that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Conservative Government return this company to a wholly-owned Canadian company, thus ensuring the protection of Canadian jobs and Canadian technology, and the maintenance of Canadian pride in a very important sector of our economic life.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition on behalf of a number of residents of western Canada who are of the opinion that the deindexation of the universal family allowance and the massive cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single parent families. The petitioners ask that the House of Commons, and particularly the Government, reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases of the last Budget.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present several petitions. The first one is from the riding of Burnaby. It has to do with the issue of family allowances, and petitions the House to reinstate the full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
The next two petitions are from Halifax, Nova Scotia, and also acknowledge that the deindexation of the family allowance will be a hardship on families, which will not be offset by changes in the child tax credit. They ask for full reindexation of the universal family allowance.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I table today a petition on behalf of the federal firefighters at the Quebec Airport in Sainte-Foy, in the constituency of Louis-Hebert. They ask the Treasury Board and the Government to facilitate the renewal of their working contract and to improve their working conditions.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, once again I have the honour and privilege to present to this House a number of petitions signed by residents of the federal constituency of Moncton who are expressing their concern with regard to the future fo the CN shops. They express their concern that the current assessment of the maintenance capacity throughout Canada may have negative employment implications for the hundreds of people working at the shops in Moncton. They call upon Members of this Parliament to stop
any move that may downgrade in any way the facilities in Moncton.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce a petition signed by residents of the Kitchen-er-Waterloo area in the Province of Ontario. Those petitioners state that deindexation of the universal family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families, and further state that this attack will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that other tax increases in the May Budget will place an unfair burden on low and middle income earners.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege to introduce a petition signed by nurses throughout Manitoba who indicate their opposition to the Government's intention to deindex partially the universal family allowance. They also call upon the Government to rescind unfair tax increases that will affect many Canadians.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions, one bearing hundreds of signatures of people from my riding and which deals with family allowances. These petitioners point out that the deindexation of the family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families, especially single-parent mothers.
My other petition regarding the same subject is from Nova Scotia.
I have a further petition from British Columbia concerning family allowances. All of these petitioners call upon the Government to restore full indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have over 200 names on petitions from people resident in Spadina and other parts of Toronto who oppose the Government's Bill that would cut family allowance in future by 3 per cent of the annual increase. They point out that this is unfair compared to the generous tax hand-outs to corporations and people with high income. Therefore, these petitioners call on the House to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax changes.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present to the House a number of petitions, dealing of course with the same concern on the part of quite a large number of people who deplore that the Government intends to de-index family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, this first one comes from the federal constituency of Montreal-Sainte-Marie. The second one comes from the federal constituency of Saint-Jean; another one comes from the federal constituency of Vercheres, and finally the last one comes from the federal constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, where hundreds of people are suggesting that full
*1


indexation of family allowances should be reinstated, at a point in time where full indexation is most important.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions from constituents of the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, primarily resident in the City of Thunder Bay as well as others living in the outlying areas of Murillo, Kakabeka Falls and Kamanistiquia. The petitioners are protesting the decision to deindex the family allowance, and point out that the consequence will be loss of income for even the poorest families. They call upon the House of Commons to re-establish full indexation of the family allowance.
[ Translation]


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to table two petitions coming from my constituency-

The first is signed by residents of Ignace and Dinorwic, Ontario and calls upon Parliament to prevent the reduction of staffing in the Department of National Revenue in the area of Customs employees because of the problems that this will cause in stopping drugs and pornography from entering into this country.


John Edmund Parry: My second petition calls upon Parliament to act to eliminate the deindexation of family allowances and maintain the principle of universality.


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 am pleased to advise the House that the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 433 and 492.


Mrs. Cossitt: Does Canada Post Corporation mail out notices, press releases and copies of speeches made by the President of the Corporation to all Members of Parliament and do these items go to the House of Commons office and the constituency office and, if so (a) for what reason is it being sent to both locations (b) what was the total cost of printing and mailing all of these items for the past three years (c) what is the name and job designation of the person with the highest authority who authorized this expenditure?


Michel Côté: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
1. Speeches made by the president of the Canada Post Corporation and press releases issued are normally sent to all Members of the House of Commons and the Senate, but not for the most part to their constituency offices.
(a)	N/A.
(b)	The specific information sought is not readily available from records. The Corporation maintains records in such a manner as to provide only the total expenditures for the printing, production, shipping, distribution and other costs associated with the preparation of all external publications; including speeches, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, newsletters, posters, fanfolds, etc.
(c)	Vice-President-Corporate Communications.


Mr. Corbett: What amount does the Department of Transport spend annually on automobiles for the purpose of test crashing at the Motor Vehicle Test Centre and (a) from whom are they purchased (6) what becomes of the vehicles once the test has been completed?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The
Department of Transport spends approximately $220,000 annually on automobiles for the purposes of barrier test crashing at the Motor Vehicle Test Centre, to confirm compliance with occupant protection safety standards.
(a)	Representative vehicles are purchased at retail from randomly selected automobile dealers in Ontario and Quebec.
(b)	Once the testing and analysis have been completed, the vehicles are donated to high schools, universities or other institutes for automotive training purposes. Recipients are responsible for transportation to their facilities and are obliged to sign a commitment that such destroyed vehicles will not be repaired and placed back on public roads.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 31 from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Motions for Papers


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice under Standing Order 31 in order to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. As you know, the attention of the House and the nation over the last couple of weeks has been on the issue of insurance and the inability of Canadian and North American insurance companies to provide the kind of services that we need. More recently, the question of the National Ski Team has been raised in terms of its ability to continue operation.
I think it would be important for the House to have a full and frank discussion of some of the options that are available so that the Government may have the opportunity to review our suggestions with a means of solving the problem both in the short and the long term.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 31, I would request leave to have a special debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me make one procedural comment. I am sure the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is making use of Standing Oder 31 for the first time. Perhaps I should take the opportunity to remind him and others that what is supposed to be done is simply to read into the record the letter that has been sent to the Speaker, because it is on the basis of that information that I must make a judgment. Nothing different has been said, I only make a comment with regard to form for the future.
I can indicate that the Hon. Member has provided me with the necessary notice of the specific and important matter that he wishes to have debated on an urgent basis. I have carefully read the argument that he has presented in his notice and heard his argument that he made just now on the floor of the House.
The provisions of Standing Order 31(16) are very specific and somewhat restrictive and indicate that the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a "genuine emergency".
While the matter raised by the Hon. Member is, without a doubt, one of great concern to him, the insurance industry and the National Ski Team, I am in some difficulty in finding that this matter meets the very narrow terms and conditions set down in the Standing Orders. I cannot, therefore, accept his request.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 14, consideration of Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and Motion No. 4 (Mr. Johnston) (p. 9733).
Mr. Speaker:: Before resuming debate, may I indicate to Members that yesterday's Votes and Proceedings and today's Projected Order of Business are in error. The Votes and Proceedings and the Projected Order of Business show that in relation to Bill C-84, the House is considering Motions Nos. 4 and 5. In fact, only Motion No. 4 has been proposed to the House, and that is on what we will resume debate. The appropriate correction will be printed accordingly. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was pointing out that as a result of the Conservative Budget of last May, over the next five years those earning $15,000 a year will have to absorb a 36 per cent tax increase; those earning $30,000, an 11 per cent tax increase; while those earning $100,000 will only face a 4 per cent tax increase.
If we look at those few taxpayers earning $200,000 a year, we will see that they will only have to pay 2 per cent more as a result of this Conservative Budget.
If anything shows the basic unfairness of the Budget it is in particular the results of the proposal we are looking at now to deindex the personal exemptions. Surely this disparity of burden between those earning $200,000 a year and those earning $ 15,000 a year makes the point. If there is a case, and I do not think the Conservatives have made it, for increasing personal income taxes, then surely the way to do it is not to increase the taxes of those earning only $15,000 a year by 36 per cent while increasing the taxes of those earning $200,000 a year by only 2 per cent. Only a Conservative Government, especially like the one in power today, could come up with that upside down idea of fairness, which is not unusual when one looks at other parts of this Budget.
At the same time that the Conservative Government is increasing the taxes of those earning $ 15,000 a year by 36 per cent and those earning $30,000 a year by 11 per cent, it is giving wealthy Canadians a lifetime gift of hundreds of thousands of dollars through the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption.


I suppose if, hypothetically, the Government had said it wanted to give an exemption for capital gains if those capital gains arose from investing in Canadian enterprise, then that proposal would have been received with more sympathy across the country.
The reaction to the proposal to give this lifetime capital gains tax exemption is interesting. Even the financial community, including financial advisers to better off Canadians have found it hard to see the merit of giving this kind of exemption from investing in property, condominiums, for example, outside of the country. Why works of art and antiques inside this country and not just productive activity within Canada? In fact, any kind of capital gains, including investments creating capital gains that people made under the existing law are included. I do not know why people should be given that exemption when they did not need the encouragement of the exemption to make investments under the existing law.
Why is the Conservative Government asking this House to take away full indexing for inflation of personal income tax and thereby bringing in an automatic increase in taxes for middle and lower income Canadians?
Another way of confirming the essential unfairness of the Budget, in particular the proposal to deindex the personal income tax, is to contrast the desire of the Conservative Government to cut deindexing and raise taxes for middle and lower income Canadians while forcing through this House a measure to compensate the uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial and Northland Banks.
What we are talking about here is a burden on taxpayers, not just close to $1 billion, the sum covered by the Bill that was forced through this House before Christmas, but likely another billion or billion and a half dollars because of the advances made to the two banks by the Bank of Canada when the Government was trying to tell Canadians that everything was in hand, that the banks were solid and deserved the confidence of Canadians.
While the Government was telling Canadians that, it was getting information about the way it had botched the rescue of the two banks last spring, it was getting evidence that the rescue put in place was not going to be sufficient, and it was getting information about the very poor quality of the two banks' loan portfolios.
In order to make up for its own mismanagement of the rescue of the Northland and Canadian Commercial Banks the Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers an additional burden of not just $1 billion but likely $2 billion and perhaps $2.5 billion. The Government is handing out money covered by the bank rescue Bill passed by this House under duress, I might say, before Christmas without making known the identity of the organizations or the depositors who are getting the funds as a result of the failure of the Northland and Canadian Commercial Banks.
An elementary principle in dealing with bankruptcy situations is that people who want to make a claim as creditors should disclose their identity, file the appropriate declaration,
Income Tax Act, 1986
and only then, when they disclose their identity and prove their claim, do they get reimbursed. Perhaps for reasons best known to itself, the Government was too sensitive about disclosing the identity of the depositors in the Canadian Commercial and Northland Banks, depositors who were uninsured for deposits above the level covered by the Canada deposit insurance legislation, so that it forced through legislation enabling these depositors to be reimbursed without their identity being disclosed. Yet, while doing this, the Government is amending the income tax law to deindex personal exemptions, bringing about a very substantial ongoing increase in personal income tax for middle and lower income Canadians.
We are at present discussing the matter of deindexing exemptions and in that way increasing the personal income tax of middle and lower income Canadians, but let me remind the House that the Government is increasing the personal income tax of middle and lower income Canadians in other ways as well.
This Budget is eliminating some basic tax reductions put into the income tax law by previous Liberal Governments. These are tax reductions aimed especially at helping people in the middle and lower income categories.
What we see is a basic unfairness in this Budget. What we see is a basic unfairness in the way this Conservative Government is dealing with the affairs of the country and a basic unfairness in the way it treats the largest portion of the Canadian population, it being middle and lower income Canadians. The Government though is there for the wealthy who want a capital gains tax exemption, even though capital gains do not come from job-creating productive investment in Canada. The Government is there to help out the wealthy uninsured depositors in those banks for whose failure it has to be responsible. But when it comes to ensuring the well-being of middle and lower income Canadians, instead of being there to ensure that well-being, the Government is hitting them some heavy and unwarranted blows with its Budget of May 23.
I say that this House should support the amendment offered by the Official Opposition to eliminate the Conservative effort to cut the indexing of personal income tax. Only in that way will we begin not just to restore a basic element of fairness in our tax system but to wipe away some of the very serious damage to the fabric of our country already carried out by the Conservative Government after only a year and a half in office.
The amendment must be supported, Mr. Speaker. If it is not, Canadians certainly will be harmed, and they do not deserve to be harmed by this unfair Conservative Budget.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment and to speak out against what the Government is planning to do by imposing this 3 per cent figure under which the taxation will not be indexed.
With the indexation of tax brackets and such things as the family allowance introduced in the 1970s, the Government was


Income Tax Act, 1986
taking an important step forward. It was making an important adjustment to the economic realities of that time. Indeed, those economic realities persist and are in some ways more pressing today. By taking the Government out of the inflation profits business, the Government was taking a responsible step, a step which eliminated an inherent conflict in the way in which Government was run or did its business. While there was no inflation indexing, the Government in a way was tempted to promote inflation because by having people move up the income scale, it benefited by gaining increased tax revenues or by an increased tax yield on the inflated incomes of those people. While it is a matter of public record that the previous Liberal Government succumbed to a large variety of temptations, we can at least give it credit for taking this particular temptation out of its way by the introduction of indexation of tax brackets and of those benefits.
The effects contemplated by these measures, or the effects which these measures will bring into being, are of course an increase in Government revenues over what they would be previously. However, it is worth pointing out that the increases about which we are talking will be cumulatively compounded, so that when we reach the 1990s the Government will perhaps be taking $2 billion or $3 billion out of the economy as a result of this very simple, seemingly small change proposed in the Income Tax Act. It seems that the Government has taken the decision to get back into the business of profiting by inflation. What is entailed in the legislation, Bill C-84, is that when there is an inflation rate of 3 per cent or less, the Government will take all the increase brought about by that increase in the inflation rate. When there is an inflation rate of over 3 per cent, essentially the Government will take the first 5 per cent of the inflationary increase in the nominal incomes of people.
It is very important to point out the difference between a real increase in income and the imaginary or illusory increase which inflation confers upon wage earners and indeed everyone who pays taxes. Those gains are totally illusory because they simply represent a redenomination of the income which the person has without any increase in the real value. Thus, to have the Government profit by the first 3 per cent of that redenomination gain is not only poor in an economic sense but in some ways smacks of immorality.
The Government has shown the House and the country that when it comes to its priorities, when it comes to the rewarding of its corporate friends, and when it comes to the bailing out of banks or oil companies, it is indeed a Government which has all the funding that apparently it could desire. We have not heard from the Government when it has been asked for a sort of on demand tax exemptions available only to the rich and powerful. We have not heard from the Government that it does not have the money to fund them. We have not heard the Government saying that it cannot afford to bail out 100 per cent of the deposits over $60,000 for the banks which failed. We have not heard the Government say to Gulf that it cannot provide the exact tax exemption for which it is looking. When it comes to requests from those interests, the Government has been all too accommodating. For example, when it comes to
the requests for subsidies to institute an auto plant, before the request had even been made, the Government was out there with its cheque-book. That is a level of generosity which borders on the foolish. It is a level of generosity which has not been extended to ordinary Canadian taxpayers. It is a level of generosity that we know will not be extended to ordinary taxpayers by this Conservative Government which uses loosely the label "Progressive" in somewhat incoherent conjunction with the "Conservative" tag that it more fairly merits.
Another aspect of the deindexation of the tax brackets touched upon by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) is of course the effect that it will have on people at the lower end of the high income scale. We are talking about a comparison of those who are fairly comfortably off, those who are wealthy and those who are super rich. I think the figures were put accurately by the previous speaker when he mentioned the impact on those people in the $30,000 to $40,000 range compared with those people who enjoy the giddy heights of an income in the range of $200,000. The effect of the deindexation of tax brackets on the people in the lower end of that scale is significantly higher on a proportionate basis than it will be on those people who are higher up that scale. Of course the Hon. Member for Windsor West did not mention that that was the case because the Liberal Government, 1 believe it was in 1981, removed the progressive rates of income tax. This was a contributory factor to the greater impact of deindexation on middle-income earners. Perhaps it would be going a little too far to expect an acknowledgment of that deficiency of the previous Government, which I note the present Government has not done anything to remedy. It is worth adding to the point that was made by saying that we are not talking about a one time impact on the incomes of people in the range of $30,000 to $40,000. We are talking about an impact which repeats itself. Year after year, the people in the lower end of that range will see more of their income taken by deindexation than will the people in the upper end of the range.
If I might do so, without straying too far from the text and the sense of the amendment, I draw some comparisons between the Government's general treatment of people who are in the lower and middle-income brackets and those in the upper-income brackets. For example, we know that those people in the range above $150,000 of taxable income had something like ten times the amount of declared capital gains of people in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. Of course that is understandable. It is something that tax planners would be well aware of when they started doing any analysis and even before they needed to analyse the impact of tax measures. However, when we look at taxation and the measures which the Government is and is not taking, we need to compare the two sides. We need to look at what the professionals call, perhaps presumptuously some may say, tax expenditures. We need to consider the level of exemption which tax expenditures confer upon those in the upper ranges of the income brackets. The point has been made by a large number of speakers that capital gains tax exemption basically restores to the wealthy,


to the high-income taxpayers, the losses which they would be suffering by the exemption being taken away.
We have a scenario that the tax rates and the exemptions for the wealthy will balance off. In many cases they will balance off to the advantage of individual or corporate taxpayers. However, when it comes to the lower or middle-income taxpayers the Government is getting its share. The Government is going to take that money from the communities across this country and use it in Ottawa to pay the deficit. Frankly, the broader backs are not bearing the burden, and that is the legacy of this Budget, that is how this Budget will go down in the memory of Canadians. That is how this Government will be seen and will deserve to be seen.
[ Translation]


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Resuming debate, Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of these few minutes, because it is all very well to sit and listen to the various speeches on Bill C-84, but after listening to the exaggerations of the Opposition parties, I felt it was necessary to set the record straight.
Mr. Speaker, we know that to govern is an art in itself. And surely-


An Hon. Member:: You still don't know how.


Maurice Tremblay: Well, those who thought they did saw that Canadians across the country were quick to put them in their place and cut them down to size. And if you go on the way you are now, the Canadian people will realize you not only failed to learn your lesson when you had every opportunity to do so . . . You had the time and the so-called competence.
You even . . . and I want to use the example mentioned by my hon. friend of the New Democratic party, namely that indexation of the child tax credit was introduced in 1970 by the Liberal Government. A tremendous idea. Very good. But remember that at the time, the economic situation was not what it is today, Mr. Speaker. What was true and logical at the time is not necessarily so today. The situation may have deteriorated, which means that a responsible government must be able to ensure that, when people are penalized by measures that made sense at the time they were introduced, they are treated fairly by changing the Government's policy.
Furthermore, Hon. Members will recall that at the time these measures were introduced, that same Government had far more room to manoeuver because at the time we had a Budget surplus. You will see-


An Hon. Member:: The Minister isn't even aware of that.


Maurice Tremblay: Never mind, my friend. By all means, look after the interests of your constituents if you can,
Income Tax Act, 1986
and whenever you decide to go to the riding next to yours to visit the famous phytoculture centre 1 hope you will remember this occasion-the debates are recorded-and how stupid you were to refuse to see anything. We shall see. We shall see.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, at that time-


An Hon. Member:: We shall see all right.


Maurice Tremblay: Yes, yes, we shall see, we shall see. What? Rats never fail to find their hole. Of course, there are passing times when one has a high opinion of oneself. But justice usually prevails so that smart people find their place, whereas rats find their hole.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, at the time when the child exemption was indexed there was a budget surplus. Fifteen years later, Mr. Speaker, the budget deficit amounts to $220 billion. It is not a budget surplus.
These steps were taken at a time when we could afford them. However, if we did continue to shy away from our responsibilities, it is clear that sooner or later the poor would suffer more than the rich. The purpose of Bill C-84 is to make it possible for the needy, most of them women, to get-


An Hon. Member:: At a cost of some $500,000 each.


Maurice Tremblay: I will return to that in a little while-to get income tax reimbursements and be given advantages over affluent taxpayers.


An Hon. Member:: Name these advantages.


Maurice Tremblay: During the question period, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Members of the New Democratic Party who were making ridiculous remarks about interest rates and asking the Minister of Finance to telephone the Governor of the Bank of Canada to prevent an increase in interest rates at noon tomorrow.


Jean-C. Lapierre: The Conservatives were doing that all the time when they were in the Opposition.


Maurice Tremblay: As though it were as simple and as easy as that, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of their findings, it is clear that no telephone call to the Governor of the Bank of Canada would be necessary to prevent an increase in interest rates. It is not so simple as that, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-C. Lapierre: What is the solution?


Maurice Tremblay: In connection with what Members of the Liberal Party were saying earlier about capital gains tax exemptions, Mr. Speaker, I said that governing is an art-


Jean-C. Lapierre: For the big shots!


Income Tax Act, 1986


Maurice Tremblay: But we have a many-faceted economy and it is these measures as a whole that provide the country with the necessary confidence to attract investment, both domestic and foreign, that enable observers to realize that there is not only political stability, but people assuming their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand the Hon. Member who rose before me and who dealt with priorities. That is exactly what Bill C-84 is concerned about. It was and is a priority for this Government to take steps to try and stop the widening of the gap between the poor and the affluent. The purpose of Bill C-84 is to close this gap which, because of the economic situation, had been widening. I can now say that over the one and a half year period since the election, the situation has been improving considerably, something the Opposition has been realizing slowly and quietly, as the Canadian people are finding out that the Government is achieving its mandate. The situation is improving. It is clear that Bill C-84 will eventually make it possible to reinstate the full indexation. That is our intention and we hope sincerely to attain this goal as soon as possible. However, first of all, we must take our responsibilities and this is precisely what we are doing through such measures in the hope that we can re-establish full indexation in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you want me to conclude. I am sorry about it, but if the flagrant attacks on such an essential piece of legislation continue, I shall use again my privileges as a Member of Parliament to say what must be said.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments by reminding the Hon. Member who just spoke that history has proven that Governments in this country are not elected but are defeated. He would be wise to consider that the next time he makes a comment in the House.
I would like to deal with the amendment that would restore full indexation to tax brackets and personal exemptions. It is important to reverse the proposal put by the Government, and the Government should give this serious consideration. Last spring, we saw the senior citizens of Canada rise up to tell the Government that it could not tamper with their incomes and that it must continue the indexation of the old age security benefits. This fall and into 1986, we have seen families from all across Canada doing the same thing. Today, as has happened almost every day for many, many weeks, Hon. Members from all Parties have risen in the House to present petitions calling on the Government to scrap its plans for the deindexation of the family allowance benefits.
The deindexation of tax brackets and personal exemptions is no different. This plan will ultimately hurt ordinary Canadians, the people who can lest afford to have their incomes reduced in any way. With the deindexation program combined with the now climbing interest rates which will impact on the
ability of people to keep roofs over their heads, we can see very clearly the direction the Government is taking. It is a direction that is moving away from fairness and from the concerns of many of those people who voted for the Conservative Party. The Government is moving in the direction of support for the corporate sector and the big people.
I wonder why there is this increased need for funding for the Government. We hear rhetoric about the need to reduce the deficit, but actions speak louder than words. There have been billion-dollar bail-outs for the banks. There have been tax remissions to Syncrude that may amount to something like $1 billion. Olympia & York may also be the beneficiary of tax breaks and perhaps even Genstar will be the beneficiary of such tax breaks. In the future, we will see more tax dollars going from the Government to the corporate sector. The only place the Government can get this money is from the wallets of ordinary Canadians.
The Government is out to squeeze as much from the people as possible. It is not doing this in an up-front way by saying that personal income taxes must be raised by 10 per cent. The Government is not being honest with Canadian people. It is going through the back door to pick pockets through a sleight-of-hand mathematical change that will reduce, over time, the amount Canadians will be able to deduct from income taxes payable.
Years ago, the ability of the electorate to recall the actions of Governments tended to be reasonably limited. However, with the modern communications technology that is now available and with the fact that there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Canadians watching us every day in action in the House of Commons, the electorate will remember the meanness involved in the attempt to deindex old age security benefits and the action to deindex family allowance benefits. The people of Canada will remember the decision made by the Conservative Government to reduce the ability of Canadians to have their deductions keep up with inflation. They will remember this when they go to the polls. Each Canadian will ask himself: "Can I afford another Conservative Government?" A great many Canadians will say: "No, my family and I cannot afford to have our incomes, our deductions and our lifestyles eroded by another Conservative Government," and they will search elsewhere.
I would ask the Government opposite to pay heed to this amendment and to consider its actions. I ask the Government to reverse its actions before it is too late.
[ Translation]


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak about motion No. 4 which concerns Section 65 of Bill C-84.
Mr. Speaker, I have trouble understanding why the two Opposition parties persist in letting such a Bill go forward, or rather in refusing that the bill go forward and in supporting this motion. Why, and I do not see many Members opposite, why do the two Opposition parties refuse to see the facts and


recognize that the child tax credit will increase by $140 during the next three years? Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that this $ 140 increase represents more then the average rate of inflation? Did the two Opposition parties say so when they travelled throughout the province and the country? Did they have the courage to do so? Did they have the political will? And most important, did they have the strength to do their job as Members of Parliament by telling the Canadian people, by telling Canadian mothers, by telling our poorest families, that the child tax credit would be reimbursable for the most disadvantaged families? This represents $35 the first year, $35 the second year and $70 the last year.
No, Mr. Speaker, we did not see this happen. We did not see it because, on the other side of the House, both New Democrats and Liberals have taken a rather demagogic attitude.
It is certainly shocking and even revolting, Mr. Speaker, when you sit across from them, to realize that, after 20 years in power, and we all know that the Liberals have been in power more often than not, the parties opposite, and especially one of them, were unable to develop a social policy which would be fair and equitable to every Canadian family, including the most disadvantaged.
For them, Mr. Speaker, the principle of equity is not complicated: Rich and poor should be treated the same. This is what the other side calls equity. They do not understand, or they refuse to understand for financial reasons which could be of benefit to them, that a family earning $15,000 a year and one earning $100,000 cannot be viewed in the same way.
They do not understand, Mr. Speaker, and if I may use my own situation as an illustration, that myself and my family now receive the same family allowances as the single mother who lives out in the countryside and who needs welfare benefits to pay the rent and feed her family. They do not understand that she should receive more. They do not understand that the actual thrust of our legislation should be in that direction. No, Mr. Speaker. To them, the principle of fairness is to have everyone on the same footing, whether rich or poor. You all get the same thing. And especially when I hear the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) crying out in this House, even rising on occasion since he has been in Opposition, I am inclined to ask him one thing: Where was he when his own party was de-indexing? Where was he? In the House or away travelling around? Perhaps there were reasons for his travelling. Where was he, Mr. Speaker, when his own Government decided to change course with respect to family allowances? If he was in this House, I wonder why he did not rise to vote against that, since he is opposing it today. I am wondering. Maybe he was on a trip. But it does not matter.
Mr. Speaker, I am coming back to my subject for I had no intention of being distracted by the Hon. Member opposite. You know-No, I would rather not say it. Look, Mr. Speaker-
Income Tax Act, 1986


Mr. Rossi:: Go ahead, say it.


Michel Champagne: Oh no, I must not say it.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in this Bill, in this motion, we have to look at the facts as they are. Hon. Members opposite, especially Liberal Members, have asked us on many occasions to set politics aside and speak in an honest, accurate way. Well, I am ready to do so. And for sure all my colleagues are willing to do so. But under one condition: That we tell the whole truth. We must show exactly what shape our social system is in. Exactly what shape the deficit is in. We must state exactly how we, as a Government, as Members of Parliament, as representatives of the people, are going to work at building a society in which our children, our most needy families, all Canadians can live with a measure of fairness. This is all we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, this is what we are working on. This is what we are aiming at. This is what we want to achieve. Unfortunately, every once in a while, and too often in my view, especially when I see the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-


Mr. Gauthier:: What did he do now?


Michel Champagne: -I will tell you if you sit down ... good, I will say it. . . they are there striving to boycott legislation. There they are opposite, trying to stop the course of events.
You know, Mr. Speaker, they were there for 20 years, and now that they sit in Opposition all they can do is bring in amendments, amendments, and more amendments. As you know, Mr. Speaker, such is the ingenuity of the Liberal Party. For 20 years, they acted as if they were sitting in Parliament, as if they were passing legislation, as if they were working for the whole of the Canadian community, except that they forgot one thing, Mr. Speaker. They are accusing our Government of helping the rich. But if my memory serves me right, the richest in our society were not paying any income tax. It is under this Government, with our new regulations that they will be paying a guaranteed minimum income tax. These are the facts Mr. Speaker, these are the facts and we are addressing them. These are the facts, my dear Member for Richmond-Wolfe, which will ensure that less privileged families will get more, because the principle of fairness will never apply in the same way to the rich and the poor alike. The fact must be addressed that there are have-nots. And this is what we are doing as a Government. Certainly this is a tough responsibility. Certainly it is a responsibility that Opposition parties do not understand. Because, as you see plainly: a $200 billion deficit, the most affluent who were not paying any income tax, multinationals and the big corporations which were getting handouts. This being said, I would like to remind the liberals who accused us regarding the Norbank and the other banks, that they did exactly the same thing in 1925. At that time, they reimbursed the depositors of the Home Bank. That is why I cannot accept, Mr. Speaker, their holier than thou attitude in front of the Canadian people, who had to put up with them for 20 years.


Income Tax Act, 1986
They have done the opposite of what they say should be done.
I believe that our Party, our Government, is able to respond adequately to the demands of Canadians and in particular to the demands of the neediest families. That is what we are striving to do. Let us give more to the disadvantaged, let us make the rich pay and in this way, I am sure, we will create a more equitable system, a system of social justice, and we will be able to say that we are working for all Canadians.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), who is certainly to be congratulated on his efforts to score a few points for a Government that is going to the dogs, as they say. He tried to give us several figures, but the fact is we are now seeing percentages as low as 36 and 37 in the polls, which certainly does not bode very well for the future.


Mr. Vincent:: Wait until 1989.


Carlo Rossi: We shall see.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that at the beginning of his speech, the Hon. Member for Champlain alluded to the fact that so few Members were present in the House. Mr. Speaker,
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that at this very moment, eighteen Conservative Members are present, out of 211. That is a lot more than the Members opposite can draw from.
I am pleased with this opportunity to take part in the debate on the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), aimed at amending a Bill whose sole purpose is to increase taxes, despite all the attempts of the Government to conceal this fact.
Yesterday afternoon, I heard another Member from Quebec, my hon. friend from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) say in his grandiloquent speech that the ultimate objective of Bill C-84 was to promote justice and fairness. Mr. Speaker, what a farce, coming from a Member who claims he wants to help the needy in his riding. This is incredible, coming from the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and other Quebec members, when we consider what is happening and what they are doing about it. It is incredible, because these measures are aimed directly at people who lack the financial resources to meet all their day-to-day needs.
The deficit being what it is, I believe that we all have a responsibility and that it is necessary to identify mechanisms by which we can improve the economic situation. Everybody realizes that. However, it seems the Government nearly always introduces measures that take money from the poor and the needy.
An attempt was made to impress Canadians. An attempt was made to impress Canadians by spreading the news, on the radio and just about everywhere else, that the Prime Minister
(Mr. Mulroney) was going to take a salary cut of so many thousand dollars, and that his Ministers were going to do likewise. Mr. Speaker, this may seem very admirable, but when we are talking about a $10,000 cut out of $150,000 or $120,000, my admiration is not that great.
What frightens me the most in this message, Mr. Speaker, is the added mention that Canadians will have to do some belt tightening. That is what frightens me. To what extent will Canadians have to tighten their belts in 1986? What sort of message is the Government sending out? Will there be tax increases? Has the Government found new ways to dig in the pockets of the disadvantaged?
I notice my hon. colleague opposite. I do not know what riding he is from but ever since he came to the House some 15 years ago he has been a constant mumbler.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, my friend the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) examined the situation quite thoroughly and came up with some figures, but he forgot to tell Canadians that during our election campaign, we said this or that. But your own leader the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), wherever he went in the Province of Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, solemnly promised never to touch the Family Allowances or Old Age Security Pensions. Yet, the only way you have been able to raise money in the effort to cut the deficit has been at the expense of the poor in our society. All you have managed to do is to deindex the Family Allowances and Old Age Security Pensions.


Mr. Girard:: Do you believe that?


Carlo Rossi: Sure, they believe me .. . And the proof that Canadians no longer believe you is that compared with September 4, 1984, when you had 54 or 56 per cent of the popular support, you now have only 37 per cent, according to the most recent survey.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the Prime Minister and the Members of his Cabinet should keep their promise and stop getting money on the backs of the poor and the disadvantaged in our society.
They should stop giving away ... They were talking about giving away $500,000 or more to the affluent-


Pierre H. Vincent: That is another motion.


Carlo Rossi: That is another motion which you will support in a little while. But your great strategy is to get money from the poor and the disadvantaged rather than from the rich.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will now be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-84, be amended in Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 90 the following:
"(</) 'qualified Canadian property' of an individual means a property that was a Canadian security within the meaning assigned by subsection 6 of section
39."
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-84, be amended in Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 91 the following:
"(</) the amount that would be determined in respect of the individual for the year under paragraph 3(b) in respect of the capital gains and capital losses if the only properties referred to in that paragraph were qualified Canadian properties."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this brings us to a very important motion with respect to the capital gains proposal contained in the budget document. I will explain the amendment in full in a moment. I hope I have the attention of Members on the other side of the House because I think anyone who looks objectively at what is being proposed will agree that this is a substantial improvement to the provisions set forth in the Budget. I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is with us, as well as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote), the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse). I hope the Ministers in particular will go back to their colleagues and reflect upon the significance of what is being proposed here.
If I may spend a moment on a technicality, Motion No. 2 will be subject to a very small technical amendment, which I understand will be proposed later, probably by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). As I pointed out yesterday, the letter "(d)" should not be included inside the quotation marks in the amendment. That stands by
Income Tax Act, 1986
itself, as it were, as a definition of qualified Canadian property.
That being said, allow me to explain to my friends in the House what this amendment is designed to accomplish. A definition of qualified Canadian property is found in Section 39(6) of the Income Tax Act. The thrust of this amendment is to give some focus to what the Government is attempting to do. We have made our arguments in principle that this is not an appropriate provision in the Budget, the provision of a $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. We might have been prepared to look at something more sensible in that regard. However, clearly it is inappropriate. It is costly and, beyond that, almost completely unfocused.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times how Canadian taxpayers can use that provision. One can sell condominiums in Florida, one can sell jewels, paintings, boats. The Budget does not contain any provision for channeling those investments towards productive sectors here in Canada.

It is in that spirit that this amendment is being proposed; to concentrate the benefit of any capital gain here in Canada for Canadian investors to create the jobs we need so badly and to spur economic activity in this country. The simple mechanism whereby that can be accomplished with this amendment is by defining qualified Canadian property using Section 39(6) of the Income Tax Act which defines a Canadian security as follows:
For the purposes of this section, "Canadian security" means a security (other than ... a prescribed security) that is a share of the capital stock of a corporation resident in Canada, a unit of a mutual fund trust or a bond, debenture, bill, note, mortgage, hypothec or similar obligation issued by a person resident in Canada.
There are prescribed securities for the purposes of Section 39(6) currently found in the regulations to the Income Tax Act and what is being suggested in this amendment is that a further prescribed class could be developed in the discretion of the Government to restrict the investment to qualified Canadian property. So there is ample discretion left within the terms of the motion which I have proposed.

For instance, the Government is quite capable of defining the fields where investments can be made, be they small- or medium-sized businesses or corporations operating on the Canadian market. It has sufficient leeway to concentrate the benefits here in the hands of Canadians so as to spur the economy and create jobs in this country. That is the purpose of my motion, Mr. Speaker.
As I said a few moments ago in French, Mr. Speaker, we think it is absurd to introduce a provision into our income tax system which, in fact, will encourage investors to invest elsewhere, especially when one looks at the other provisions which
9804

Income Tax Act, 1986
are currently under study by the Government of the country. I refer particularly to this proposed minimum tax which makes Canadian equities less attractive. It makes them less attractive because of the treatment that will be accorded to dividend income under that proposed minimum tax. When one considers the combination of the tax-free capital gain of $500,000 and the minimum tax, clearly an investor has incentive to buy U.S. equities rather than Canadian equities.
The purpose of this amendment is to say that if the Government insists on proceeding on the capital side by providing a tax-free capital gain in the order of $500,000, then at least let us ensure that it is a benefit to Canada and Canadians, and does not simply result in the export of capital to other parts of the world. This is especially important during this present critical period when the dollar is under so much pressure because of the lack of confidence in the financial and economic management of the country.
I believe it was the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) of the New Democratic Party who, at one point in committee, proposed an amendment like this one, but not as refined, which is the reason I did not support it at the time. It was simply restricted to investments in Canada. I think we must go further than that. I do not think that we should be giving tax-free treatment to real estate investment in the country during this period, nor do I think that we should be giving tax-free treatment to the sale of jewellery, art- [Translation]
-artworks here in Canada. What is more important is that those funds be invested in key sectors to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of my motion which is now before the House.

Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I plead with my friends on the other side of the House. I know that there are many who understand precisely what I am saying. I am pleased with the number of them who are present in the House at this time. I see my friend, the Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann). We listened to him yesterday. He was very eloquent, but somewhat misinformed. However, he clearly understands the implications of what we are proposing.
We are reluctantly supporting the provision because the Bill has already been adopted in principle. As a constructive Opposition we are trying to make it better. I insist on that point, Mr. Speaker. Our job in Opposition is not simply to oppose, it is to improve. This amendment is a net improvement which any sensible Canadian would recognize. In fact, if one follows the commentary in the press, one will see that most Canadians have recognized this. However, those who consider themselves bound by Party discipline in Government policy have, unfortunately, so far refused to stand up and be counted on this very fundamental issue. They now have the opportunity because, as I say-

-what we have to do here is fair and logical, and it is in the interest of Canadians, particularly in the interest of our own economy. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand why our colleagues fail to see the merit of what we are proposing today.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak about the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston). The Hon. Member was speaking about the $500,000 capital gains exemption and, as usual, unfortunately, he found a negative side to this measure. Unfortunately, when the Government proposes something useful, profitable or economically attractive for Canadians, one or two Members of the Opposition always find fault with it. They say: Naturally, Canadians will go and invest in Florida, but most important, they will invest even more in Florida if there is a minimum tax. Mr. Speaker, they are misleading the House and the Canadian people. We all know that there is also a minimum tax in the United States.
The purpose of the $500,000 capital gains exemption is to encourage Canadians to invest more and to have a new approach to savings. We have heard and still hear a lot about small businesses: they are at the centre of our policy. Small businesses created the greatest number of jobs in Canada in 1984. Such an effort must be rewarded and we have done so by saying that, when small businessmen decide to retire, they will be allowed a capital gains exemption, they will be able to have somewhat lower costs in their businesses, young people will be able to become more involved in the business, to invest and continue to create jobs and make things work in Canada. That is the purpose of the capital gains exemption.
I shall not go into the details as concerns agriculture where this measure is of vital importance. If the Hon Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount had a single constituent in agriculture, he would understand what we are saying. But he is more representative of Westmount than of Saint-Henri and I can see that he is not familiar with agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, in the constituency of Trois-Rivieres, I meet people every Sunday. I meet farmers every weekend. They are all very happy with our policies. Small businessmen are all very happy with our policies. People who have already retired and have assets in Canada are happy to be able finally to say that they have a better return on their investment. They are happy at the same time that this will help young people starting in business thanks to the capital gains exemption. That is the positive aspect that we should keep in mind.
Sometime ago, during the debate on Bill C-84, I heard a Member of the Opposition say that this was a complex Bill. This is a criticism which was made some time ago. However, the only purpose of the motion presented by the Hon. Member



for Saint-Henri-Westmount is to make the Income Tax Act even more complex than it already is. For our part, Mr. Speaker, we are working at changing the Income Tax Act. Yet, the Members opposite want to add something to the Act which could apply through regulations and whose result would be that the small investor would once again be footing the Bill. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount does not recognize this. When he says that he does not understand why his motion is not acceptable, I would like to tell him that it is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker.
He said that the Opposition must make a positive contribution. We quite agree with him, but such motions, which would make the Act even more complex and which criticize the capital gains exemptions that will help our businesses, do not constitute positive opposition, far from it.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to participate very briefly on this section of the debate to indicate that the New Democratic Party is not supportive of the amendment. We believe that capital gains are capital gains, regardless of where the money is earned. We do not think that someone who sells a condominium in Florida and receives the benefit should be taxed differently from someone who sells a condominium in Vancouver, Thunder Bay, or wherever. For that reason, we will not support this particular amendment.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in this debate in support of Motion No. 2, presented by my colleague from Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), to restrict the capital gains exemption to gains realized in Canada with respect to Canadian businesses or property.
Without going over the whole debate on second reading, I was surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) make the kind of comments he did, because it is clear to me he did not really grasp the meaning of the amendment put forward.
In principle, we already have taken a position concerning the fact that a Government claiming to have no money to maintain full indexation of family allowances-we do not believe that a Government taking such an attitude, cutting indexation- we cannot understand how it can then say it has enough financial resources to give tax benefits to people who have enough income to invest and realize capital gains. This is a matter of equity and social justice, and as we know, according to published surveys that come from people in the Conservative Party, Allan Gregg, who says that: The main difficulty faced by the Government with its Budget of May 23, 1985, is that it is perceived as being unfair because it in fact is unfair-
Income Tax Act, 1986
And, besides, as we maintain, it is and is perceived as such. And the proof is, Mr. Speaker, that this Government, claiming it does not have the financial resources for first-hand social programs, had the resources available to give to the multinational oil corporations. And I will not discuss that any further because we could start anew on the second reading debate.
But as we look at it, and not just the Liberal Opposition, we can be blamed for playing politics although it is our role to oppose when in Opposition, and if it were our role to oppose in Opposition, we are not the only ones to do so.
And rather than rely on the views of people who have nothing to do with the administration of our tax laws, I would quote from an article published by the Financial Post Magazine after the Budget was tabled, long after it was tabled, and which reports on conversations and discussions held by the Canadian Tax Foundation. Of course the Canadian Tax Foundation includes in its membership chartered accountants, tax experts from all over the country. They had a convention and considered the effects of Bill C-84, of the Budget from a general standpoint, but especially the impact of such a repeal of the capital gains tax.
Several experts have expressed their views, and this is, for instance, what the article had to say. I am quoting from the Financial Post Magazine of November 30, 1985, as published under the signature of Mr. Gordon Pitts, the journalist who wrote that article. He attended the Canadian Tax Foundation convention.
This is what he wrote:

Finance Minister Michael Wilson's J500.000 capital gains exemption is meeting strong opposition from one group that has much to gain from it-the country's tax practitioners.
They will earn hefty fees from the fancy tax planning the exemption will spawn. But even so, many of the 1,500 accountants and lawyers attending last week's Canadian Tax Foundation conference here criticized the proposal as ill-conceived and poorly designed.
I would indicate to the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) that this is not a comment made by a Liberal. It is not a comment made on a partisan basis. Those comments are made by lawyers and accountants who will benefit from this legislation because it is so complex that they will have to advise their customers and charge "hefty fees", to use the words in the article.
Mr. William Lawlor, a national tax partner with Ernst & Whinney, a firm that I understand is particularly close to the Conservative Party, sparked the debate by saying that this measure "will have disastrous effect structurally on the tax system".

Taking into account those remarks, and surely all those made by other experts, and because of those difficulties, we ask: "Why not try at least to improve the Bill and restrict the benefits of this exemption to capital gains realized on Canadian property in order to spare the taxpayers?" And I would like


Income Tax Act, 1986
to go along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who wants to reduce his deficit. Well, to achieve that end, he might first consider not applying the tax benefits provided for in his budget to gains realized on property owned abroad. I fail to see what good Canada will get out of that. If there are no other changes to the Bill, Motion No. 2 in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) should at least be accepted. According to the figures provided by the Department of Finance, that tax benefit as it stands will have cost the Canadian Government $4.5 billion in lost revenues by the end of the decade. That is not a long period, just a matter of four or five years. We must be aware of the extent of the enormous benefits that are handed out to a small group of Canadians, those whose income is high enough to allow them to invest and realize capital gains. Let us at least restrict the exemption to the capital gains on investments made in Canada, in order to attain the goal we are aiming at, that is supposedly to create jobs.
Naturally, if the objective had been something other than encouraging Canadian investment and creating jobs, other arguments could have been made, I suppose. But the stated objective was to help the economy and, therefore, I do not understand why we should use public money, at a time when we have so little that we cannot maintain the full indexation of family allowance. At least, we should limit its application to capital gains realized in Canada, on Canadian properties. That is the intent of Motion No. 2 which I support and which will be considered, 1 hope, Mr. Speaker, by the Hon. Members opposite since it would prevent wasting our financial resources on gifts to people who are going to invest, in the United States or elsewhere, in yachts, condominiums, race horses or something else. I believe that if we want to reach the goal that has been set we must restrict the application of this proposal.
The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) said that it would be overly complicated, but, Mr. Speaker, it is already in the Act. It is in Section 6 of the Act. It has already been interpreted by the courts. All we have to do is use it to define Canadian properties in the same way as they are defined in the Income Tax Act, so I do not see any of the complications mentioned by the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should say, in view of the remarks the previous speaker made, that there is a mistake in Motion No. 2, which reads:
That Bill C-84, be amended in Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 90 the following:
We have a colon and the next line starts with "(d)- That (d) should not be there. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I propose, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That Motion No. 2 be amended by striking out the "(d) at the beginning of the proposed amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment proposed by Mr. Garneau, and seconded by Mr. Gauthier, would remove the letter "(d) at the beginning of the second paragraph of Motion No. 2. Is that right? We resume debate on the amendment. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased as well to take part in this debate. A few minutes ago, the House heard the comments of the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) whose speech as a whole can be summed up as follows. According to the Hon. Member for Champlain, the measures now before the House were aimed at increasing the contributing capacity of the neediest people through a tax break.
Later on, the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) said to the House that when going around in his riding, he met with businessmen who were all very happy, very enthusiastic about the measures put forward in the same budget, the same legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an obvious contradiction between these two speakers, which it is I believe the purpose of all speeches made by Hon. Members on this side of the House to point out.
Members on this side of the House are all aware of the fact that the financial situation of this country is such that we must join forces to consider measures, initiatives designed to reduce the tax burden in order to improve the financial situation. Except, Mr. Speaker, that up to now we have seen that each of these initiatives, each of those measures is unfortunately always aimed at the neediest, the have-nots and the amendment before us illustrates very well this openness, this generosity shown by the Government towars wealthy people. It grants a tax write-off on capital gains.
My colleague and seat mate who is an accountant, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), told me that in fact, this measure has been welcomed by businessmen, wealthy people, those who make important deals. They greeted this measure with some satisfaction. But what we are suggesting-and the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou had the occasion to raise another matter which in these circumstances would also have warranted a similar measure-is that you should have ensured that the gains accruing from those exemptions be reinvested in Canada. That would have meant a considerable improvement and I think that on this side of the House we would forthwith have supported such a step.
But what we are discussing now is what the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said: We can live with the capital gain exemption, but let us ensure that it will apply specifically to goods and real estate located in Canada. This, Mr. Speaker, is in my view a basic, fundamental principle, it is something that should be built into that initiative, that allowance, because we are not only going to enable wealthy


people, very affluent people to divert substantial amounts of money from Canadian income tax, from Revenue Canada, we are not only going to give them that break, or make them that present, but we are also going to let them carry out transactions outside Canada and take advantage as I said of those same benefits in that situation as well.
I think it is needless to ask whether that money which is diverted from income tax revenue will be reinvested in Canada. Just putting the question is answering it. This measure could therefore in the present circumstances be considerably improved if we just took the trouble to assess the impact and appreciate the relevance of an amendment to restrict the scope of that measure specifically to the capital gains achieved within Canada. And I think the all-out supporters of that measure, considering the present financial situation of our country, would certainly welcome such an addition since they in particular are or should be involved in improving the state of our finance. But I would not be surprised if that amendment were met with scorn and opposition and eventually defeated in the next few days because the sole commitment of this Government seems to be to preserve a good image and to maintain good relations with those men and women who, in the circumstances, might be asked to contribute a commensurate share of their income and of their power and might help much more significantly to alleviate the tax burden of people with a much lower income.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what I wished to say, and in my opinion, this amendment is a blatant illustration of the fact that our Government does not give a damn about protecting the interests of average Canadians and is basically concerned solely with flattering, playing up to and maintaining good relations with the most affluent segments of Canadian society in order to protect friends and keep their support.


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak against this amendment proposed by a member of the Opposition. It is important for capital gains exemptions to be offered to all people whoever they may be. I know some who have properties outside of Canada. They are not the wealthy, as I have heard members of the Opposition say and, as the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) said, they are ordinary people who thought that they could make more money during the recession caused by the previous Government's National Energy Program.
People moved money out of Canada in order to make something better for themselves. Sometimes this worked. Other times it did not. Why should they not have the benefit of a capital gains exemption? These were the ordinary people, the small and medium-sized businessmen and women upon whom we have depended to make our country grow. It is a fact, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that during 1975 and 1982 practically 100 per cent of the job creation was made by small and medium businessmen and women. Why should they not get a benefit in order to create
Income Tax Act, 1986
more jobs for people who need jobs? I feel it very important that the amendment not even be considered.
Members of the Opposition told us earlier this afternoon about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has cut his wages. He is the first Prime Minister in recent history who has had the daring to show his honesty and consideration for the people. The previous Prime Minister did not do that. Our Prime Minister is also paying for his food bills. The previous one did not do that. How can members of the Opposition tell us stories which are not true?
I feel it is very important that the capital gains exemption be given to everyone who deserves it. This will be on an ongoing and periodic basis. It will be given to farmers. They will get a $500,000 complete capital gains exemption. However, the exemption for businessmen and women is cumulative. It is $20,000 for the year 1985, $50,000 in 1986, $100,000 in 1987 and so on to 1990.
Property worth a great deal of money will not be completely affected at this time by the capital gains exemption. It is necessary for our Government to proceed with all possible haste so that the moneys recipients receive from the capital gains exemption will work toward the benefit of the country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea for all those who want to participate in this debate to read what was proposed by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). If you take the time to read it properly, it is quite obvious and clear, Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Members do not have the right to cancel the capital gain as suggested by the Wilson Budget. That is not our business. But it is our business, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Government to apply capital gains only to Canadian companies and jobs.
Even if the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) means that we like capital gain, I would like to ask him to defend the capital gain which would be applied to condominiums in Florida, to diamonds in South Africa or anywhere in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about the Canadianiza-tion of profits coming from the budget. Because we know very well that this Government, with capital gains-if we talk about a specific case namely the case of farmers-is trying very hard to make the rich richer in Canada. This phenomenon shows clearly in the area of capital gains.
For example, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the average income of Canadians-

Let us take a look at Canadians who will benefit from the capital gains tax. We know, particularly by the surveys which were done at year end, that Canadians do not believe that the Government is fighting for the interests of ordinary working Canadians. Let us face it; the Government is paying the piper and the piper happens to be those people who are in the


Income Tax Act, 1986
$60,000, $70,000 and $80,000 per year salary range. In fact, those people will gain disproportionately, by thousands of percentages, as compared with a very poor family in Canada earning $10,000 per year. Poor families will not benefit from the capital gains exemption.
Let us look at people who have profited from capital gains. For example, using 1982, a person earning $10,000 took advantage of approximately $6 of capital gains. However, if we look at the person earning $200,000, this particular measure would mean a tax saving of $4,032. Once again the Government is aiming its tax measures at those Canadians who already have, and its Budget is aimed at those Canadians in the top four earning percentage of the population, those Canadians earning more than $50,000 per year.
Was the Government given that huge mandate on September 4, 1984, to fight only for Canadian earning over $50,000 per year? No, it was elected to speak for ordinary, average working Canadians who are being sold out-

-sold out by this budget. It does not deal with the problems of employment among Canadians.
With the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), in fact we are asking the Government to reconsider the matter of capital gains for rich people, unless those gains are directed to Canadians companies, firms and jobs. Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not interested in jobs. We saw that in Montreal East. In the case of Gaz metropolitan and Ultramar, we saw that this Government is not interested in jobs, it is not interested in canadianizing the petrochemical industry. This Government would much rather enrich people who already earn annual incomes of $200,000.
What the Liberal Party is proposing is an amendment which would guarantee that anyone likely to benefit from the capital gains provision will do so only by creating jobs or investing in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing politically devastating in asking that tax policies be consistent with the interests of Canadian men and women.

It is not a revolutionary notion to suggest that tax policy be directed toward creating jobs in Canada for Canadians. That is the mandate of a Parliament. The Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were elected, promising jobs, jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. In fact, in this one tax measure, this one proposition, the Government is saying to Canadians that it does not care if they spend their money propping up a regime in South Africa by buying South African diamonds, by investing in a condominium in Hawaii or by purchasing racehorses from Europe.
In this amendment we are not asking the Government to reconsider the whole question of capital gains. We do not have the right in this Parliament to make the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Wilson) turn his back on this kind of fiscal irresponsibility. We are simply asking him to make a condition of the capital gains exemption that jobs and investment be created in Canada for Canadians. Is that such an heretical notion? Are we in the Liberal Party heretics because we want the Government to encourage tax policy which will result in Canadian investment by Canadians and for Canadians in Canada?
The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) talked about small business. If the Government were so concerned about small business, it would have brought in a policy that permitted small business people to use capital gains for the sale of businesses within families. It chose not to do that. It chose to adopt an arms length attitude, which means that almost every small business in Canada will not be able to take advantage of the capital gains exemption unless they sell out to a foreign interest or to another interest unrelated to them or to their families. This giveaway or bail-out which is being accorded by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is simply the continuation of a policy which has favored the rich, the "haves" and the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and ordinary working Canadians.
There is a fear which is gripping Canadians. I think it is particularly prevalent among the middle class. The workers in the east end of Montreal have seen their jobs abandoned by a Government which made promises it never intended to keep. The fear is that the Government, having been elected on a platform of jobs for Canadians and of serving the middle class and ordinary working Canadians, has abandoned that responsibility and answers only to its true constituency, that true constituency being those people who will benefit from this $500,000 capital gains write-off. Canadians realize that only 4 per cent of the population will have the opportunity to take advantage of this particular capital gains exemptions. About 54 per cent of the people who might be considered eligible already earn over $50,000 per year. Is it the responsibility of the Government to prop up those people who are earning $75,000 and $100,000 per year, without even making conditional any request for Canadian job guarantees, or is the responsibility of the Government to live up to the promise of the Prime Minister when he said that his absolute first priority would be jobs, jobs and more jobs for Canadians?
[DOT] (WOO)
We do not think this amendment is particularly radical. We think it is defensible, believable and supportable by the people of Canada. I ask the Government to reconsider a budget measure which says send your money out of this country, invest it in Taiwan, Tokyo, Tampa, anywhere outside this country and you will get a half a million dollar capital gains write-off; keep that money in Canada and we will not give you a red cent of tax break.
That is the policy which was perpetrated by a Government interested only in helping its friends. It was not a policy introduced by a Government truly interested in developing jobs and in building the Canadian economy. By suggesting, as we have in our amendment, that the condition of Canadianism be


introduced into this particular legislation, what we are saying that we in the Liberal Party have a real belief in the ability of this country. We believe that as Canadians we can compete in the international market. We believe, as Canadians, we can build this economy and make it strong. We also believe that we have an interest in protecting our own economy. We have an interest in determining that this particular capital gains measure applies only to investment by Canadians for Canadians in Canadian jobs.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I only want to take a few minutes of the time of this House. I would like to make it clear to Hon. Members that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston) concerns a tax measure that is incredibly regressive in the worst sense of the word, that is, it enables certain people in this country to invest, to make profits and to reduce their taxes by using this measure, this capital gains tax exemption of $500,000, over a certain number of years, which in my view represents a potential loss of revenue for the Government. If we go according to the figures we have seen, the potential loss of revenue for 1985-86 would be $300 million, which means that the Government is losing $300 million to the rich, while by 1991, the Treasury will have lost $1,250,000,000, and the money will then have to come from the average Canadian, from Canadians who work and who do not have enough income to take advantage of this tax measure. [English]
The purpose of the amendment is very clear. It is a proposed amendment to Bill C-84 to amend Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 90 the following, "qualified Canadian property of an individual means a property that was a Canadian security within the meaning assigned by subsection 6 of Section 39". It is complicated. It means essentially that investments that are eligible should be Canadian investments. That purpose of the amendment and only that purpose is to try and convince this Government that there is no benefit to Canadians by investing in foreign countries and allowing those investors to deduct that income from their income tax, or allowing them to use that deduction as a fiscal advantage in Canada.
I do not want to speak too long because we want to get to other amendments. I endorse what my colleagues on this side have said. We must try and convince this Government that there is a Canadian reality, that there is a Canadian interest at stake. For God's sakes let us not give these advantages to people who invest in foreign countries. Let's have our investments here in Canada, make jobs for Canadians and allow Canadians to use those advantages to the betterment of the Canadian economy.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go over all the criticisms of the Budget which we have made in previous debates. Members of the House including Members on the Government side should know that the
Income Tax Act, 1986
Budget proposals have been criticized and attacked by virtually every group representing our senior citizens, family groups, welfare groups, anti-poverty organizations. Recently the Anglican Church published a report entitled "Poverty in Canada". In dealing with this Budget it said, and I quote:
In the midst of some of the most difficult social problems we have ever faced as a nation the federal Government presented its Budget. This Budget was to be the response of a caring Government after months of consultation and negotiation with big business, labour, small business, churches and community groups. The result was an economic move to the right that will directly affect the lives of millions of Canadians who are already feeling the effects of poverty.
Dealing with this particular proposal of the Government to take away any taxation on the $500,000 capital gains which any Canadian may accomplish, it said, and I again quote:
The capital gains tax will boost substantially all those people who already have money.
That argument has been put forward not just by the kind of people who try to represent the interests of ordinary Canadians who are in the lower income brackets. Opposition to the Government's proposal has been made by people who have not been particularly interested or involved in defending the rights of ordinary citizens. It has been made by tax experts who usually spend their time telling wealthy individuals and corporations how they can avoid paying taxes, how they can reduce their tax burdens.
William Lowler, a former official in the Department of Finance Tax Policy Division, and a technical adviser to the Conservative Task Force on Revenue Canada in 1984, reported in The Financial Post of November 30, 1985, in connection with this proposal of the Government that it will have a disastrous effect structurally on the tax system. He said regarding this particular proposal:
Its scope is too broad. Although many would support lower taxes from the sale of Canadian common stock, practitioners fail to see how tax free gains on the disposition of jewellery, summer cottages, or Florida condominiums provide much benefit for the economy.
Then he said:
The exemptions destroy the neutrality which has existed between the taxation of dividends and capital gains.
He says that this neutrality is vital to the successful integration of corporation and personal income tax. John Bossons, an economist at the University of Toronto Institute for Policy Analysis, stated:
The prime beneficiaries of the tax exemption will probably be real estate speculators.
I ask Members on the Conservative side who are so concerned, as we all are, about finding jobs for the 1,125,000 Canadians who have not got jobs about making our manufacturing industry more efficient so that it can compete both in Canada and in international markets for sales, thereby providing profits for the companies and jobs for the workers. How will this kind of real estate speculation provide jobs? Who will it benefit except those speculators? Who will it benefit but those speculators?


Income Tax Act, 1986
In a study done by the Department of Finance in 1980, this is what was said about the removal of taxes on capital gains. It was said that this removal would:
Discourage investment in high-risk and start-up ventures;
Channel investment funds out of riskier ventures and into safe bets like real
estate;
Encourage real estate speculation and higher land prices;
Do little to stimulate over-all investment;
Discourage the small investor;
Provide a generous windfall for the rich without requiring them to invest
further;-
Let me put on the record the views of another tax specialist who works in the Ottawa office of Coopers & Lybrand, one of the largest accounting firms in this country. The Globe and Mail quotes Allan Lumsden as saying:
"1 wouldn't have thought you'd solve Canada's unemployment problem by exempting capital gains," Mr. Lumsden says.
Our Party is very suspicious of tax proposals such as those which would permit large-scale avoidance of taxes on capital gains. One could make a case for that if those proposals were directed at encouraging useful programs in Canada. I can understand a proposal which would help farmers tranfer their farms to their children when they want to retire. I can understand a proposal which would help companies which manufacture goods or provide services become more efficient. However, this exemption of virtually all capital gains for purposes which really benefit no one but the people who have the money to make these gains is something which we certainly cannot support.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 2 and 3 were grouped for debate and will be voted on separately. Prior to that, we will vote on the amendment to Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to
the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 81, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. Because of the amendment, the vote on Motion No. 2 will also be deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 81, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

We shall now proceed with Motion No. 5.


Donald James Johnston: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-84, be amended by deleting Clause 82.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to support his amendment on behalf of my Party. Obviously young Canadians who in the past and future had hoped to take advantage of what was called a Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan were looking forward to the opportunity to continue to contribute to this plan which helped many young Canadian families get together downpayments for their first homes. In the 11 years of the program's existence, almost 2.5 million Canadians have taken advantage of the tool of RHOSP, the small tax deduction the Government allowed families and single parents who were trying to buy their first homes. Unfortunately, in one fell swoop the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) removed this initiative to home ownership for young people.
We saw no evidence presented in the House to buttress the argument of the Government that this particular measure was not helping those who needed help the most including young, middle and low-income families. We are not talking about a half a million dollar capital gains tax write-off. That capital gains tax write-off has been supported by the Conservative Party. Here we are talking about a program which allowed young Canadian single parents and couples to put away $1,000


per year toward the purchase of first homes. That is not a fortune. That is not half a million dollars. However, the Government chose to stamp out the only Government initiative which was permitting young people to get into the housing market-place.
In most major cities, the dream of home ownership which our parents and many of the older Members of the House were able to achieve is being impeded by the Government's decision to cancel, annul, finish, annihilate and destroy the RHOSP Program. The amendment with which we are now dealing calls upon the Government to reintroduce a program that over its 11-year history was able to help two and a half million Canadians.
The Government has said that the program was not helping young Canadians. In fact, the figures will show otherwise. The figures show that in 1983, of the 539,719 Canadians who participated in the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, 431,610 were Canadians between the ages of 20 and 34 years. That is not the age of the average Member of the House but the age of the average young person who wants to get a leg up into the housing market.
In Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver and other major urban centres, most renters are paying more and more for accommodation at a time when vacancy rates are shrinking. The natural alternative of home ownership is being impeded by this particular initiative. The cancellation of the RHOSP coupled with the decision to increase the taxes on building materials indicates that the Government has, in the only 15 or 16 months since that fatal blow to the Canadian taxpayers which occurred on September 4, 1984, directly increased the cost of home ownership by anywhere between $500 and $1,500 depending upon estimates. That $500 to $1,500 is reflected in the increased cost of building materials alone. I can see Members opposite straining to hear my comments on interest rates. It is true that interest rates have been attractive enough in the recent past to allow young people to obtain that investment out on the open market. We have also seen that the interest rate situation is not a result of this Government's policies. In fact, the hapless Minister of Finance wrung his hands in the House today and shook his head while telling us to talk to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He told us that he could do nothing about the declining Canadian dollar or rising interest rates. We can be sure that the Minister of Finance will take the credit when interest rates decline. When interest rates begin to rise, as we have seen them do over the last couple of weeks, the Minister will wash his hands of the situation, just as he washed his hands of any responsibility which the Government has to encourage home ownership through programs such as the Registered Home Ownership Saving Plan.
Canadians will look at the two government initiatives before us which we are debating today. On the one hand they will see a $500,000 capital gains write-off which will benefit the top 4 per cent of the Canadian population. The Government stands
Income Tax Act, 1986
four-square behind that capital gains write-off. On the other hand, it nickels and dimes to death those young Canadians who wish to see a $1,000 tax break in order for them to put the money together for a downpayment on their first family home. That is the Conservative philosophy. It is the philosophy of a Party which says to young people: "We do not care that you cannot save $1,000 a year". It is not a great deal of money. It is not enough money to necessarily permit a couple to move into a higher bracket in terms of home ownership. It is not an amount of money which will make a vast difference to many of these couples. However, it may permit them to put together $5,000 or $10,000 or, in the case of a couple, $15,000 or $20,000, which will help them break into what is becoming an increasingly prohibitive housing market in Canada.
When our parents were young most of them could aspire to owning their own homes at some point in time. Many young people today have given up on that particular option. If they can pursue the option it is only because they are "two income families". That is the only way they are able to keep up with mortgage payments and the cost of home ownership which has escalated incredibly over the last number of years. In fact, the Government suggests that this money was not being used for the purchase of homes. Even if the Government were to introduce the demise of the RHOSP would one not think it would make sense to get the money out of those bank accounts and into the market-place? The latest figures indicate that approximately $2.2 billion will be removed from RHOSP accounts and moved into other areas. Would it not have made sense for the Minister of Finance to suggest that this money be directed to either home ownership or toward the purchase of durable Canadian goods such as refrigerators and automobiles? That would provide a stimulus to the economy. Instead, we see our Government imposing a tax measure without providing any documents to buttress its argument that the money is not being spent to buy homes. The Government suggests that this money be taken and used to buy condominiums in Florida, diamonds in South Africa or racehorses in Europe, thus taking advantage of the same type of tax break that would otherwise have been in place.
It would have made sense for the Government to say that if it is eliminating this program then the money which is in those accounts should be freed up and used to invest in Canadian goods and services or Canadian durables such as furniture. However, the Government chose not to follow that course. In its short-sighted view it is sacrificing the hopes and dreams of young Canadians. It is sacrificing those dreams in order to bail out the banks and pay 4 per cent of the population which will benefit from the $500,000 capital gains write-off. In this way it will keep the only promise that it is likely to be able to keep to anyone, that is, the promise to help its friends to line their pockets since this is a Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words with respect to the amendment which is before us. I too share many of the concerns mentioned by the previous speaker. I find it


Income Tax Act, 1986
peculiar that we are now debating an amendment which, fundamentally, is seeking to help young families who wish to purchase their first home. Basically, that is the purpose of the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. The Government has now moved to remove this provision. I am more concerned with the symbolism involved in this particular act. 1 am concered with the type of signal it sends out to young people in Surrey and Richmond in the greater Vancouver area who are working hard to save for the purchase of their first time.


Mr. Blenkarn:: It is just a small tax shelter we are getting rid of for those who can afford to save an extra $1,000 a year!


Nelson Andrew Riis: To those people who obtain incomes from capital gains the Government is saying that there will be no taxes imposed in this respect.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is just a small tax shelter-merely a loophole.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) indicates that this is a tax loophole which, presumably, we wish to keep in place. He is absolutely correct. We feel that this is a tax expenditure with a great deal of merit. We feel there are other tax expenditures which have little, if any, merit. I will mention one of them just for the interest of the Hon. Member.
I refer to the decision that no tax be paid on capital gains of up to $500,000. That is the type of expenditure which will cost the people of Canada a considerable amount of money-in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars. Those people who derive their incomes from capital gains at the moment only pay tax on half of those gains. We feel that is wrong. We also feel it is wrong to pay no tax at all on the first $500,000 of income spread over a number of years. One can call it a loophole or whatever one likes. One can even call it a boondoggle. We say it is ethically inappropriate and morally wrong. It is simply not the right way to treat people in our tax system.
On the other hand, we feel there are some tax expenditures which do make sense. We believe everyone should have access to decent shelter and that they should be able to purchase their own homes if they so wish. Because of the Government's high interest rate policy and because of a number of other reasons which have caused the prices of homes to inflate beyond the means of most Canadians, we feel that this provision could encourage people to save for that very important first downpayment. 1 have no hesitation in saying that that is the type of tax expenditure which we would like to see more of. We would like to see people being encouraged to save for their first home. We like to see people being encouraged to start their own business and being encouraged to find ways and means to start their own farms. Those are legitimate uses for tax expenditure programs.To even think that they are not being used for those purposes and that we want to eliminate this particular provision is wrong. This amendment simply suggests it be restored.
In this way young Canadians could save for the purchase of their first home while being assisted through our tax system.
I would like to hear my hon. friend from Mississauga South stand in his place and explain why he feels that this particular amendment is inappropriate. I would like to hear him once again wax eloquently with respect to those people whose incomes are derived from capital gains and who should not pay any income tax. I would like to hear him explain the thought that if one obtains income from capital gains then tax should only be imposed on half of that gain. Perhaps he could go back a bit further and go into other administrations in order to explain that. In other words, he seems to say that dollars earned by capital gains are evaluated differently from dollars earned by labour. He says that labour should be taxed on the whole dollar. However, if you obtain your income from capital gains, only half of that should be taxed. Now, none of that will be taxed up to $500,000 over a number of years.
This is the kind of useful debate I think we should be hearing in this House and I assume my colleague from Mississauga South will be reacting to some of these comments. I simply want to say that we feel Motion No. 5 is certainly in order. The revenues lost to the federal Government will be more than offset by the generation of investment in new homes, home furnishings, and the assistance that would provide to our manufacturing, construction and forestry sectors. We feel very strongly about this amendment and we will certainly be looking forward to supporting it when the opportunity to vote arrives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Motion No. 6.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: January 15, 1986_____________________________COMMONS
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-84, be amended in Clause 132
(a)	by striking out lines 13 to 16 at page 210.
(6) by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 210 and substituting the following
therefor:
"deducted after a day to be fixed by proclamation."


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may be mistaken but I think Motion No. 6 and No. 7 should be grouped together for debate. They are identical so I suggest we group them for debate.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The same principle is involved even though the issues are slightly different.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The ruling was that they would be debated separately. However, if the House agrees to debate them together?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-84, be amended in Clause 135 {a) by striking out lines 19 to 22 at page 219.
(b)	by striking out lines 25 and 26 at page 219 and substituting the following therefor:
"deducted after a day to be fixed by proclamation."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the committee hearings concerning the sections referred to in Motions Nos. 6 and 7, amendments were introduced to provide that the particular clauses would not come into force and effect until they were specifically proclaimed. Unfortunately, in the rush to put the Bill through and complete it during the day, the detail with respect to the particular clauses was missed. The concept is that employers required to deduct and remit CPP, unemployment insurance and income tax remittances to the Crown must do so and they become a first charge or trust arrangement on those moneys. A problem arises in connection with an insolvency or bankruptcy, however. In the last Parliament there was an offer by the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that if special arrangements were given to allow some preference to wage earners in a bankruptcy or insolvency over and above the preferences presently allowed secured creditors, meaning the banks in particular for those who are not quite sure how this arises, and in connection with floating charge debentures, the Crown would waive its preference. The thrust of this Bill was to reinforce the Crown's preference to this money over and above secured creditors and the like.
There have been a number of discussions between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The result is that the Government would like the matter to rest with the clauses passed but not necessarily proclaimed with this statute. I understand that the clauses will not be proclaimed until such time as the new Insolvency Act is available for discussion in this House and the matter has been brought to the attention of the House. The consequences are, Sir, that if these amend-
DEBATES	9813
Income Tax Act, 1986
ments pass, the preference in favour of the Crown will not exist until proclaimed. That will certainly enable things to be proceeded with in a much easier way with respect to the Insolvency Act when it comes before the House. I therefore ask the House to accept these amendments which are of a technical nature and indeed are already contained in a number of other amendments passed in committee.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I just want to underline the fact that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), with his usual candour, pointed out that it was in the "rush"-I underline that word-to push this Bill through that these provisions were inadvertently dropped. I would remind the House that this was the very point made by Members on this side of the House, including the NDP. One does not rush one of the most fundamental amendments to the Income Tax Act which we have seen in many years. That is the point I would like to make.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell us how it took you three years to pass a Bill when you were in Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-84.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. The first vote will be on the amend-


Income Tax Act, 1986
ment to Motion No. 2. Mr. Garneau, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moves:
That Motion No. 2 be amended by deleting (d) therefrom.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Garneau) which was negatived on the following division:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Order, please. We do not want to have Question Period noise spilling over into our vote taking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
	{Division No. 167)	
Allmand	YEAS Members Gauthier	MitchellAlthousc	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Guilbault	ParryBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	PenncrCaccia	Heap	Prud'hommeCassidy	Hopkins	RiisChretien	Hovdebo	RobichaudCopps	Johnston	RobinsonDeans	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	Rodriguezde Corneille	Kaplan	RompkeyDingwall	Keeper	RossiEpp	MacLellan	Tardif(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Malepart	(Richmond-Finestonc	Marchi	TurnerFoster	McCurdy	(VancouverFrith	McDonald	Young-47.Gagliano	(Broadview-Greenwood)	Garneau	NAYS Members	
Andre
Attewell
Bernier
Bertrand
Bin ns
Blais
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Cardiff
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Cochrane
Collins
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Darling Della Noce Desjardins Dick Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fraleigh
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gervais
Girard
Gormley Gottselig Grisc Gurbin Gustafson Halliday Hardcy Flawkes Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Horner Howie Jacques James Jardine Jelinek Jepson Jourdenais Kempling Ladouceur Landry La Salle Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Malone Marin Martin Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) Mclnnes McKinnon McKnight
McLean Minaker Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberle Paproski Pcnnock Peterson Plamondon Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St. Germain Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow Speyer Stackhouse Tardif
(Charlesbourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Tremblay (Lotbiniere) Tupper Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-124.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to expedite the proceedings I suggest that it might be possible to apply the vote just taken to all of the remaining Motions, with the exception of Motions Nos. 2 and 3. Our intention would be not to vote in the same way on Motions Nos. 2 and 3. It may be necessary to take the vote on Motion No. 2 and apply it to Motion No. 3, and apply the first vote on the amendment to the all the remaining motions.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have been consulting with my colleague, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party. This approach would certainly be satisfactory to the Official Opposition.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to get in touch with the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, but I was unable to do so. What he says seems to be reasonable to me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think I know what we are doing. 1 must, however, put the question on Motion No. 2 because it has not yet been put to the House. Only the amendment was put earlier. The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). 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 please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that on Motion No. 2 Members wish to apply the vote in reverse?

Income Tax Act, 1986


Ian Deans: No.


Mr. Speaker:: We will call the vote on Motion No. 2 and apply it to Motion No. 3. Therefore the question is on Motion No. 2. Mr. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), moves:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-84, be amended in Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 90 the following:
"(d) 'qualified Canadian property' of an individual means a property that was a Canadian security within the meaning assigned by subsection 6 of section
39".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Johnston), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 168)
Plamondon
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Rcimcr
Ricard
Riis
Robinson Rodriguez St. Germain Schellenbcrger (Wetaskiwin) Scowen Shields
Members
Siddon
Sparrow
Speyer
Stackhouse
Tardif
(Charlesbourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec- Est) Tremblay (Lotbiniere) Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carlcton)
Valcourt
Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise
Young-142.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 3. Mr. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), moves:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-84, be amended in Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 91 the following:
"(d) the amount that would be determined in respect of the individual for the year under paragraph 3(b) in respect of the capital gains and capital losses if the only properties referred to in that paragraph were qualified Canadian properties".
Allmand	YEAS Members Gagliano	MacLellanAxworthy	Garneau	MalepartBerger	Gauthier	MarchiCaccia	Gray	PennerChretien	(Windsor West)	Prud'hommeCopps	Guilbault	Robichaudde Corneille	(Saint-Jacques)	RompkeyDingwall	Hopkins	RossiFinestone	Johnston	TardifFoster	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	(Richmond-Wolfe)Frith	Kaplan	Turner(Vancouver Quadra)-29.
I take it that the final vote just taken on Motion No. 2 will apply to this motion.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Johnston), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 169)
++YEAS
Members
++NAYS
Althouse
Andre
Attewell
Benjamin
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Blais
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Boyer
Bradley
Brighlwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Cardiff
Cassidy
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Cochrane
Collins
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Darling Deans Della Noce Desjardins Dick Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)
Members
Epp
(Provencher) Fennell Ferland Fraleigh Fraser Fretz Friesen Gagnon Gass Gerin Gervais Girard Gormley Gottselig Grise Gurbin Gustafson Halliday Hardey Hawkes Heap Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Horner Hovdebo Howie Jacques James Jardine Jelinek Jepson Jourdenais Keeper Kempling Ladouceur Landry La Salle
Allmand	Gagliano	MacLellanAxworthy	Garneau	MalepartBerger	Gauthier	MarchiCaccia	Gray	PennerChretien	(Windsor West)	Prud'hommeCopps	Guilbault	Robichaudde Corneille	(Saint-Jacques)	RompkeyLeblanc	Dingwall	Hopkins	RossiLesick	Finestone	Johnston	TardifLewis	Foster	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	(Richmond-Wolfe)Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Malone	Frith	Kaplan	TurnerAlthouse	NAYS Members Darling	(Vancouver Quadra)-29. HallidayMarin	Andre	Deans	HardeyMartin	Attewell	Della Noce	HawkesMazankowski	Benjamin	Desjardins	HeapMcCain	Bernier	Dick	HicksMcCrossan	Bertrand	Dorin	HnatyshynMcCurdy	Binns	Duguay	HockinMcDermid	Blais	Duplessis	HoltmannMcDonald	Blenkarn	Edwards	Horner(Broadview-Greenwood)	Bouchard	Epp	HovdeboMcDougall	Boyer	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Howie(St. Paul's)	Bradley	Epp	JacquesMclnnes	Brightwell	(Provencher)	JamesMcKinnon	Brisco	Fennell	JardineMcKnight	Browes	Ferland	JelinekMcLean	Cadieux	Fraleigh	JepsonMinakcr	Cardiff	Fraser	JourdenaisMitchell	Cassidy	Fretz	KeeperNicholson	Champagne	Friesen	Kempling(Niagara Falls)	(Champlain)	Gagnon	LadouceurNickerson	Clark	Gass	LandryNielsen	(Brandon-Souris)	Gerin	La SalleNystrom	Cochrane	Gervais	LeblancOberle	Collins	Girard	LesickOrlikow	Cooper	Gormley	LewisPa proski	Corbett	Gottselig	LopezParry	Cossitt	Grise	MacDonaldPennock	Cote	Gurbin	(Kingston andPeterson	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Gustafson	the Islands)
Income Tax Act, 1986
Members
MacDougall	Nielsen	Stackhouse	Cooper	Jacques	Paproski(Timiskaming)	Nystrom	Tardif	Corbett	James	PennockMacKay	Oberle	(Charlcsbourg)	Cossitt	Jardine	PetersonMailly	Orlikow	Taylor	Cote	Jelinek	PlamondonMalone	Pa proski	Thacker	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Jepson	RavisMarin	Parry	Towers	Darling	Jourdenais	RedwayMartin	Pennock	Tremblay	Della Noce	Kempling	ReidMazankowski	Peterson	(Quebec- Est)	Desjardins	Ladouceur	ReimerMcCain	Plamondon	Tremblay	Dick	Landry	RicardMcCrossan	Ravis	(Lotbiniere)	Dorin	La Salle	St. GermainMcCurdy	Redway	Tupper	Duguay	Leblanc	SchellenbergerMcDermid	Reid	Turner	Duplessis	Lesick	(Wetaskiwin)McDonald	Reimcr	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Edwards	Lewis	Scowen(Broadview-Greenwood)	Ricard	Valcourt	Epp	Lopez	ShieldsMcDougall	Riis	Vincent	(Provencher)	MacDonald	Siddon(St. Paul's)	Robinson	Weiner	Fennell	(Kingston and	SparrowMclnnes	Rodriguez	Wilson	Ferland	the Islands)	SpeyerMcKinnon	St. Germain	(Swift Current-	Fraleigh	MacDougall	StackhouseMcKnight	Schellenberger	Maple Creek)	Fraser	(Timiskaming)	TardifMcLean	(Wetaskiwin)	Wilson	Fretz	MacKay	(CharlcsbourjMinaker	Scowen	(Etobicoke Centre)	Friesen	Mailly	TaylorMitchell	Shields	Winegard	Gagnon	Malone	ThackerNicholson	Siddon	Wise	Gass	Marin	Towers(Niagara Falls)	Sparrow	Young-142.	Gerin	Martin	TremblayNickerson	Speyer	Gervais	Mazankowski	(Quebec-Est)Girard	McCain	TremblayGormley	McCrossan	(Lotbiniere)Gottselig	McDermid	TupperGrise	McDougall	Turner


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 4. Mr. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Gray (Windsor West), moves:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 65.
I take it the intention is to apply on this vote the same vote as was taken on the amendment to Motion No. 2, the first vote we took tonight.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Johnston), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 170)
Gurbin Gustafson Halliday Hardey Hawkes Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Horner Howie
(St. Paul's) Mclnnes McKinnon McKnight McLean Minaker Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberle
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-124.
Allmand	Gauthier	MitchellAlthouse	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Guilbault	ParryBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	PennerCaccia	Heap	Prud'hommeCassidy	Hopkins	RiisChretien	Hovdebo	RobichaudCopps	Johnston	RobinsonDeans	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	Rodriguezde Corneille	Kaplan	RompkeyDingwall	Keeper	RossiEpp	MacLellan	Tardif(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Malepart	(Richmond-Finestone	Marchi	TurnerFoster	McCurdy	(VancouverFrith	McDonald	Young-47.Gagliano	(Broadview-Greenwood)	Garneau Andre	NAYS Members Bouchard	CardiffAttewell	Boyer	ChampagneBernier	Bradley	(Champlain)Bertrand	Brightwell	ClarkBinns	Brisco	(Brandon-ScBlais	Browes	CochraneBlenkarn	Cadieux	Collins


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moves:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 82.
I take it the intention is to apply to Motion No. 5 the same vote just applied to Motion No. 4.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Johnston), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 171)
++YEAS
Allmand	Gauthier	MitchellAlthouse	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Guilbault	ParryBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	PennerCaccia	Heap	Prud'hommeCassidy	Hopkins	RiisChretien	Hovdebo	RobichaudCopps	Johnston	RobinsonDeans	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)	Rodriguezde Corneille	Kaplan	RompkeyDingwall	Keeper	RossiEpp	MacLellan	Tardif(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Malepart	(Richmond-Finestone	Marchi	TurnerFoster	McCurdy	(VancouverFrith	McDonald	Young-47.Gagliano Garneau	(Broadview-Greenwood)	
(Division No. 171)
Andre
Attewell
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Blais
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Cardiff
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Cochrane
Collins
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Darling Della Noce Desjardins Dick Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fraleigh
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gervais
Girard
NAYS Members Gormley Gottselig Grise Gurbin Gustafson Halliday Hardey Hawkes Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Horner Howie Jacques James Jardine Jelinek Jepson Jourdenais Kempling Ladouceur Landry La Salle Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Malone Marin Martin Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) Mclnnes McKinnon McKnight
McLean Minaker Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberlc Paproski Pennock Peterson Plamondon Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St. Germain Schellenbcrger (Wetaskiwin) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow Speyer Stackhouse Tardif
(Charlcsbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-124.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motions Nos. 6 and 7 were carried on division earlier, therefore no vote is required.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, as amended, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 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 yeas have it.
Income Tax Act, 1986
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be a disposition to have the very first vote we took applied to this measure as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that some Members of the House would like it applied in reverse.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 172)
++YEAS
Andre
Attewell
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Blais
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Cardiff
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Cochrane
Collins
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Darling Della Noce Desjardins Dick Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Provencher)
Members
Gormley Gottselig Grise Gurbin Gustafson Halliday Hardey Hawkes Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Horner Howie Jacques James Jardine Jelinek Jepson Jourdenais Kempling Ladouceur Landry La Salle Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Malone
McLean
Minaker
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberle Paproski Pennock Peterson Plamondon Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St. Germain Schellenbcrger (Wetaskiwin) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow Speyer Stackhouse Tardif
(Charles bourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Tremblay (Lotbiniere) Tupper Turner
Fennell	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ferland	Martin	ValcourtFraleigh	Mazankowski	VincentFraser	McCain	WeinerFretz	McCrossan	WilsonFriesen	McDermid	(Swift Current-Gagnon	McDougall	Maple Creek)Gass	(St. Paul's)	WilsonGerin	Mclnnes	(Etobicoke Centre)Gervais	McKinnon	WinegardGirard	McKnight
NAYS Members	Wise-124.Allmand	Dingwall	GuilbaultAlthouse	Epp	(Saint-Jacques)Axworthy	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	HeapBenjamin	Finestone	HopkinsBerger	Foster	HovdeboCaccia	Frith	JohnstonCassidy	Gagliano	(Saint-Henri-Westmount)Chretien	Garneau	KaplanCopps	Gauthier	KeeperDeans	Gray	MacLellande Corneille	(Windsor West)	Malepart
Income Tax Act, 1986
Members
Marchi	Parry
McCurdy	Penner
McDonald	Prud'homme
(Broadview-Greenwood) Riis Mitchell	Robichaud
Nystrom	Robinson
Orlikow	Rodriguez
Rompkey
Rossi
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe)
Turner
(Vancouver Quadra) Young-47.


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Some Hon. Members:: Never.


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the motion is adopted on the same recording as the one on the amendment and on Motions Nos. 4 and 5 but in reverse.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, January 16, 1986