1986-10-29

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a massive rally being held today in Toronto by Indian people. About 2,000 people from Indian communities throughout Ontario are attending this rally. The Premier of Ontario and the Ontario Attorney General will address them.
This rally is being held in support of the right of aboriginal people to self-determination and to show politicians, both federal and provincial, and the Canadian public that selfgovernment has grassroots support. The people support the efforts of their leaders who are trying to get their rights to selfdetermination and self-government recognized in the Canadian Constitution.
At the next First Ministers' Conference in the spring of 1987, the Government will have a special responsibility in this issue and must show leadership. The aboriginal peoples of Canada will not be satisfied until the rights of aboriginal peoples to self determination and self-government are recognized in the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday natural gas deregulation is slated to start. To the consumer this means lower prices. To the producers it means access to larger markets. To both it means a competitive, not a regulated, environment.
TransCanada Pipelines is Canada's major gas carrier. It buys, it moves, it sells, and it produces gas. This concentration of power works to its benefit and to the detriment of an open, competitive gas market. TransCanada's transportation system must be severed from both its marketing arm and its producing company so that the three parts have not only separate management but also separate ownership.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Conservative Government has cut into scientific research appropriations, and they realize that scientists are becoming unemployed as a result of these cut-backs. Not as widely known is the fact that social science and humanities researchers fare even worse under this Government. Grants to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councils of Canada do not match those awarded to other councils doing research in natural and medical sciences. Besides, owing to discriminatory tax regulation 2900, social science and humanities researchers are not allowed to seek private sector support.
Private sector companies which make grants to universities for scientific or medical research are eligible for tax credits. No such preferential treatment applies to research in humanities. Scientists in every field of university research deserve adequate funding, and discrimination against humanities is totally unwarranted.


WORLD PEACE DAY
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, today, I have for the House a very special message which 800 young primary school pupils at the Sainte-Lucie School in Jonquiere gave me last Friday as part of their special activities in connection with the World Day of Peace. Mr. Speaker, the following is a quote from the message of peace I was given by Stephanie Gravel on behalf of the pupils of her school and asked to transmit to our Right Hon. Prime Minister.
"During the past few days, I have worked very hard on the peace project. I realize there are a lot of wars going on in the world, and that a great many people have died as a result of those wars. Today, nuclear bombs are powerful enough to destroy the entire surface of the earth. We ask you, the representatives of our country, to do everything you can for world peace."
Mr. Speaker, all the pupils at this school worked very hard on this presentation, and I have nothing but praise for this

October 29, 1986
admirable project initiated by the Sainte-Lucie teaching staff at Jonquiere, who felt it was important their pupils understand what the World Day of Peace means.


FERRIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic is at it again. Over the past weekend we were informed that passengers will pay 30 cents more for each oneway crossing from Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick. Rates on the Nova Scotia-Newfoundland service will increase by $1 per passenger and $2 per vehicle one way, with various rate increases for other ferry services provided by Marine Atlantic.
There was no consultation with the Premiers of Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland before these increases were announced. This type of treatment of our island provinces must stop. The Mulroney Government must stop hiding behind Marine Atlantic and other Crown corporations, and stand up for the rights of our island provinces.
It is time the Government told Marine Atlantic that enough is enough. It is time that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) recognized that Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are part of the Canadian Confederation, and as such should be treated equally with other Canadians. They should be able to travel to and from their sister provinces without paying those unjust ferry rate increases.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, the five-member all-party subcommittee on the Canadian National Railways pension system was appointed by the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Don Mazankowski, in April, 1985, to study all aspects of the Canadian National Railways Pension system. The report of the subcommittee contained recommendations that were comprehensive, fair, and realistic. It was presented to the House of Commons in April, 1986, and forwarded to Canadian National Railways for study and reaction. Six months have passed. Although pensioners have waited patiently and expectantly, CN has not yet responded. Our excellent efforts as a Government in general pension reform, and the sincere concerns expressed by CN pensioners appear to have gone unnoticed by CN. The only response from that corporation to date has been silence.
My patience and the patience of the 47,000 Canadian National pensioners are rapidly eroding. Canadian National and its board of directors would be well served by responding positively to the recommendations for increases in pensions, spouses' allowances, and survivor benefits. CN must reply quickly to show that it is concerned about the financial security of those who gave many years of service to the Canadian National Railways system.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I recently wrote to the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada about the future of Statistics Canada in Winnipeg. Until last year the Winnipeg office worked with one regional director and two assistant regional directors. The director retired last year and he has not been replaced. The two assistant regional directors report to the regional director in the Edmonton office.
This is not the first time this has happened to Winnipeg since the Tories took office in 1984. The CN tried it in its prairie region. Transport Canada had it in mind in respect to the regional office in Winnipeg. Now Statistics Canada is getting away with it by downgrading its office in Winnipeg.
How many more times does this have to happen before Manitoba Members of Parliament in the Conservative Party stand up to the Edmonton caucus and the Vegreville caucus which seem to want to move everything of regional significance from Winnipeg to Edmonton? Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament from Manitoba say absolutely nothing about it. They should be ashamed of themselves.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Government will be announcing the new immigration targets for next year. Speculation has it that these numbers will be increased However, I warn the Minister and the Government that it is futile to set unattainable targets; by this I mean not matching the figures with the resources and personnel available in our consulates across the world to process the appropriate numbers.
For instance, this year targets have been set at between
105,000	to 115,000. However, immigration officials have confirmed that, based upon six-month statistics, these numbers
October 29, 1986

will only reach a maximum of about 85,000 to 90,000. Therefore it is intellectually dishonest for the Minister and the Government to go across the country saying that immigration levels are at 115,000 for this year when in fact the people coming to Canada will only number approximately 85,000.
I ask the Minister to ensure, when he announces the targets tomorrow, that they will be attainable by giving appropriate resources and personnel to our consulates across the world.


TOURISM
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as a tourism study released earlier this year indicated, Canada possesses a great variety of tourist attractions. My constituency of Sarnia-Lambton on the shores of the Great Lakes has many attractions and diverse activities to offer visitors to our area. The Great Lakes are one of the most beautiful areas in the country and should be touted, for all to hear, as a glorious vacation destination. From a weekend, to a month, to a lifetime, we have attractions which cannot be matched anywhere else in the two North American countries.
I ask the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt), on behalf of the Government of Canada, to look into beginning co-operative efforts with the U.S. State Governments along the Great Lakes to publicize and promote a co-operative tourism effort.
I serve notice to the Minister that I will be following his progress on this suggestion very closely in the future. A result could very well be the reactivation of the cruise ships plying the Great Lakes and rivers, tying up at Sarnia, Bay City, Windsor, and Port Stanley.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on page 16 of the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry the following recommendation was made to Parliament:
The Minister of National Defence should immediately halt all North Shore and Labrador low-level military air flights and assess the effects of such flights on the environment in these regions, as soon as possible.
There were 24 Members of Parliament who participated in the study-20 Conservatives, 2 Liberals, and 2 New Democrats. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) failed to live up to the recommendation in the 120 days since the report was tabled and now publicly refuses to do so.
The federal environmental assessment review reference is fatally flawed. Its terms of reference only allow for assessing ways of mitigating the impact of low-level flights, not for stopping them if they are unacceptable.
In my view the actions taken to date by the Minister of National Defence show contempt for the Standing Committee, and in particular for those three Newfoundland Members of Parliament who participated in this extensive study. What about the rights of the Innu? Can no one hear their voices?


TELESAT CANADA
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Telesat Canada, which is 50 per cent owned by the federal Government, recently signed a contract with Spar Aerospace Ltd. to build the two most powerful dual-bank satellites ever to serve North America. Telesat will pay Spar $180.5 million for these new generation satellites known as Anik-El and Anik-E2.
The Government assisted Spar in the development of these versatile and reliable satellites with a $53 million federal grant in August. These satellites are scheduled for completion in 1989, and launch in 1990. This generation of satellites is at the leading edge of current technology and will sell in international markets well into the next century.
The contract also ensures that Telesat Canada will be able to meet the needs of Canadian broadcasters and other telecommunications users for state of the art data, voice, and broadcasting services at very reasonable cost.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we had the honour and the privilege of meeting with people from the UPA who represent Quebec farmers. They took a clear stand against the Conservative Government's position on continuing free trade talks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Members are barking again, but I hope they will support the UPA and ask the Conservative Government to take agriculture off the table. Second, Mr. Speaker-

October 29, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure all Members would be pleased to allow the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to continue his statement.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Second, Mr. Speaker, the UPA said that it disagreed with Bill C-25, which will result in a loss of millions of dollars for Quebec farmers.
I hope all Conservative Members in this House will finally wake up and protect Quebec farmers, something they are not doing at the present time.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ISRAELI DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of Mr. Yitzhak Navon, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and Culture for the State of Israel.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or, in his absence, to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the political patronage involved in awarding contracts for the prison at Port-Cartier.
Today it was reported in the press that one of the architects for the consortium that was awarded the contract said he was told to utilize the services of consulting engineers Desseau, Dupont and Desmeules from Montreal. Could the Prime Minister inform the House why his Government made the architects hire this firm? Could it be because the firm contributed several thousand dollars to the Conservative Party's coffers, or is it just a coincidence?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of inquiries from Members opposite in the last number of days concerning this particular
issue. I reaffirm the information I gave last week, that is, all contracts awarded with respect to the prison were awarded according to Treasury Board guidelines. My learned friend is well aware of that fact.


REPORTED DONATIONS TO PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we have made a number of inquiries but we have had very few answers from the Government.
According to the same architect, local companies have no choice but to attend Tory fundraising events and make generous donations to the Conservative Party if they hope to get any government work. Why is this practice allowed to happen? When will the Government put a stop to this kind of nonsense and this abuse of taxpayers' money?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member would bring to the attention of the House the fact that he received a copy of the Auditor General's letter dated October 27 which was the basis of much of the criticism that he raised last week. In this letter concerning sole sourcing it was admitted by the Auditor General that he had made a mistake in his report. I thought the Hon. Member would have brought that message to the attention of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP-PMO REPRESENTATIVE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should be careful. The Auditor General never said that, and he knows it. He will have to rectify his answer later.
Is this pork-barreling to Tory friends not the real reason why Mr. Simon Landry of the Prime Minister's Office sits on the board concerning the construction of Port-Cartier, or is that another coincidence?


Mr. Nunziata:: It's corruption.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, my learned friend indicates that I made an error concerning the letter from the Auditor General. The letter states: "There is the possibility of a mistake in the statement regarding sole source contracts". I can say that the Auditor General has gone on to confirm that that is the case.


OPPORTUNITY FOR PRIME MINISTER TO APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE EXAMINING PORT-CARTIER PROJECT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit the Government is not being particularly forthcoming in providing information on Port-Cartier, but there are other Members in this House who are. I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of his boss, and ask him the following: Since a committee of the
October 29, 1986

House decided yesterday evening to hold hearings on the entire Port-Cartier question and to ask the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, could the Deputy Prime Minister take steps to ensure that the Prime Minister will do so?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr, Speaker, for the information of Hon. Members, I reviewed all the contracts awarded for the F-..., for Port-Cartier.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: And the F-18 too! I reviewed that one as well.
1 can inform you, Mr. Speaker, that in both cases, contracts were awarded on a competitive basis. And in both cases, this was done in accordance with the Treasury Board's criteria and guidelines. 1 shall be delighted to give any Member of this House a list of the contracts awarded, with the amount, date and conditions governing the contracts.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if you can find any relevance there to my question, you must be a genius!
I will repeat my question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Since a committee of the House decided yesterday evening to hold hearings on the Port-Cartier question and has decided to ask the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, can we expect the Prime Minister to appear before the committee and clarify this whole case?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think I already answered the Hon. Member's question-


An Hon. Member:: No!


Robert René de Cotret: Do you want chapter and verse on Port-Cartier? Do you want to know exactly what happened in the matter of Port-Cartier?
Mr. Speaker, we shall be delighted, and I shall be delighted personally, if so required, to appear before the committee and describe each of the contracts awarded to the lowest bidder and to the most competent bidder, in each case, and we certainly have no apologies for the way contracts were awarded in this particular instance.


ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. I was sent a copy of the letter dated October 27 to which the Minister referred. I checked with the Auditor General's office today and was told that the contracts in question today, namely,
Oral Questions
concerning the architectural firms which contributed to the Conservative Party and which are alleged to have received the contract for the prison in the Prime Minister's riding without tenders, are not what is referred to in the letter the Minister has cited.
Is the Minister telling the House that the architectural firms which got this contract did so only after they submitted a bid on tender?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that, as is normal practice, three firms were invited to tender. They all tendered and were evaluated. Their technical evaluations came in at various levels, obviously. The cost was considered and, in the total evaluation made by the Department concerned, the firm with the highest ratio, and by a good amount, got the contract.
I will give the Hon. Member the amounts. The firm that got the contract had a rating of 110.5. The second firm was 98.5. The third firm was 93.5. The cost differential on a contract of over $1 million was less than $40,000.


CONTRACT BIDS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is important to clarify all of this. Is the Minister saying that the three firms which obtained the contract were the three lowest bidders?


Robert René de Cotret: No. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be very clear and I will be happy to give the Hon. Member the documents. There were three groups invited to tender. They were evaluated on technical criteria. I can give the technical results. Firm A had 101.5 as a technical rating. Firm B had 96.5. Firm C had 81.5. Once the cost was factored in, following normal procedures and tendering practices, Firm A had 110.5, Firm B had 98.5 and Firm C had 93.5. The contract was given to the firm which had the highest evaluation.


TREASURY BOARD GUIDELINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a lot of haziness or uncertainty about the criteria used. Will the Minister confirm that the guidelines which the Treasury Board of the newly elected Conservative Government is using are the same guidelines it inherited from the Liberals, which guideliness permit the Government to award thousands of contracts worth millions of dollars without going through the tendering process?


Mr. Benjamin:: Nothing has changed.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, those allegations are, to say the least, incorrect.


John Edward Broadbent: It was a question.

October 29, 1986
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: The contract was given to the firm which was judged the most competent to give the best value for the money of Canadian taxpayers. That is the basis on which this Government gives all its contracts.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and is with regard to the appointees to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. In defending those appointments yesterday the Minister of Justice said that the decision was made on the basis of competence.
I have looked through the curriculum vitae of Madame Moreau- Landry and I sent a copy of it to the Minister to refresh his memory. There is nothing in it which is relevant to service on a Human Rights Tribunal. Was the Minister's decision about the competence of Madam Moreau-Landry based on this CV which his office made public, or did he consider other information and representations in making his decision about her?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of. Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question points out that we do have scrutiny of appointment provisions in our new rules. The Hon. Member is quite entitled to request that Madam Moreau-Landry appear before the committee where she can answer these questions directly. The Hon. Member need not take my word for it. He can speak to her himself and ask her the questions he thinks appropriate about her qualifications.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister, not the candidate whom we will examine in due
course.


BASES FOR MINISTER'S DECISION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, was the Minister's decision based on this curriculum vitae, or did he make the decision based on other information and representations? If so, what were they?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the appointments which I am responsible for bringing before Cabinet I try to recognize a number of factors, including the fact that we want to have competent women and representatives of minority groups involved in this process. Indeed, I believe that 15 of the 28 people who were appointed are from backgrounds other than English or French. I think it is important to have a cross-section of Canadians available in a pool from which an independent chairman can select these tribunals, depending upon the circumstances.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Would he explain to the House why the contract for architectural services at Port-Cartier was not put out to public tender but only to a list of selected suppliers? Canadians thought we had put an end to the stench and nonsense of this selection process-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has put his question and is going into argumentative debate.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member was here last Friday when I explained, in some detail, the process which was followed. We always put construction projects out to public tender. Another process is used for engaging consultants. This process has been in place and approved by Treasury Board for a very long time and has withstood the test of scrutiny.
[DOT] (M30)


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Those were the old Liberal guidelines that we thought we were rid of in this country.
My supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday the steering committee of the Justice Committee adopted my motion to ask the Prime Minister to appear before the Justice Committee to clear the air on the patronage and corruption which appear to surround the Port-Cartier prison deal. My question is very straightforward. Will the Solicitor General assure the House that the Prime Minister will in fact appear before the Justice Committee, as the Steering Committee has asked him to do, and come clean with respect to this deal?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question. I will be more than happy to appear before any committee of the House, and give all the details.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: We did not ask you. You are not invited.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Prime Minister, Bob, not you.


Robert René de Cotret: Do you want the information?


Svend Johannes Robinson: We want the Prime Minister.


Robert René de Cotret: Do you want Canadians to know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Laurier.
October 29, 1986


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Prime Minister said in his book that a one point increase in research and development would create one million jobs and he promised to double Canada's spending on research and development to 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product. Yesterday the Minister said that he was steering away from that goal and that 1.3 per cent might be adequate. Why has he abandoned the Government's goal of doubling spending on research and development to 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for reading the Prime Minister's book. I recommend it to most Canadians because it lays out a clear vision for the future of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: The Hon. Member asked about my statements relating to spending targets. I cannot recall abandoning any target that I had announced previously.


David Berger: 1 read the reprint of the Prime Minister's book. It is entitled "Where I Stood".


GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVE
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer is clearly not satisfactory. The science community and all Canadians are looking for leadership and direction. Does the Minister stand clearly by his Party's stated goal and, if not, what is his goal?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I spent three hours on Monday night clearly laying out the goal of the new Government. It operates in two phases. The first phase, which is now complete, was to clean up the mess that was left behind from 20 years of Liberal neglect. The next phase is to bring Canada to the new frontier and establish our presence there.


PENITENTIARIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Earlier in the Question Period he referred to a letter that was sent to me, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as to some other cabinet Ministers. He said that this letter from the Auditor General referred to the contracts that are in
Oral Questions
question before the House today. The Auditor General's office has again confirmed with me that this letter has nothing to do with that contract. Will the Minister tell us why he is quoting it and leaving the wrong impression in the House?


Stewart Donald McInnes: I would be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker. A great number of allegations have been raised in the House about the practices that have been involved in Port-Cartier. A number of newspaper reports, and indeed questions from Members opposite, were based on statements in the Auditor General's report. It has been brought to our attention that some of those statements were in error and I wanted to clarify the record, which I did.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister just admitted that in referring to this letter in answers he gave earlier to a member of the Official Opposition, he was incorrectly referring to the letter, and he should have said that.


AWARDING OF CONTRACTS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. There continues to be a practice in Canada of the Government giving contracts worth millions of dollars, without tender, to companies that often donate to political Parties, which leaves the impression of favouritism. Considering this, will his Government take action now to put an end to this process and have public tendering for all contracts?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first let me respond to the preamble to the question. The letter that was quoted refers to Section 7.95 of the Auditor General's report where he states very clearly:
-that in order to meet the deadline, CSC had to use shortcuts to its normal contracting procedures. For example, it entered into sole source contracts for project management and for the preparation of preliminary site plans.
That is the letter that was referred to and the Auditor General refers directly to that paragraph, saying there is a possibility of a mistake.


John Edward Broadbent: I am telling you to ask him.


Robert René de Cotret: I am telling you that in terms of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister may tell the Hon. Member anything he wishes, but it must come through the Chair.


Robert René de Cotret: I have told the Hon. Member, and I will tell him again, that all contracts of which I have knowledge that were given in this project, were given through the normal competitive process approved by Treasury Board and they were given to the lowest bidder-


John Edward Broadbent: On invitation.


Robert René de Cotret: -or the most technically competent bidder. We are getting full value for the taxpayers' money through this process.

October 29, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On June 20, 1985, the then Minister responsible for Canada Post announced that before future rate increases are considered by Cabinet, Canada Post must implement new measures to improve productivity. Will Cabinet consider the two-cent increase proposed by Canada Post and, if so, what new measures were implemented to improve productivity for the Canada Post system?
[ Translation]


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who answers for Canada Post repeatedly stated in the House, the Government has received the Canada Post business plan and will take it under consideration. An announcement will be made in due time.


FORTHCOMING BUSINESS PLAN TO BE PRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT-REQUEST FOR DETAILS
Alfonso Gagliano: In answer to my question yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post was not sure what would be tabled, so today I should like to ask the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) if the business plan to be unveiled by Canada Post within a few days will be a consultation paper or Government policy. Are we going to learn the truth once and for all?


Bernard Valcourt: Whenever the announcement is made, Mr. Speaker, it will be Government policy.


FINANCE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The junior mining companies, prospectors, and developers, the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, investment houses and drilling companies are very concerned about the future of the flow-through shares system. Will the Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to make sure that this program continues for years to come?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. His interest in the mining industry is well known. We are studying the use of flow-through shares in the broad context of tax reform. I would not want to pre-judge the results of this broad
exercise and the related consultations at this early stage of the process. However, the Minister of Finance will be meeting with the Mining Association of Canada on November 17 to discuss tax reform in general. I am sure this subject will come up.


OLYMPICS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns tickets for the 1988 Olympics. He will know that yesterday we did not get an ironclad statement from the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport ensuring that 75 per cent of all tickets, including those for gold medal events, would go to the general public. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give his commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada that it will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that tickets for all events, including the medal events, will be available to the general public at a rate of 75-25?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is out of the House on business. However, I can advise the Hon. Member that the Minister's position is that 75 per cent of all tickets should be available to the public. He is negotiating that with the Olympics Committee.


GOVERNMENT'S TICKET ALLOTMENT
Iain Francis Angus: My supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister. Will the Minister confirm that the federal Government has asked for as many as 6,000 tickets to be held in its name? If he can confirm that, would he agree to have the information regarding which groups those tickets will go to tabled in the House?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can confirm is that the Minister's principle with respect to 75 per cent is firmly held and he is negotiating that. I will bring the other matters to the attention of the Minister when he returns to the House.


DEREGULATION OF NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We are rapidly approaching the time when the so-called
October 29, 1986

deregulation of gas is supposed to take place, that is, deregulation of production but not transportation or distribution. What is the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government doing to protect the small producer who now stands to be ripped off when deregulation takes place on November 1 ?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I can tell you he is at the present time dealing, working, and negotiating with the Minister of Energy for Alberta and with the other Ministers of Energy across Canada. Those discussions are going ahead very well. We are assured that the Natural Gas Markets and Prices Program which was announced last year will come into effect.


PROTECTION OF SMALL PRODUCERS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this is October 29. The deregulation is suppose to take place on October 31, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is still negotiating an important subject like this. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again what the Government is doing to ensure the small producer does not get crushed in this deregulation move.
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, one thing this Government does not do is act unilaterally. We are negotiating. The Minister is out there and will make an announcement soon.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. He has been saying that the NRC budget cut-backs will not jeopardize public safety, yet the Prime Minister did promise improvements aimed at protecting us against crime, fighting terrorism, and tackling the drug traffic issue. Can the Minister explain why he is axing projects of the NRC public safety section which provides every description of scientific assistance to police forces in all Canadian communities?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, what I did say is that the cuts or reductions in programs which were announced by the NRC would, of course, be reviewed by myself and my colleagues in the context of the operating plan which has to be approved by Cabinet. In the event that public health and safety or important priorities of the Government would be affected by any of these cuts, these programs would, of course, be reviewed and kept intact.
Oral Questions


EFFECT ON RESEARCH DONE FOR POLICE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Chief of Police of Metropolitan Toronto and the chairman of the advisory committee to the project said these cuts will be devastating to police research. Will the Minister of State for Science and Technology not acknowledge that the muddle-headed cuts going on at NRC have already caused too much harm and ought to be stopped now and the whole process reviewed by the House Committee on Science and Technology so we can have an orderly process in developing a science and technology policy which will not devastate and savage the NRC?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the cuts to which the Hon. Member refers are not being made now. They were made back in May. The specific section to which the Hon. Member makes reference is not at all a research section but a group of four or five people who co-ordinate research which goes on in other departments and liaises with client groups such as the Hon. Member mentioned.
I said I would look into this matter. The research, obviously, is not impaired by this cut as the Hon. Member alleges, but if, indeed, the capability of the NRC to serve outside client groups is seriously impaired in this important area, I will look into it and see what can be done to preserve it.


EMPLOYMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last Monday, the employees of Versatile Davie in Lauzon were very disappointed to learn that, in spite of the commitment made by the Government, they will not be receiving $3.7 million to create temporary employment, but only $1 million. Can the Minister explain why his Government did not keep its commitment to the Davie workers in Quebec City?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie for giving me the opportunity to tell the House that we have accepted to contribute $1 million to help former employees of the shipyards around Levis. Given the quality of the projects submitted and the situation of employment in the region, there is no way that the Government could make a commitment months in advance about a situation which might change. We have committed $1 million, but I never eliminated the possibility, as

October 29, 1986
Oral Questions
pointed out in the release you have before you, of doing more if necessary.


INQUIRY WHETHER SOREL AND MONTREAL EMPLOYEES CAN EXPECT SAME RIGHTS AS QUEBEC CITY WORKERS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister did not tell us why he did not contribute the $3.7 million, but he will recognize that the same problems exist at Marine Industries in Sorel and at Versatile Vickers in Montreal. Can the Minister now promise that the employees of Marine Industries in Sorel and Versatile Vickers in Montreal will have the same rights and the same programs as the workers in Quebec City?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there is no magic recipe to solve employment problems. We analysed a particular situation in Quebec City and made an appropriate response. If we are asked to intervene in other areas, not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada, we shall do so according to the needs identified.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Deputy Prime Minister and rephrase a question which was posed before. I do not think the Government heard it right. The Steering Committee of the Committee on Justice, of which I am pleased to be a member, passed a motion moved by the Hon. Member for Burnaby that the Prime Minister should appear before that committee and answer questions on Port-Cartier. My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister appear before that committee?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has indicated he is prepared to provide all the information necessary in connection with this particular issue. He said he is prepared to appear before the committee as long as is necessary, and to provide all the necessary information. I am not sure whether it is customary for Prime Ministers to appear before standing committees, other than the fact that the Hon. Members across the way want to do a little grandstanding.


Mr. Nystrom:: Cover-up.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: They couldn't draw a crowd on their own.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given that the Prime Minister's Office has been involved in this matter of the location of the prison, and given that the Steering Committee did not ask for the President of the Treasury Board, why will the Government not accommodate the Steering Committee, and the Canadian people who want to know these answers, and let the Prime Minister appear before the Commmittee on Justice?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is interested in information or in creating a bit of a scene. I think, quite frankly, if he is interested in information, the President of the Treasury Board has given information.


John Edward Broadbent: Misinformation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The President of the Treasury Board is indeed responsible. He is prepared to appear before the committee and give the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members all the information they require.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Cover-up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is not information the Hon. Members are after, it is really something else. They are just doing a little grandstanding, I submit.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In April of 1985 the president of a Quebec-based consulting firm, LMBDS-Sidam Inc., Mr. Pierre Lajoie, wrote to the Prime Minister outlining a proposal to undertake the construction of a $7 billion jetty between the island of Newfoundland and Labrador. I sent a copy of the proposal to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can he advise the House whether or not the Government is considering supporting financially, for the purposes of economic, environmental and social impact studies, this proposal by the Quebec-based consulting firm?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have just received the document to which the Hon. Member has referred. I have not had a chance to read it but I will certainly take it under advisement.


October 29, 1986


FEDERAL FINANCING INQUIRY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister responsible for DRIE has also met with representatives of this company to discuss the possibility of federal government funding for this project. I wonder if the Acting Minister of DRIE can inform the House whether or not federal financing for further studies, environmental and others, on this project is being considered at this time and whether or not information is being exchanged with the Government of Newfoundland on this project.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I shall take notice of the question and refer it to the Minister so that he may reply to the Hon. Member.


FINANCE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Finance.
Under the tax review program of the Government, you must be planning to meet groups who represent the Canadian public.
Have you planned to meet groups from Quebec, such as the Conseil du patronat, the Groupement quebecois d'entreprises and the Chambre de commerce de Montreal? If so, when will you be meeting these groups?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we shall be meeting many groups from Quebec, including the Mouvement Desjardins, the Conseil du patronat and the Confederation of National Trade Unions.


SOCIAL SCIENCES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question as well is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The Government has told the research councils to find more private-sector money and has instituted a matching grant formula, yet a double standard between the granting agencies has been instituted. What convoluted answer can the
Oral Questions
Minister provide us to justify tax credits for donations to the natural and medical sciences but not to the social sciences and the humanities? Is the Government telling us that social sciences and the humanities are simply not that important?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, certainly the premise of the question is not acceptable. It turns out that the Government's grants to all of these councils have been meaningfully increased. It is true that certain parts are matched differently but the over-all contribution will increase greatly. That should be clear to all Members of the House.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Secretary of State who is in charge of funding for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. How can the Minister, who is a decent and fair-minded person, continue to serve a Government that so blatantly treats research particularly in the social sciences and humanities with such contempt and unfairness?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, this morning I met with the Chairman of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. He supports the Government, as I would expect the Hon. Member should.


OLDER WORKERS' ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Since the Labour Adjustment Benefit program was terminated last August, and as the Minister of Finance made the announcement in his last Budget, can the Minister tell the House what initiative he has taken and what is the status of negotiations with the provinces on the establishment of the new Program for Older Worker Adjustment which is supposed to improve and give some flexibility to the eligibility criteria of the new POWA for older workers, particularly in the textile, clothing and footwear industries?


Hon. Pierre Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: As I said in the House last week, Mr. Speaker, $125 million have been set aside for this program, about which I personally met with all my provincial counterparts. Negotiations are progressing between our officials with a view to creating a program designed for all older workers throughout Canada.
862

October 29, 1986
Oral Questions


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has commended the Government for the introduction of cash bonuses to be paid to some 4,000 managers in the Public Service this year if they cut their budgets. My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it not wasteful to offer these managers a cash bonus in order to reduce their budgets, when keeping costs down is a major part of their jobs in the first place?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have announced and will obviously implement a productivity bonus to encourage more efficient use of public resources in the Public Service. I do not see how the Hon. Member can possibly be aware of the details of it as they are still under study since it is a complex issue which deals with an institution as complex as the federal Government.


POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, since the elimination of person-years or the termination of jobs is one of the management initiatives that would qualify for a cash bonus as outlined by the President of the Treasury Board on February 27, 1 ask the President of the Treasury Board, alias "The Terminator", is there not a danger of creating a hierarchy of hit-men, a bunch of bureaucratic bounty hunters, each one in a hurry to knock off the other?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is reaching new heights in trying to confuse issues.


Some Hon. Members:: Heights?


Robert René de Cotret: Confusion has become the mainstay of their arguments. I stand by the statement that we will be introducing a bonus for productivity. We have never talked about the nature of the bonus. We have never linked the bonus to reducing the labour force. We have talked about it in terms of making available better value for the money of Canadian taxpayers.


FINANCE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Since parents who need the child tax credit do not seem to be able to get any information about this, how does the Government intend to inform
Canadians if they are eligible for the advance on the child tax credit and how they may apply for it?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, that piece of legislation was passed just a few days ago. We are looking at an insert in the first mailing to ensure that appropriate questions are answered. I would welcome suggestions for what should be in that insert from any Member of the House.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There is considerable confusion in the community about this matter.


QUALIFYING CRITERIA
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister about a certain discrimination which I believe still exists against those applying for this advance. Does the Minister agree that a low-income woman with a new baby or an unemployed parent whose income has decreased from the previous year, will not be eligible for this child care advance? If he agrees with that, what will he do about this injustice?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, first we should remind ourselves that 700,000 low-income Canadian families will benefit from this prepayment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: The year after next, the low income registered will be the basis upon which the prepayment will be sent, and that is how that problem will be taken care of.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have here a government document indicating that on September 3 the Treasury Board Lands Management Advisory Committee approved the transfer of the Beausejour forces base land to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the Long Plains Indian settlement. Does the Minister deny the existence of this decision?
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is getting a little closer this time. Yesterday the Hon. Member's colleague said that on September 3 the Treasury Board had advised this. The Hon. Member is referring to an internal recommendation from within the Department of Indian Affairs regarding the purchase of the Beausejour site.
October 29, 1986


Mr. Allmand:: I am referring to a committee of the Treasury Board.


METHOD OF SETTLEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister deny that this land would have been available for the Long Plains settlement if it had not been for the interference of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Is that how the Minister carries out his trust responsibility to Indians?
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No, I will not confirm what the Hon. Member has put forward. What I will confirm is that discussions are ongoing with the Province of Manitoba regarding ways to fulfil entitlement. I am informed that land discussions are taking place with the band and the Government of Manitoba. The Hon. Member must be aware that dividing bands and creating new reserves and bands is not the way to resolve disputes within band councils.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Could you tell me whether there will be any changes in the rules for designating the communities where the remote posting status will apply in January 1987? In both the affirmative and the negative, I would like the municipalities of Joutel and Chibougamau to be included in the consultations.


Thomas Hockin: I thank my hon. colleague for his question and commend him for his ongoing interest in this issue. In the February, 1986, Budget the Minister of Finance announced a new permanent system of tax benefits for northern Canada. These measures are now being finalized. They will contain essentially the same criteria for qualification as is currently in place. In addition, transitional relief will be provided for isolated posts which ceased to qualify due to changes in population or access. Full details will be available when the regulations are published.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


NEGOTIATION OF SELF-GOVERNMENT ISSUE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Minister will recall that at the last First Ministers' Conference the Prime Minister called for a constitutional acknowledgement of the right of Indian communities to self-government. Given that the Government's proposed amendment was rejected because it required prior negotiation of agreements, can the Minister of Justice tell us if the Government is going to be tabling an amendment before the First Ministers' Conference so that the native leaders may give it some consideration?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am pleased to respond to that question. A week and a half ago in Toronto we indeed had the first opportunity of meeting with leaders of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the provincial representatives. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that we have all agreed on a process in terms of a rolling draft where there will be ongoing consultations between now and the First Ministers' meeting. The aboriginal peoples are very satisfied with the direction in which we are going.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides for a question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence, the Deputy Prime Minister may be able to reply.
The Government has promised to pay Canadian grain producers an amount of $1 million to help these producers, who are in trouble-


An Hon. Member:: One billion dollars!


Raymond Garneau: -$ 1 billion in new money. I would like to ask the Government whether it has now decided on what basis this subsidy will be paid. Will it be based on form production or on the marketing of the grain?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is precisely what the Minister of Agriculture is doing right now. The Minister is working with representatives of farm organizations and the provincial Governments to develop the best program to distribute the necessary and badly needed funds to the agriculture sector in a fair and equitable manner.

October 29, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Robinson PRIVILEGE


INTERRUPTION BY MR. SPEAKER OF STATEMENT UNDER S O. 21-MR. SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair indicated several days ago that consideration would be given to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and the matter would be brought back to the Chamber.
On October 27, 1986, the Hon. Member for Burnaby rose on a question of privilege at the end of Question Period to suggest that his privileges as a Member had been infringed by the Chair's interruption of his statement under Standing Order 21 earlier that day. In that earlier statement he had called upon all Members of the House to join with him in "condemning the offensive and degrading references which were made by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to homosexuals who seek to work within the RCMP". Similarly, on October 28, 1986, the Chair intervened during a statement made pursuant to Standing Order 21 by the Hon. Member for Burnaby.
All Members will recall that when the Member for Bow River made his statement on October 20, 1986 I had interrupted him and asked him to "examine some of the words in his statement which might very well be very offensive to a great number of Canadians and might cause a question of privilege or point of order in the Chamber". The Member for Bow River was allowed to continue his remarks, but clearly he did heed the advice from the Chair.
If the Chair interrupted the Member for Bow River and requested him to review the language he was using, which he in fact did, then surely the Chair was also under the obligation to interrupt the Member for Burnaby who was attempting, under the guise of a statement under Standing Order 21, to comment upon the same language that the Chair had already dealt with. Such comments would not have been in order a week following the initial event using the usual vehicle of a point of order or question of privilege, because the time for raising such matters had expired and the matter had already been dealt with. In the Chair's view, such comments were also not in order using a Standing Order 21.
The Member for Burnaby was quite correct when he stated that Members are protected by parliamentary privilege for what they say in the Chamber. However, he will also realize that in order to protect this privilege, Members have imposed upon themselves certain restrictions as to what they may or may not say. Certain language is unparliamentary and not allowed. Likewise, certain actions are prohibited in our practice. It is the Chair's duty to enforce these restrictions. I have said on another occasion that these restrictions have not been imposed unilaterally on this Chamber, but have been
designed by the Members in this Chamber and brought here by consent.
As Speaker Sauve stated on January 17, 1983 when setting out guidelines for the current Standing Order 21, "The time set aside for Member's statements should not be used to make personal attacks". I concur totally with this admonition and suggest to the Hon. Member for Burnaby that this is a prohibition which the Chair must enforce in order to maintain decorum in this Chamber and to protect all Members.
Standing Order 21 requires the Speaker to "order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order". It is advisable for all Hon. Members to remember that when this new order was drafted those who sat in judgment on this matter decided deliberately not to try to codify every possible exigency that might arise. I repeat what the order reads:
The Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order.
In the Chair's view, the use of Standing Order 21 to ask the House to condemn language used by another Hon. Member in a situation where the Chair had already raised the matter and dealt with it was an improper use of the Standing Order. 1 have examined the record and the rules and reread the comments made by all Hon. Members. I am still of the same view. Therefore, I do not feel that the Hon. Member for Burnaby has a valid question of privilege.
I wish to add something to these comments. As I have said in this House regarding this not easy issue, Members have a right to debate issues in this Chamber, no matter how delicate or difficult they may be. But in the use of the language with which they debate it, the Chair must always be mindful that one cannot have free debate in the Chamber without order.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of a question which was directed to me by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) today. At the outset of Question Period he had given me the curriculum vitae of Madame Moreau-Landry. I indicated to the Hon. Member that in fact this person was not among the appointments which I recommended last summer. Accordingly I have now confirmed that she in fact was appointed before I became Minister of Justice.
October 29, 1986



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to announce today that we shall soon be signing a master agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada that will cover some 170,000 federal employees. Never has such a large number of employees been affected by this kind of agreement.
When our Government took the reins, Mr. Speaker, it was faced with a difficult situation. The Public Service had just spent two years under legislative restrictions, and almost all of its 76 collective bargaining agreements were up for renewal.
In its firm resolve to improve labour-management relations, Treasury Board quietly started working on this mammoth task and managed to conclude agreements covering about 208,000 employees in 76 bargaining units, and did so while observing the principles of justice and equity. Salary increases have averaged an annual 3.55 per cent for three years, and are therefore below the inflation rate.
Mr. Speaker, following several rounds of intensive negotiations, in April 1986 the Government was able to conclude with the Public Service Alliance and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada an agreement on the principles governing master-agreement bargaining. Hon. Members will remember the statement statement I made on the subject in the House, on April 17, 1985.
Talks with PIPSC started on September 10, 1985, and an agreement was concluded on February 27, 1986. On July 9 of this year, we signed a master-agreement with PIPSC covering
7,000	employees in 18 bargaining units.
Negotiations with the Public Service Alliance started on September 5, 1985 and continued until early 1986. On March 4, 1986, the Alliance asked for a conciliation board which met for the first time on June 25. Thanks to the report published today, we will be in a position to sign a master-agreement very shortly with the Alliance.

With the advent of the master agreement system, collective bargaining in the federal Government becomes much more efficient. Future collective agreements will be easier to administer, and less time will need to be spent at the bargaining table.
In the case of the Alliance, the master agreement will cover approximately 80 per cent of the terms and conditions now found in 39 individual collective agreements. Issues such as rates of pay, hours of work, and annual leave continue to be negotiated at individual bargaining unit tables.
Statements by Ministers
This innovative approach is a result of the strong commitment of the Government to establishing harmonious labour relations with Public Service unions. It is a tribute to the strong spirit of co-operation on both sides which has made the new bargaining system possible.
Under the terms set out in the binding conciliation board report being made public today, the following improvements are to be implemented. First, a dental plan will be introduced for all employees represented by the Alliance, with premiums to be shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the employer and the employee. Second, female employees will receive a 17-week maternity benefit to close the gap between unemployment insurance and salary level. Third, in future collective agreements any retroactive pay will extend to those individuals who leave the Public Service before the collective agreement is signed. Fourth, new provisions against sexual harassment and discrimination are included which confirm existing Treasury Board policies. Finally, various other provisions include improvements to shift and weekend premiums and other allowances.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of both bargaining teams. I also wish to thank the members of the conciliation board-Bruce Light, employer nominee; John Fryer, Alliance nominee; and, in particular, Martin Teplitsky, Chairman, whose excellent work, expertise and dedication were instrumental in bringing this unique process to a successful conclusion.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the Minister and congratulate the parties involved, namely the employer's representatives and the union spokesmen, for at last reaching a consensus on a master agreement. Like the Minister I acknowledge that we all strive for efficiency and that, with the generous co-operation of public servants, the Government has managed to come up with a proposition which the unions can live with. I think this should please everyone concerned.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) said he was pleased to unveil this master agreement. I wish we had been given the famous report of this conciliation board, but this was not to be. I cannot really comment on the contents of the report since I do not have it. I did get the Minister's statement and I thank him for that. I am still waiting for the report of the binding conciliation board.
Mr. Speaker, it should be emphasized that progress in this case was not as easy as the Minister would have us believe. He rose in the House in April 1985 to announce that he had concluded an agreement with the unions. We eventually found out that it was not quite an agreement. It was an understanding which was not finalized. Negotiations went on until early 1986 and they were finally put in the hands of a conciliation board in March this year at the request of the Public Service Alliance of Canada-and the Minister himself has admitted

October 29, 1986
Statements by Ministers
this-so as to overcome the roadblock which prevented them from progressing.
I want to commend the PSAC officials because, as spokesmen for the employees, they did their homework and they did their utmost to obtain the best possible agreement from the employer, the Treasury Board.

1 must say that I am not too impressed with the chest thumping in the third paragraph of the Minister's statement. He said that the employer, that is the Treasury Board, settled with the bargaining units of the 208,000 employees in a way which was fair and responsible. He went on to say that increases in rates of pay averaged 3.55 per cent per year over three years, which was lower than the rate of inflation.
There is nothing fair and there is nothing responsible in asking a public servant at the bottom scales of pay to take home less pay because inflation was more than what he or she received. The Minister used that envelope and said that it had been increased by 3.5 per cent. However, I do not think that a type of approach where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is reasonable, responsible, or fair. Therefore I should like to get from the Minister the take-home pay figures. I believe, as do many other people, that indeed take-home pay has gone down. It is below what they had when the Government came into power. I think that is neither fair nor responsible.
I want to make another point which I think is an important one. It deals with the question of the conciliation board itself. It is a binding decision by a committee of people who are specialists in the field. I take it that the Minister will be able to explain to the House certain matters relating to this agreement. For example, the Minister said in his statement that female employees will receive a 17-week maternity benefit to close the gap between unemployment insurance and salary level. I would like to know what is meant by "closing the gap". Does the Minister plan on compensating employees totally by enriching unemployment insurance benefits to the level of an employee's salary, or will a percentage be given, as is done in certain places?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the practice that in answering statements made by Ministers Members confine themselves to the amount of time taken by the Minister to deliver his statement. I am sure the Hon. Member is close to completing his remarks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr, Speaker, I am sorry. I did not realize that I had taken so much time. I apologize to the House.
I wish to offer my congratulations to those who negotiated the agreement. I do not think that the Minister should do any suspender snapping or chest thumping about this. As President of the Treasury Board I do not think he would want us to believe that he is the one who solved the issue. He had to resort
to binding conciliation. When that is done it is because an impasse has been reached and because a problem cannot be settled.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a precedent-setting and historic agreement. I wish to congratulate the people from the Public Service Alliance of Canada and those from the Government, including the Minister, on the fact that a master agreement is now in place after some 60 or 70 years of collective bargaining in one form or another.
As the Minister knows, this evolution has taken a long time. In a quiet way, there have been some improvements in terms of labour relations since the Minister came to office. The Minister will acknowledge that I am not noted for paying compliments to the Government. However, I think it is worthwhile to note that this is a positive development which I hope will be of benefit to the some 150,000 or 160,000 public employees in the Public Service Alliance who will be covered by the master agreement announced by the Minister this afternoon.
I regret that binding conciliation had to be resorted to to achieve this agreement. There are a number of elements in the agreement which had proven to be out of reach. They are highly desirable elements which illustrate what should be achieved with master contract bargaining. In the past one particular unit of the Public Service Alliance might have achieved some progress in a particular area but other units would have to fight like heck in terms of bargaining in order to achieve the same progress. In this respect I note that four years have passed since, after a strike, the clerks won the maternity provisions which will now be extended to all female employees in the federal Government as a result of this agreement. That is a measure which is long overdue. It might not have occurred on a universal basis without that previous action.
I know that public servants will welcome the implementation of a dental plan which will now be almost universally available to all in the Public Service. It might even be extended to Members of Parliament soon. These are positive steps forward.
I think it should be acknowledged that this process took a long time. In fact, it took too long. The initial discussions on a master agreement began prior to the 1984 election. We are now at about the midway point in terms of the three-year agreement which is being entered into as a result of binding conciliation. There are some important issues with which we have to deal. A number of them affect women employees in particular. I refer to issues such as equal pay, affirmative action and child care provisions. Regrettably, no steps were taken in terms of adoption leave. I hope that the Government will accept that this puts it at a half-way point. There will have to be some evolution in terms of learning how to use this new structure without reviving new tensions to replace the ones which were overcome as a result of the master contract bargaining.
October 29, 1986

Before the Minister dissolves into total euphoria, I must say that I am also concerned about this agreement. I am concerned that a couple of issues have not been addressed. The first issue with which I wish to deal was on the agenda the Minister made for himself when he was appointed President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I refer to the question of political rights. Apart from very senior civil servants, people working in the Public Service of Canada should have essentially the same political rights as any other citizen in Canada. The other issue is one which I regret was not addressed. I refer to the question of lay-off procedures. As one trade unionist described to me today, the procedures in use are medieval. They set employees against employees. They affect morale and encourage favouritism and all types of abuse. They must be changed. Elaving resolved this particular problem, I urge the Minister to come to grips with this issue and to implement important changes so that, if the Government insists on firing civil servants, it be done in a way which is not only fair but which is seen to be fair by the people involved. If that were the case, the extra time that might be involved to make the system fair would far more than compensate by the improvements in morale.
Those are my comments. We will look on with interest in terms of how this agreement will work. Even though I regret the way this measure was achieved, I hope people will see it as a result of how collective bargaining can be a productive and positive element in our society.


PETITIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions which I would like to table. The first states that whereas the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information; and the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and Canada's culture; and rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized librairies; the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.
I have petitions from Nova Scotia, in particular from the Cities of Dartmouth, Waverley, Bedford and Halifax. One is from Sackville, New Brunswick.
I have a series of petitions as well from the Province of Quebec. They are signed by citizens living in Lennoxville, Ste Foy, North Hatley, Sherbrooke, and other cities.
Petitions
I have additional petitions signed by citizens of Ontario who are very upset with the 10 per cent tariff. These petitions come from Burlington, Scarborough, Unionville, Pickering, Whitby, Willowdale, Thornhill, Markham, Toronto, Don Mills, Richmond Hill and Mississauga.
I have petitions signed by people living in Edmonton and Sherwood Park.
I have other petitions signed by people living in British Columbia.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member has presented her petition well.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish the Hon. Member to continue to name the cities. She has presented her petition well. She may proceed if she has another petition to present.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have additional petitions which come from Hudson, Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. If the Hon. Member has a petition on another subject, then she may present it. That is what I was saying. I believe that she has presented her petition well.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on the same matter. I have petitions signed by Canadians who are suggesting that if the Canadian Government wishes to retaliate against the Americans, then it should do so against citizens of the United States and not against citizens of Canada. The people who have signed this petition state with respect to the tariff against imported books that it penalizes Canadian consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and Canada's culture. It is for that reason that I present petitions from various ridings in Ontario in the hope that the Canadian Government will realize its folly and rescind the tariff immediately so that our book industry and cultural organizations can thrive without interference from the Government.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have petitions on the same subject. The petitioners from Prince Edward Island call upon the Government to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries with respect to free trade negotiations.
I have a petition here from 30 people in Charlottetown and the surrounding area. I also have a petition from Halifax and parts of Nova Scotia. I have another petition from Yarmouth on the same subject, and Shelburne County, Nova Scotia. I have another petition signed by 25 residents of the Halifax-Dartmouth area of Nova Scotia. I have another petition dated

October 29, 1986
Introduction of Bills
October 3rd from Halifax and other parts of Nova Scotia. I present these to the House in their name.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present to this House a few petitions from people in New Brunswick on this tariff on imported books in the English language, which is also known as a tax on reading. The petitioners are from Fredericton, Dalhousie, Woodstock, Riverview, Hartland, Newcastle, and many other towns and villages in New Brunswick. The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff, which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present some petitions from Alberta where some people say that the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which limits access by Canadians to literature and information. I also have the honour to present a petition from residents of British Columbia who say that the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry in the U.S., yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and culture.
1 have the honour of presenting another petition from the Victoria area of British Columbia. The petitioners say that rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition program and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries.
I am sure you will be happy to know that I have one more petition in which the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff, which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy and cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations. Most of these people come from Vernon, British Columbia.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the pleasure and honour to present a petition signed by the required number of people asking the Government of Canada to withdraw this retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which limits access by Canadians to literature and information. The tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry in the U.S., yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and culture. Rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. I have two petitions and I humbly pray that Parliament take these petitioners' requests and act accordingly.



CRIMINAL CODE AND CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: to introduce Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

['Agreed.']
Benoît Bouchard: for leave to introduce Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Minister have leave to introduce this Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
['Agreed.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 10 and 13.


Mr. Friesen: In (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 to date, how many employees in government departments worked directly in the manufacturers' sales tax sector?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: The Excise Branch of the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, is responsible for the administration of the manufacturers' sales tax. The following shows the number
October 29, 1986

of employees who were involved primarily in this sector during the last three years:
(a)	1984	1,330 employees(b)	1985	1,367 employees(c)	1986 to date	1,358 employees


Mr. Murphy: 1.	Since September, 1984, did Gainers Inc. receive any grants from government departments and, if so (a) what type of grant (b) from which departments (c) on what dates?
2.	What was he dollar figure for such grants?
3.	What was the stated purpose of the grants?


Philip Derek Lewis: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Employment and Immigration and Regional Industrial Expansion as follows:
1.	None.
2.	& 3. Not applicable.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



WAYS AND MEANS


Thomas Hockin: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, laid upon the table on Friday, October 24, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bell Canada Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum Gas and Revenue Tax Act, the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax Act, be read the first time and printed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the statement by the Minister, this day's sitting will be extended by 16 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 28, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is just the latest name for a project which has been promoted in this Parliament for several years by both of the old Parties. There has been a little restructuring of the legislation but there is no essential difference between this Bill and the previous legislation.
This is a Bill to reorganize Ma Bell. The word "reorganize" is meant to sound harmless and neutral to the general public. The public is interested in Ma Bell and in having a telephone service. In Canada there are only 25 million people scattered across a very large area and we make great use of telephones for both local and long distance calls. We make great use of the related services as well. Therefore, the public is very concerned about what is going to happen. In the past, the public has been told to rely on the CRTC to ensure that Bell's rates are reasonable. This Bill will make a mockery of the public's confidence in the CRTC to regulate Bell Telephone. That is why the New Democratic Party has fought this Bill from its inception.
Under the name of reorganization this Bill will divide Bell into two parts. One part will be profitable and the other will

October 29, 1986
Bell Canada Act
lose money. Lo and behold, the money-losing part will be the part for which Bell was originally created and through which it has made millions and millions of dollars of profit. Throughout its history Bell has charged its consumers sufficiently high rates to make very substantial profits. It invested much of those profits in subsidiary corporations which were developing new technology in telecommunications. It is now investing in companies which have nothing to do with telecommunications at all. For example, Consumers Gas, which supplies a large part of southern Ontario with gas, is now part of a telephone company. Bell has made such investments because it is no longer seriously interested in communications. It is now an investment company first and foremost. If Daon, the real estate conglomerate in western Canada, produces a higher rate of return than telephone services, money is spent on inflating the value of real estate in Vancouver and other parts of western Canada through Daon.
We have always been told that the hard-working entrepreneur labours early and late to make a better mouse trap. People beat a path to his door to buy his mouse traps. He saves a little money from the proceeds and with that makes even better mouse traps. Hence, more people come to his door and he makes more money. That is not the story of Bell Telephone. Now that Bell has captured a large part of the telephone market, it does not really care whether or not many of its customers get service.
Many of us have experienced the result of that change of attitude. Twenty or 30 years ago Bell Telephone was falling over itself to please us, offering better telephones, better repair services, better this, that, and the next thing. Those days are gone. If you want your telephone repaired today you must bring it to the Telephone Centre. They do not bother sending a repairman to see what is wrong with the equipment which they own, operate and which they installed and from which they get the profit. Bell does not want to be bothered to provide the service it used to provide, for which service the customers are still paying.
The service part of the Bell empire will be hived off and called the regulated company. Consumers will still be able to argue with the CRTC about whether Bell is giving the service it is required to give under the law and for which it is paid. The money which Bell has drawn out, and probably will continue to draw out, from the service portion of its empire will continue to be invested in other areas which may or may not be part of the telecommunications industry. We may or may not know about it. The fact is that the unregulated part of Bell will be unregulated. Bell will be able to do whatever it pleases with its profits.
As a matter of fact, this reorganization took place three years ago. If people on the street want to change a law, they must change it before doing whatever they want to do under the changed law. We cannot break the law and have the law changed later to cover us. However, the rules are the opposite for multibillion dollar companies like Bell. They can make the change first and then the Government will consider passing a
law to legalize what they have done. Here in Parliament we are being asked to legalize the change which Bell made about three years ago. It separated the basic service on which it made its millions from the subsidiaries from which it expects to make more billions of dollars.
The reorganization went into effect on April 28, 1983. At that time Bell only hinted at future increases. On July 27, 1983, Bell reported a 40 per cent increase in profits for its first quarter as an unregulated holding company. The new system allowed Bell's profits to jump by 40 per cent in three months. There is nothing the consumer can do to get fairer telephone rates because that part of the Bell enterprise has been unregulated for over three years.
Bell developed a manufacturing company which has gone by several names including Northern Telecom and Bell Northern. Northern Telecom did some research into new systems of telecommunication. Although Bell Canada was very rich, it did not want to pay for the research. Instead, it got grants from the federal Government to subsidize the research. Some very good and popular developments resulted. Northern Telecom and Bell Canada are now reaping the profits of the discoveries paid for by the Canadian people. They are not even keeping the jobs in Canada. For example, in the period from 1976 to 1985, Northern Telecom's workforce in the United States grew from 3,000 people to 19,000 people. In other words, 16,000 new jobs were created in the United States thanks to the taxpayers of Canada who subsidized those new inventions.
Bell does not want to return to the working people of Canada the benefit of the money that the working people of Canada gave to Bell through their taxes. In other words, we cannot even rely on this new reorganized outfit to do useful research. There is a lot of talk about tax breaks to these companies for research and development. Even if Bell does the research through one of its subsidiaries, it will not necessarily give the benefit of that research to Canada.
There is a further problem. Ma Bell has not been the best of employers over the years and decades.


Mr. Malone:: How would you know?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: An Hon. Member asks how I would know. It happens that my wife and a number of my friends have worked for Bell Telephone and I know the kinds of conditions under which they worked. I suggested that Ma Bell has not been a good employer over the past years and decades. It has improved somewhat recently because a real union, the communication workers union, has organized some of the employees. The communications workers union has been very successful in the last few years in winning the support, the free choice of many of the workers at Bell Canada, and the auto workers union has been successful in winning many of the votes in Northern Telecom. However, with this new deregulation and new reorganization, Bell Telephone will be able to
October 29, 1986

play the old game of employer against the worker. The ordinary working man or woman must go out every day and put in a work day to get enough money to keep putting bread on the table. Their only defence against a large corporation that can simply shut down the plant, transfer workers around and play games with the workers' jobs in order to weaken their position and cut their wages, is to agree to form a union.
There are free votes in the union. I have been with the paper workers union for 16 years and have been at other meetings of labour movements to watch the voting process. It is a great deal more democratic, with all its faults, than what one can observe at the annual meeting of a large corporation such as Noranda, which I have also attended.
Mir. Malone: Oh?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Yes, I have attended a Noranda meeting with a voting share. I observed the almost invisible amount of democracy in the way a large corporation governing its business operates as compared with the much more grass roots democracy that operates within most unions.
The only strength of the union rests with the ability of the workers to join together and present a united front to the company. Now the company will have much greater freedom than before to split the workers into different jurisdictions, different corporations, or different companies, to prevent the workers from joining together to bargain with the company in the only way that gives them any strength. Therefore, this reorganization, as it is called, is a very serious threat to the workers' hope for a decent wage level and decent working conditions.
One working condition that is particularly important to workers at Bell Telephone is to be able to live like a normal adult human being at work without being harassed by supervisors and electronic supervisors. They want to be able to work without having every breath, movement, and sneeze rated against them. That kind of interference with a worker's life, right down to the most basic bodily needs, is the kind of thing that Bell, with its electronic expertise, is trying to develop to an inhuman degree with many of its workers. The only defence available to those workers is not Parliament, not the CRTC, not the legislatures of the provinces, but the union which is directly created by those workers who have day-by-day experience with what happens. On the basis of what those workers are willing to do jointly, the union can defend the right of the workers to have human dignity on the job. That will be threatened by Bell Canada reverting to its old antiunion and anti-worker attitude, once this reorganization gets fully under way.
It is a great shame that this Bill was to be apparently slipped through Parliament quickly. Not only did it come before the House yesterday almost without warning, while certain interested people were engaged in previously scheduled parliamentary business, the schedule changed again today. At nine o'clock this Bill was not going to come before the House until next week. Suddenly, at ten o'clock, it was going to be
Bell Canada Act
discussed today. In other words, it looks as though those who are responsible for this Bill are ashamed of it and know how much public opposition has been expressed at the CRTC and in the media. They know how much consumer organizations and worker organizations are opposed to the Bill and do not want it openly debated any more than necessary.
The Government attempted to slip the Bill through quickly yesterday and is attempting to do so again today. However, it will not work. We will oppose this Bill as strongly as we can, not only here at second reading but in the committee. There is no good reason for Bell Telephone, or Bell Enterprises, whatever it wants to be called, to squeeze the telephone consumers and telephone workers as it is.
The company is rolling in dough by anyone's standards. Let me list just a few of the companies that it has been able to buy up but which have nothing to do with providing telephone service. I have already mentioned TransCanada PipeLines, and Daon Developments. It is also into the British American Bank Note Company and Case-Hoyt. It purchased Comae Communications, Alphatex, and controls Ronalds Federated Ltd. It is operating in several countries besides Canada. It has money to burn and buy up other corporations, which does not create more jobs. In fact, when one corporation buys another, it normally reduces the number of jobs. Perhaps the shareholders will benefit if the rate for the shares goes up by 40 per cent in three months. However, why should they benefit from a company that has drawn its revenue from the money paid mainly by Canadian home subscribers and by the taxes paid mainly by Canadian working people? It is not as though Bell Canada were paying its share of the taxes. On the contrary, it is getting these massive subsidies from the taxpayers in one way or another.
I am very sorry that the Government appears only interested in running this Bill through as fast as it can. I am sorry that the Liberal Opposition shows so little interest in opposing this Bill, although I am not surprised. The Liberals were trying to drive similar legislation through when they were in government and, in this respect, both old Parties are exactly the same. The only difference is that one sits to the left of the Speaker and the other sits to his right. Their politics, their goals and their friends, like Bell Telephone, are the same. The only opposition to this Bill will come from the working people of Canada who are the ones who most need to use the telephone and the ones who are paying the whole shot. We will be hearing a lot more from those working people before this Bill becomes law.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the Hon. Member. The present reorganization of Bell Canada could allow Bell Canada to incorporate what could be called "Bell Canada TV", for example.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I didn't hear you.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: "Bell Canada TV" or "TV Bell Canada".

October 29, 1986
Bell Canada Act


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Or Tinker Bell.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Or Tinker Bell, yes. This new holding company could possibly compete with, say, cable broadcasters. The Hon. Member and I, as well as Members of the House, know that the extensive network of Bell Canada would probably allow it to get into every home, therefore making things for the cable companies very difficult indeed and possibly very unfair.
The possibility arises, I believe, because Clause 7 of the Bill restricts the expansion but not to subsidiaries. I wonder if the Hon. Member has any opinion or views as to whether Bell Canada should be allowed to get into the cable systems? How does he view that monopoly, because that is what it is, to get into this field of cablevision? I should tell the Hon. Member out of fairness that the CRTC did advise Cabinet to restrict Bell Canada and not allow it to go into the broadcasting field. How does the Hon. Member feel about that?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has raised a good question and I am very glad to comment on it. The kind of abuse of the trust of telephone consumers now being possible, as suggested by the Hon. Member, is exactly the sort of thing that the present Cabinet and the previous Cabinet of the Party of the Hon. Member, ought to have taken steps to prevent.
When the people of Canada over the past century paid for telephones, and the working people of Canada built telephones, they did not do so with the idea of creating not only a monopoly in the telephone business but a monopoly in the television business. To the extent that many Canadians still believe there ought to be such a thing as competition, Canadians are very uneasy about the monopolistic practices of Bell Telephone. They would be very shocked if Bell Canada, through this legislation, would be able to take over the cablevision business, as the Hon. Member has pointed out is possible. It is certainly a duty of the Cabinet to introduce amendments to this Bill, in line with the recommendations of the CRTC, to ensure that that cannot happen.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question for clarification. I think the Hon. Member clearly understood that it was due mainly to the reorganization of Bell Canada that it is now possible. Bell Canada Enterprises is a holding company which in principle could set up a subsidiary or an affiliate, which I guess is a better word, which would get around Clause 7. This is my question to the Hon. Member. It was not because of the intention of the Government. Bell Canada reorganized its corporate structure allowing it to put out tentacles into certain deals. Would the Hon. Member join with me, and many other Hon. Members of the House, in telling Cabinet that we do not want Bell Canada Enterprises, through its affiliates, to set up broadcasting corporations and, therefore, take over cable companies?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member. However, he did not understand my response
which was exactly that it was the duty of the present Cabinet, as it was that of the preceding Cabinet, either to prevent the reorganization which created Bell Canada Enterprises or to restrict it from doing such things as monopolizing the cablevision industry.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) asks questions which in essence tend to raise fear when no fear need be raised. He talks about what might be, not about what is proposed. However, setting that aside for a moment, I stand here as a Member of Parliament who represents rural Canada to say that we are pretty tired of being dominated by the kinds of views expressed by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. Rural Canada today receives terrible television reception. My constituency is in a situation where at best we will get one good clear TV signal in the east end of my riding, and my constituency is made up of some 113 various communities. Yet Hon. Members opposite have the audacity to stand here and suggest that we should deny rural Canada the one opportunity we have to be able to watch national events, sporting events and the various kinds of important things which bring us together as Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


Arnold John Malone: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier shakes his head.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are twisting the whole thing.


Arnold John Malone: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that while the Hon. Member shakes his head, he should bear in mind that the reception of television on the Prairies is unacceptable.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I agree.


Arnold John Malone: And here is an opportunity to bring to those people who provide food for urban people the kind of reception they justly deserve. He ought not to sit there and rally against that opportunity to give fair and equal treatment to other Canadians. I want to hear the Hon. Member for Spadina justify the New Democratic Party's opposing the farming communities of Saskatchewan.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is getting a little fantastic when he suggests opposition between the New Democratic Party and the farmers in any province. The only two points the Hon. Member tried seriously to make were not quite as fantastic but were very wide off the mark. First, he said we should not talk about what might happen but only about what is planned. The fact is that it was the CRTC which warned us what might happen.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's right.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: We should take its warning seriously given our experience of the twists and turns of a company like Bell Telephone or Bell Enterprises. Whatever name it chooses to call itself, tomorrow will be just another name under the same
October 29, 1986

management. There is an obligation to look at what is probably going to happen or what could very well happen and provide safeguards against it. One does not wait until the House is burning down before one thinks about fire protection. There is not likely to be a second chance.
Second, if the Hon. Member, as a resident of Alberta, does not like the public corporation, the Alberta Telephone Corporation, which handles Alberta's telephone service, he has, of course, recourse. I am sure he does not want Ottawa to interfere with the Alberta Telephone Corporation. The point is that if the Alberta Telephone Corporation wishes to make some arrangement with any other body to provide television service which Albertans, in the Hon. Member's opinion, are not rich enough, smart enough or industrious enough to provide for themselves through satellite and so on, they can enter into that arrangement. That is a very different matter from giving the whole monopoly in Canada to Bell Canada Enterprises.


Mr. Stan Graham (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, I was honoured to be present at the time this Bill, known then as Bill C-19, was examined clause by clause. I feel we have been given an excellent opportunity, or at least I have, to have a second chance to look perhaps a little deeper than we are sometimes permitted when examining a Bill. This is particularly true considering the fact that the Bill dealt with Bell Canada, and to a western Member from the southeast corner of British Columbia, Bell is very far away.
When she introduced the Bill yesterday, the Minister spoke very enthusiastically about the work of the committee. I have to concur with the Minister on that. The committee put in a tremendous effort. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to examine all of the ramifications of the wording of some of the clauses of this Bill.
Bill C-13, the Bill we are debating today, is an almost verbatim copy of the previous Bill C-19. In fact, just a minor change has been made. That change is in paragraph (c) of Clause 6 of Bill C-13. The clause has been changed so it now includes the words: "if the Commission has not otherwise specified". Almost everything else in the Bill is identical to Bill C-19.
My concern is with Clause 7 of the Bill. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) more or less skirted this issue. It was dealt with more fully yesterday by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). My concerns appear to be somewhat similar to those of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.
Clause 7 reads as follows:
Neither the Company nor any person controlled by the Company shall directly or indirectly hold a broadcasting licence or operate a broadcasting undertaking within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act.
Bell Canada Act
That appeared at the time to cover all aspects of Bell Canada's operations. It has since been brought to my attention that this does not cover the operations of Bell Canada Enterprises, an unregulated portion of that vast company. It is for this reason that I would like to go on record as being somewhat concerned about, if not opposed to, Clause 7 as it presently reads.
Why am I opposed to Clause 7? A parent company will invariably treat a subsidiary company in a preferred fashion. What will occur down the road with Bell Canada or perhaps B.C. Tel? Would this permit a subsidiary company to have a preferred position? If so, our local community cable operators would be eliminated. Life could be made very difficult for them. Although it is difficult for cable operators to cover all the area surrounding them because of the cost of installation of cable, nevertheless we must hold to the fact that they are community cable companies and as such have performed a very human service over the years. Invariably, a telephone company is much less personal than a private cable company owner, someone who is a member of the community and has a feel for what the people in the community want as opposed to what the large company may decide to do.
As I have said, Bell is a long way away from Kootenay East-Revelstoke, but what is good for Bell is also good for B.C. Tel, Alberta Government telephones and any other telephone company throughout this large country of ours. Therefore, I wish to be on record as believing that Clause 7 should be changed so that it deals also with affiliates of Bell Canada and not simply Bell itself and its employees. This would prevent the elimination of the small community cable companies which should be protected to the best of our ability.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question with regard to the difference between the Bill before us today, Bill C-13, and the previous Bill C-19. The Hon. Member admitted that only one clause of the Bill had been changed, yet Hon. Members who were in the House yesterday will recall that the Minister made a big point out of how changed the Bill was. She said that she and her Department had listened to members of the Opposition and members of the committee and had made substantial changes to the Bill. How does the Hon. Member account for this discrepancy?


Stan Graham: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is a discrepancy. As I heard the Minister's speech yesterday, she said that changes had been made and brought about by the cooperation of the members of the standing committee. I pointed out the change that has been made. However, the Bill as is, with the exception of concerns about Clause 7, is more or less satisfactory to the members of that committee including the Hon. Member. The Bill should be satisfactory all the way through except for Clause 7.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, indeed, one of the clauses of the Bill which was changed was Clause 6. As I read it, the Bill as it is now worded would allow Bell Canada to charge subscribers for six months of telephone service prior to service being

October 29, 1986
Bell Canada Act
installed. I take it that the Hon. Member knows about the clause to which I am referring. Clause 6(2) (c) provides that if the CRTC fails to prescribe an amount which telephone subscribers must pay in advance to obtain telephone services, Bell will automatically be able to charge a six-month prepayment regardless of whether the customer is a good or a bad credit risk.
In debate, government Members have maintained that the clause is academic because Bell would not impose that charge. If that is so, why give a monopoly like Bell Canada the power to impose that charge? If government Members are convinced that it will not charge that amount, then they should not give Bell the right to do so. Would the Hon. Member give Bell that right or would he debate the clause in committee and have it changed to prevent Bell from charging subscribers a six-month pre-payment?


Stan Graham: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) misunderstood my remarks, if indeed he was listening earlier. I referred to the fact that the change between the old Bill C-19 and the new Bill C-13 was in Clause 6(2)(c). I quoted the change as "if the commission has not otherwise specified ..." That change indicates a desire on the part of the committee and of this Government to accommodate the concerns of all Parties in the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Does the Hon. Member believe that the CRTC should be authorized to set that rate, or would he give the monopoly, Bell Canada, the right to set that rate?


Stan Graham: We are broadening the debate a long way when we drag in the CRTC at this point in time. These changes are perhaps part of what eventually must become a review of all aspects of the broadcasting industry, including the operations and dictates of the CRTC.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I enjoy this because we are going to clarify another point. The CRTC exists as a regulatory body because Canadians as a whole have given Bell Canada a monopoly over certain services. In my view, that is why the CRTC should be the one to set the up-front rates charged to customers to install phones in their homes. I believe that, but I take it that the Hon. Member is telling me that he does not believe that.


Stan Graham: It is fair to say that the CRTC has, on many occasions, performed its functions in a satisfactory manner. But it is also fair to say that perhaps a massive review of the entire structure would change some of the aspects and regulations of the CRTC. To answer your question specifically, you would not want Bell Canada regulating itself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am here to participate in the debate on Bill C-13 which is entitled an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada. I
think it would be more aptly labelled the selling out of the Bell subscribers.
I represent an area in Ontario which is fairly unique. The bulk of my constituents do not depend on Bell Canada for their residential and commercial services. The City of Thunder Bay and the surrounding rural area of 35 to 40 miles is served by the City of Thunder Bay Telephone Department, which is a municipally owned and operated public utility. This utility over the years has expanded its service to take over much of the area adjacent to the City of Thunder Bay which was served by Bell Canada. If this utility does not have the lowest rates in the country for residential and commercial services, it has the next to lowest rates. It operates as a utility and provides an essential service to the subscribers of that area. It ensures that the revenues derived in excess of its operating costs under the limits prescribed by the regulatory agency in the Province of Ontario are reinvested to improve services to existing subscribers, to expand into rural areas, and to upgrade those services. At the other end of my riding, which is the largest geographical portion of the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, we have services provided by Bell Canada. It is with great interest that I take part in the debate today on Bill C-13. This Bill is designed to make legal something that Bell Canada has already done, that is, to restructure itself and carve out its subsidiaries in such a way that the subsidiaries are no longer controlled by the regulatory regime in place through the CRTC. That has been done even though those subsidiaries, whether they are Northern Telecom, Bell Canada Enterprises, or Bell Canada International, have all been spawned as a result of the use of the revenue generated from services that Bell Canada provided in the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and the Territories. It has taken subscribers' money and poured it into the development of new subsidiaries. It now wants to take those lucrative subsidiaries into its corporate structure and to its shareholders and move them out of the field where there is protection for consumers to the whole land of free enterprise. In effect, it has had its subscribers subsidize its improvements, expansion, and now it wants to ensure that there is no way that the regulatory agencies of Canada can force Bell Canada to return the profits from those investments back to the subscribers who provided the initial capital.
Quite frankly, that is consistent with the way this Government operates in relation to deregulation-whether it is deregulation of airlines, rail systems, natural gas, or telecommunications. The Government is allowing those corporate sectors to get away with whatever they can. There is no protection for the consumers. We have had an excellent example recently of the importance of regulatory regimes to consumers in this country. That relates to an application by Bell Canada for a rate increase. The CRTC ruled that what it wanted was excessive. In fact, the CRTC ruled that Bell Canada had already received too much from its subscribers and ordered it to give its subscribers two months' worth of free phone rent. CRTC further ruled that long distance service charges be reduced, because too much money was made there.
October 29, 1986

I do not accept the Government's philosophy. While I agree that we need reregulation in many areas because some of our rules are a bit out of date, we should not just throw them out. We should look at them in the context of Canada in the 1980s through to the 1990s and determine what appropriate set of rules are needed to ensure that a utility such as Bell Canada is able to have the funds to provide the level of service that we deem appropriate, and at the same time have that built-in protection of regulation. In this manner, the subscriber to the telephone company can have some protection. It is very difficult for a hundred thousand subscribers to get together and mount a campaign to force a company like Bell to change its pricing structure and give consumers a bigger benefit. That is why years ago we put in place the regulatory system of the CRTC.
One of the areas in the Bill I would like to deal more specifically with is an area that concerns me as it relates to services in my riding. It is an exception to a clause that requires the company, in this case Bell Canada, to furnish services in certain cases. In subclause 6(1) it reads:
Where a telephone service is requested by any person or organization for any lawful purpose in a municipality or other territory within which a general telephone service is provided by the Company, the Company shall, with all reasonable dispatch,
(a)	furnish the service; and
(b)	subject to any order of the Commission under Section 13 that restricts the right or ability of the Company to be a supplier of telephones, furnish telephones of the latest improved design then in use by the Company in the municipality or territority.
That is where the company is required to provide service, but there is an exception in subclause 6(2) which reads as follows:
Nothing in subsection (1) requires the Company to furnish the service or a telephone where
(a)	the premises for which the service is requested are not fronting on a highway, street, lane or other area along, over, under or on which the Company has a main or branch telephone service or system;
(b)	the telephone on the premises would be situated more than 62 metres or such other distance as the Commission may specify from the highway, street, lane or other area-
This subclause means that unless Bell Canada has a cable running along the highway, the people who live adjacent to it will not be eligible for telephone service. They are not eligible to receive, at a rate equal to what other Canadians will be paying in that service area, some of the new technology allowing them access to the communications system. When Bell Canada receives a request from a Member of Parliament like myself or from a citizen who may live a mile or two from the end of the line, so to speak, on the Trans-Canada Highway or on one of the other major highways in a rural area, Bell can say that it will not install a telephone unless the person requesting the service picks up the tab for the installation of poles and telephone lines to his or her home.
This is a major problem in rural Canada, particularly northern areas. Many citizens have been unable to receive the
Bell Canada Act
services which you, Mr. Speaker, and I take for granted. Those of us in the House of Commons who have offices here and in our constituencies have multiple lines and multiple instruments with which to conduct business. However, that is not the situation in rural areas.
There are two areas in my riding which do not have telephone service although they are within a reasonable distance and there is a reasonable number of residences grouped within those areas. Fire, police, and ambulance services are also located some distance away. The situation is such, that because of the Bill and Bills like it, residents living near the Pigeon River south of Thunder Bay must drive 10 or more miles to use the telephone. They might be calling the volunteer fire department to indicate that their home is on fire, or the ambulance service to indicate that someone has taken a heart attack, or the police to indicate that there has been a robbery. It is actually easier for them to drive to the fire station than to travel to the nearest telephone. This kind of restriction in the current age of electronics is inappropriate.
Where there are some logistical problems in terms of running telephone lines, a company like Bell should be required to provide residents, at a price reasonably similar to that paid by residents connected to telephone lines, with some type of mobile telephone. The systems are in place. Cabinet Ministers now have telephones in their cars. Cellular phones allow people to go from place to place, to retain the same telephone number, and to work in their cars. We should ensure that rural residents have the same opportunities.
I should like to return to the Bill itself in a general sense. What I find most disturbing about the Government's decision to legalize what Bell Canada has already done is that it is allowing an evolution away from the concept of a utility. Decisions were made by Bell Canada some time in the past to invest in other areas to expand their power base. Some were directly related, such as Northern Telecom, but others were not so related. Now we as a Parliament are moving to allow Bell Canada to take advantage of the income it received on the investments, not for the benefit of subscribers but rather at their expense.
As I understand it, the revenues from the subsidiaries go back into the mother corporation. They are examined in the context of the viability of the company and the prescribed levels of rate of return. Although I have not looked at it carefully, I would suspect that the recent ruling of the CRTC in respect of the two months of free rent was based in part on the profits from the subsidiaries coming back into the mother corporation.
Let us take a look at the profits. In 1979 the profits were $432.6 million. In 1980 they went down by about 37 per cent to $273.4 million. In 1981 they went up by 103 per cent to $555 million. In 1982 they went up by another 11 per cent to $615.4 million. In 1983 they went up by 34.8 per cent to $829.8 million. In the first quarter of 1984, the latest figures I have available indicate that the profits were $203 million.

October 29, 1986
Bell Canada Act
They were up 34 per cent over the figures for the first quarter of 1983. Clearly the company is not doing too badly.
I gather the shares of Bell Canada are one of the more respected shares and that they are held by a number of people. However, we must recognize the fact that there is another kind of shareholder. I am referring to the subscriber who does not have any choice in areas covered by Bell; only Bell instruments and lines are available.
The subscribers are also investors because their money was used over the years, not only to help provide profits for Bell Canada, but to provide Bell Canada with the money necessary to expand and develop its subsidiaries-Northern Telecom, Bell Canada International, Telesat Canada, Bell Northern Research, Tele-Direct, and Bell Communications Systems. Those subsidiaries have been funded in part by those subscrib-ers-investors.
We are not only reorganizing Bell. We are reorganizing the subscribers. They will no longer be investors in the system; they will be just subscribers. It is a real shame. The Government-and I gather that it was supported by the former Liberal Government-will now go ahead with this option. It is similar to what the Liberals did years ago in respect of the CPR when it allowed the company to divest itself at the ultimate cost of transportation services.
I look forward with interest to the remainder of the debate. I encourage Conservative Members to join in, to state their case, and to fight on behalf of consumers. However, in closing, I remind them that only Quebec, Ontario, and the Territories are covered by Bell Canada. Let us not forget that there is B.C. Tel, owned by the people of British Columbia. There is the Alberta telephone company which is owned by the people of Alberta. There are the telephone companies in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Kenora, Thunder Bay and the Maritimes. These are public utilities which use their revenues to provide services.
These revenues are not for the lining of pockets or for the development of private sector corporations which can be spun off out of a regulatory regime. They are public utilities, utilities that Conservative Governments in the provinces I have named dare not tamper with. In this respect we have only to consider the Province of Saskatchewan and the backtracking it did during the election in terms of the possibility of selling off part of Sask Tel. The Government knew that it would not survive on that issue.
So I say to Members across the way that what they should be looking at if they really want to provide service and stability to the consumers of Bell Canada is instead of chopping it up into little pieces, perhaps it should be kept as one company and moved into the public sector to remain that way.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, considering the significance of the legislation which is before us, I am surprised that Members of the Government are
not taking the opportunity to express themselves in defence of this Bill. It is a Bill that affects an important component of Canadian life. As I understand it, Canadians are the most frequent users of telephones. The telephone is an extremely important aspect of the way in which Canadians stay in contact with one another, do business with one another and keep families together over large expanses of land. If this is a good Bill, then it must justify, in my view, a strong and vigorous defence of the contribution that it will make to the improvement of Canadian life in terms of telephone service. That must surely be the justification for the Bill, at least I assume that it is. However, the silence of government Members gives rise to doubt.
A couple of months ago my wife was complaining to me about the fact that our telephone was just not functioning. In fact, it stopped working one Saturday morning. We called up Ma Bell, said that our telephone was not working and could someone come to fix it.


Don Boudria: Thursday of next week?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: No. We were told to give a call the following week and they would see about Thursday of the week after. The company finally got around to fixing the telephone. By God, you could pick it up in your hand and hear static as well as voices. I suppose it could be said that it worked twice as well as it did before in that we heard twice as much noise. We called up Ma Bell to have the telephone repaired again. There were problems here because when we did this the person on the other end of the phone could not hear us for the static. Thus we had to use someone else's telephone once more. Mr. Speaker, would you believe it, our telephone still has static on it. Some people might not realize that these types of experiences which many of us have with a service for which we pay so much in terms of excessive deposits and other inconveniences is a result of the reorganization of Bell. These experiences are but examples of future problems which users will face as a result of this reorganization.
What has happened is that the profits that have been generated for Bell by consumers are now being used up by a voracious conglomerate which stalks our land and, indeed, the world, gobbling up other corporations such as TransCanada Pipelines, Daon Development, British American Bank Note, Ronalds Federated and Case-Hoyt. It is a hungry animal being produced here. It lives on an infinite diet of profits.
The Bill before us is like a birth certificate or a baptism cerfificate. It is a piece of paper which legitimizes this monster, this new conglomerate that will produce no new services. It will not produce any new jobs for the people who have fed its appetite in the past. We know that the Bill is a repeat, a slightly improved version of a Bill first introduced by the Liberals.
At first, the Liberals fought the creation of this beast. When the Quebec Superior Court approved the new structure the Liberals fought against it. They eventually gave up. However, they didn't do so without a good fight first. We do not see the
October 29, 1986

Government giving Bell a fight. As I said before, if Members of the Government are not fighting it then they must like it. If they like it, then they should get up and brag about it. They should tell the world how good it is. However, there is nothing but silence from Members opposite, nothing but guilty smiles on faces of Members opposite.
The contents of the Bill were first brought up in 1982. It dealt with a reorganization plan which would benefit everyone. It would set up Bell Canada Enterprises and separate Bell Canada, the telephone service, from an investment conglomerate which I described before as being so hungry. It was described by the president of the company as a purification process. In fact, he suggested that if the telephone service were separated from the rest of the holdings of Bell then, by gosh, it would be easier to regulate and that we would not have all this confusion about the 80 other companies it holds. He suggested things would be nice and neat and tidy. Some thought that the measure was intended to avoid regulation and thus deprive Bell of some of its cross-subsidization. This produced the expectation that the cost of telephone service would be kept down, at least in some measure, by the profits generated in other areas. So Bell is not associated in a large part with that service to the consumers with which it was identified in the past. Only three things remained. The first was the 30 per cent of Bell Northern Research and a 24 per cent share in Telesat and Tele-Direct.
As Members will recall, the CRTC investigated the reorganization. It generated 106 pages of analysis and some recommendations. It must be recognized that some of these recommendations are contained in the Bill. They have merit and will advance the interest of consumers to some measure. As other Members have observed, a notable control was omitted from the Bill. I refer to the requirement for a minority stockholder or stockholders in Beil Canada as a check on Bell Canada Enterprises. A measure such as that should be in place. It is something which has been supported by consumers and the Consumers' Association of Canada, which pointed out that Bell Canada got away with shifting over $500 million in capital gains to Bell Canada Enterprises which should have been left with Bell to have been of some benefit to Bell and its users.
We will likely look to a future in which Bell Canada will be starved of capital by Bell Canada Enterprises, their being no means to ensure that its capital needs will be met. The cost of that will devolve upon the user, a cost in money, poor service and new demands for increases in the basic rate, charges on local calls, and increased long distance charges, all this by virtue of a greater pressure for deregulation which this Bill represents.
This is just one more example of the useless growth of huge conglomerates in an attempt to find better and easier ways of making money without creating jobs or encouraging creativity.
Bell Canada Act
There are those on the government side who would say that Bell Canada Enterprises is a large corportation with large research activities and that it will create jobs. In fact, not one single new job will be created by this reorganization. Existing companies are being purchased. In one instance Bell International has imposed a non-union policy on its wire and cable acquisition in Great Britain. That is not in the interests of workers. Overall, Bell Canada has lost jobs and that is manifest in the difficulties faced in getting service. The criteria of utility to the Canadian public has not been met.
Has there been new research? All one has to do is consider the record of Northern Telecom, an admittedly research intensive company. In 1976 there were 2,900 jobs at Northern Telecom in the U.S. Since then that number has increased to
20,000,	while the number of jobs in Canada continues to decline. This arouses the not unreasonable suspicion that Northern Telecom is about to desert Canada for the greener pastures of the U.S. In what way will this benefit Canadians? In no way.
The final question of greatest relevance is will this legislation mean lower rates and improved service, or any of the other things we expect of a company devoted to the service of Canadians? No. It will not improve conditions for those who depend on Bell Canada.
I regret that this Bill has not been the basis for a strong and concerted debate. Having observed the absence of a vigorous defence by the Government, I note there has not exactly been a vigorous participation by the Official Opposition.


Don Boudria: 1 am always here.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Then I hope that vigour will be demonstrated. When I resume my seat I will look forward to the usual eloquence in defence of Canadians we expect to hear in this kind of debate. Therefore, with an expression of appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this debate, I will resume my seat in the hope that the people of Canada will see this very important Bill subjected to the kind of discussion which would benefit both the Bill and the people of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Miss MacDonald, seconded by Mr. La Salle, moves that Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Riis:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
October 29, 1986
Excise Tax Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux, for the Minister of State (Finance), moved that Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to speak to Bill C-14, a Bill that arises from the February 26 Budget and, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, from the Ways and Means motion tabled on June 11 of this year. The purpose of this Bill is to increase federal sales tax in certain areas. An increase of 1 per cent will raise sales tax on construction materials from 7 to 8 per cent, on alcohol and tobacco from 14 to 15 per cent and on other commodities from 11 to 12 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, this tax increase will help the federal Government fight the deficit, a deficit that does not seem to worry the Opposition very much. Some Hon. Members across the way even seem to think it's funny.


Don Boudria: I was laughing at the Conservative Government.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the deficit we have today was left us by the previous Liberal Government. With this Bill, we are seeking the revenue we need, to help the Government in areas where the Opposition so often says we are not doing what should be done.
Mr. Speaker, as an excellent lawyer and businessman you will agree that if we do not bring down the deficit, if we do not reduce the enormous debt left us by the Liberal regime . . . Mr. Speaker, we have reached the point where 25 per cent of the Government's annual expenditures are used to service our debt, or should I say their debt, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Twenty years of Liberal mismanagement.


An Hon. Member:: It does not bother them.


Pierre H. Vincent: They never did get around to managing anyway. As you know, Mr. Speaker, last week the Auditor General presented his report in which he referred to the spendthrift habits of the previous administration and pointed out how they wasted Canadian taxpayers' money for unduly partisan ventures, but the people were not fooled and they turfed them right out. In the beautiful riding of Trois-Rivieres, Mr. Speaker, two days before the September 4 election, they signed contracts worth millions of dollars for strictly partisan projects, but the electors caught them at this game and voted for the Conservative Party, for Prime Minister Brian Mul-roney and, of course, for your humble servant, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: And they have been glad about this change ever since.


Pierre H. Vincent: And, Mr. Speaker, everything is going fine in the riding of Trois-Rivieres, as everywhere else in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
To get back to the tax increase, I must say it is necessary. Mr. Speaker, various comments have been made about our region. I challenge the Hon. Member to come to Trois-Rivieres. Any time at all, I will be glad to welcome him. Liberal Party representatives visited us twice in two years and they did not even manage to attract more than 25 people all told.


An Hon. Member:: -Saint-Maurice, 20 years of patronage, no wonder they voted Liberal.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, when his leader visited the riding of Trois-Rivieres a year ago, there were more people at the oyster dinner than at his meeting. There is therefore nothing to be concerned about.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to reduce the deficit. If we cannot do so, the interest rates will increase.


An Hon. Member:: No one is working.


Pierre H. Vincent: The Members opposite are not worried about interest rates of 22 or 23 per cent; they have seen it all before and they were happy with interest rates of 24 per cent. However, Canadian taxpayers prefer rates under 10 per cent, which is what they have now. A high deficit also means a weaker dollar. The Liberal Party was happy when the dollar was even weaker. We now have a stable dollar, Mr. Speaker, and this helps Canadian businesses to export and make profits in the United States. Unfortunately, they do not understand this, Mr. Speaker. I can see that they understand nothing of what we are trying to say.


An Hon. Member:: They are not good teachers in financial matters either.


Pierre H. Vincent: The most important result of reducing the deficit and having money in the coffers of the state is that we can maintain valid existing programs. We can also maintain our social programs, which I find very important. The Opposition may laugh, but I Find this important and we need some money to do it. To have this money, Mr. Speaker, there are areas in which we can increase taxes, and I think that Canadian taxpayers find such increases reasonable. For instance, the tax increase on tobacco will not kill anyone, quite the opposite.


An Hon. Member:: On alcohol.


Pierre H. Vincent: The tax increase on alcohol is another reasonable measure, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: The reduction of the tax on gasoline!
October 29, 1986


Pierre H. Vincent: The Hon. Member speaks about the reduction of the tax on gasoline. This was not mentioned either.


An Hon. Member:: He does not talk about the $140 in the pockets of the taxpayer. The companies which are saving money with their trucks have not lowered-


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, when we speak about reducing the deficit, it is on two levels. On one hand, we increase certain taxes in areas where it is reasonable to do so and where the taxpayers can accept it, and on the other hand, we reduce Government expenditures. There have been major reductions in Government expenditures, as you know, Mr. Speaker. There have been cut-backs certain programs where the previous Government used to spend shamefully for patronage projects in various constituencies. There have been cut-backs in these programs, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Judo clubs and churches.


Pierre H. Vincent: This helps to reduce the deficit and it is another reason why Canadian businessmen have pride and confidence in this Government, and are willing to invest.
Almost 600,000 jobs have been created in this country over the last two years. They were not created by the federal Government as a Government, as an employer-we cannot afford that because they left us with too large a deficit-but by Canadian businessmen who had confidence in this Conservative Government. They invested money, they created jobs, and because of their actions we now have interest rates below 10 per cent and 600,000 new jobs in this country. Mr. Speaker, those figures need no explanations. The Opposition may bicker, this is all they can do, but the facts are there and they speak for themselves. It is my view that the February budget has been well accepted across the land. I had an opportunity to travel across Quebec, and in Quebec it has met with marvellous acceptance. People are happy that the country is being managed as they themselves manage their own businesses.
Saturday night, I was in Trois-Rivieres for the Economic Corporation's gala, and many business people were in attendance. Six hundred persons were there. There were trophy awards, what they call the Radissons in Trois-Rivieres. Let me say by the way, Mr. Speaker, that Radisson was a Conservative, as you know. The Radisson trophies were awarded and I heard only positive comments on the current administration.
People in Quebec have understood the deficit increase this year: $2.5 billion, it is true, as compared to our own forecast. But they know this is the second time in 25 years that a federal Government has said: Our expenditures will come up to such an amount and, by the year-end, the actual figure is the same one. We did not have to apologize at year-end for having overspent by $1 billion. Or a few billion dollars. No, Mr. Speaker. And business people respect that, because what they want is a Government that is good at managing, that stays within budgeted expenditures.
Excise Tax Act
Of course, in this country, we cannot know beforehand what problem we will have with grain in Western Canada, what problem we will have with oil on the international scene, or what other problems we may have in Quebec or in the Maritime Provinces. I believe Canadians are aware of that. But they are also aware and proud to see that this Conservative Government and their Prime Minister are acting in a responsible manner, that we know where the money we spend is going. The money we spend is not used for partisan purposes. In ridings that were exclusively Liberal-you may check with our Conservative Members-before 1984 they did not have the same budgets. The budgets were different for Liberal ridings and Opposition ridings. And surely my colleague from the New Democratic Party will agree with me on that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what we did. We shut the valve. We put an end to that. Ridings throughout the country are dealt with on an equal footing and it is essential for their Member to work in the House of Commons as well as close to the Ministers.
With reference to deficit reduction, Mr. Speaker, expenditures of some departments or programs could have been cut further. In the first place, they would have been the first to blame the Government and rightly so. I think that in the February 1986 budget we had to seek additional revenues and make the cuts we did. We could have chosen another solution which would not have been an increase in revenues and we could have made further cuts. However, Mr. Speaker, some remote ridings such as that of my colleague would definitely have been penalized. I think that whether it was in the riding of Abitibi-Temiscamingue, Trois-Rivieres or Lac-Saint-Jean, in the Gaspe peninsula or even in your own riding, Mr. Speaker, which is to a certain extent considered as being regional, it would have been unacceptable. It is sure that large urban centres would not have suffered from the consequences, but the regions would have borne the cost. And, Mr. Speaker, I was the first to object to that. On the other hand, I think that now Canadians from all across the country have accepted a certain increase in federal sales taxes.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that when we talk about federal sales tax, we have had a Canadian first on fiscal matters: the federal sales tax credit. It never occurred to the Party which was in power before us to implement such a move.
I do not want anybody to tell me that the increase in federal sales tax will be at the expense of the have-nots, those in the lower income brackets. All families whose income is under $15,000 a year will be entitled to a tax credit, and we know that it is more attractive than a $50 deduction for an adult and a $25 deduction for a child. A family of four earning less than $15,000 will get a $150 tax credit. Mr. Speaker, that means getting money from those families with average or higher incomes who can afford to pay this additional tax, and that is also caring for those with lower incomes.

October 29, 1986
Excise Tax Act
Mr. Speaker, that means going in the direction of a tax reform, towards a more fair and equitable tax system.
The same is true with the minimum income tax, Mr. Speaker. I remember that when we introduced the minimum income tax in December 1985, the Liberal Opposition was against it.
I also remember that the Leader of the New Democratic Party rose to congratulate us but the Liberal Opposition was against it. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? I presume they opposed it because it was a good measure. They have opposed every good step we have taken. Or could it be that all Members of the Federal Liberal Party earn more than $50,000 per year? That might be the other reason. I do not know. But it has to be either of them.
We should therefore give it some thought. We should also remember that when we deal with an increase of the federal sales tax, we may be told that it is going to hurt the farmers involved in tobacco production. We did think of them, however, and we thought of creating a special fund to help them. We really put a lot of thought into that federal sales tax increase which is not high for everyone ... I am thinking, Mr. Speaker, of the assistance to farmers. We extended the duration of the fuel tax rebate program, we increased that rebate for farmers.
We did so because we wanted the increase to be fair and reasonable and the lower income brackets to be protected from the impact of that federal sales tax.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore submit that it is important to pass this Bill expeditiously, and 1 urge Members of the House to help it pass as quickly as possible in order for us to be able to proceed with our social programs as well as other economic and cultural programs of importance for our country and for all Canadians.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, following the Budget tabled last February 26, which was very well accepted and understood by Canadians of all levels, but appears unfortunately not to have been understood yet by the Opposition, I can assure you that we are going to carry on with this so that someday even the Opposition will understand it.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a speech in which the Hon. Member tried to blame us for the deficit and referred in glowing terms to the Conservative Government's economic record.
Perhaps my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) was not in the House during the debate on the Speech from the Throne and did not read Hansard for the proceedings of the debate on October 23, 1986, at page 660, and starting on pages 674 and 675. At the time, Mr. Speaker, I quoted to the House an article by Alain Dubuc of La Presse in which he did an economic analysis of the Conservative Government two years after the elections.


Don Boudria: Say it again!


Alfonso Gagliano: And obviously, after what he told us in his speech, Mr. Speaker, I will have to read a few quotes from Mr. Dubuc so that my hon. friend will know how his Government performed.
Mr. Speaker, on September 6, Mr. Dubuc said in his article:
"Measuring economic growth is the best way to find out whether the economy is progressing at an acceptable rate. Growth was 3.3 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984, during the last two years of the Liberal reign. In 1985, under the Conservatives, the rate of progression dropped to 4.5 per cent and is not expected to exceed 3 per cent this year, since we are entering a slowdown phase, not a phase of progression".
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative Government is proud of its economic record, and it is very fond of saying so, why is there no economic growth? And that is not all Mr. Dubuc said. Mr. Speaker, he referred to inflation as well.
The inflation rate had been reduced to 4 per cent in the summer of 1984 when the Liberals lost the election, and there has been no change since then.
My colleague mentioned the dollar. Our dollar was worth 77.14 cents U.S. in August 1984. How much is it worth today? Did you hear the latest news?


Don Boudria: Seventy cents!


Mr. Della  Noce@: And the 22 per cent interest rates. Look at them now.


Alfonso Gagliano: Oh, yes, my colleague from Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce). Let us talk about interest rates. Will you have the nerve to take credit for lower interest rates as a result of Conservative Government action, or will you admit it just might be due to the American policy? Interest rates have gone down on international money markets throughout the world. So now you know!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mulroney said that the Hon. Member for Duvernay is very important. Maybe so, but he is not in the Cabinet!


Alfonso Gagliano: Of course, the Hon. Member for Duvernay is very important.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: But he is not in the Cabinet!


Pierre H. Vincent: Don't tell me you are going to support the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou!


Alfonso Gagliano: He is the only Conservative Member of Italian origin, but he has yet to join the Cabinet.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker. That is not all Mr. Dubuc had to say. He referred to the purchasing power, which indeed relates to Bill C-14. If only my colleague would listen, he might learn something.
Speaking about the purchasing power, Mr. Speaker, and I quote:
October 29, 1986

"The purchasing power is how a Conservative measures his wealth. In 1985, when inflation went up by 4 per cent, wages increased by 3.5 per cent, and the same thing seems to be happening this year. While the purchasing power would decrease by 1 per cent, the tax burden imposed by the Federal Government will have increased by 23 per cent."
The Hon. Member has just left, Mr. Speaker. He cannot accept the facts. There they are. Tax increases of 23 per cent in one year! This affects the purchasing power. This is what we are discussing in relation with Bill C-14, Mr. Speaker, a tax increase on manufactures and air transport. A tax increase on communications and fuel. Are there any others? These are some of the taxes being increased in this Bill, and that is not all. Other measures are expected in the February Budget.
One thing is certain, and that is that, for 1986-87, there will be $5 billion in tax increases. Yet, we learned in September from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that, in spite of this $5 billion increase in taxes in one year, he cannot control his deficit, which will be $2.5 billion higher than anticipated. That is how the Conservative Government, which used to accuse the Liberals of being unable to control the deficit, is now doing the job.
Mr. Speaker, I said all this simply to reply to what the Hon. Member said about the efforts of the Conservative Governe-ment to reduce the deficit.
As a result, they will still increase the deficit because they are indeed preventing economic growth, increasing inflation and reducing purchasing power. If, let us say, Canadians do not have enough money and the product is too expensive, they have less money available to spend. How will economic growth happen? This is what you Conservatives do not understand-
I cannot reply to the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), Mr. Speaker, because I do not think economics is his strong subject.
I would like to deal with tax reform, Mr. Speaker, because for a number of months, almost a year, I could even say since this Conservative Government came to power they have been talking about tax reform.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Words, nothing else.


Alfonso Gagliano: In the May 1985 budget, after a rather extensive study, the Minister of Finance stated he had given up the idea of a value-added tax, surely because of pressures from small business people. He told us, they were going to review the whole issue and come up with a system, a tax reform- they must reform at least the sales tax. In the February 1986 budget, he stated he had given up the idea of the value-added tax but would introduce a business transfer tax-whatever the terms used in the French version-and within a very short time, perhaps in June, I think that was indicated, he would be tabling a White Paper in order that Canadians could learn what the Government's intentions were on that tax and we
Excise Tax Act
could have had a national debate. So June was September and then October, and not long ago he announced:


THE MINISTER LAUNCHES PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATION AND TABLES GUIDELINES FOR AN OVERALL TAX REFORM
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing on that, no specific information. What is involved actually is a budget consultation which the Minister of Finance does every year. Once the Minister of Finance has tabled his budget, he opens his next round of consultations for the following year. But he would have us believe that tax reform is involved, when all this is about is pre-budget consultation, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, the Minister of Finance does not have a very clear idea of where he is going on that. So he lets go a balloon and says: We are consulting you.
But what is it? Usually, Mr. Speaker, the person involved in a consultation will put forward "x" number of proposals or options. And then that person will ask: "Which of these proposals do you feel is the best, the one we should adopt, which would be appropriate, or are there others?" Mr. Speaker, the Minister has put forward no proposal whatsoever, sticking to empty statements. If the Progressive Conservative Party sat for as many as 20 years in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, it is no accident: it is a fact. They never have any clear notion of where they are going, no long-term plan of action. Never!
Mr. Della  Noce@: Your party certainly had none, with a $1 billion deficit.


Alfonso Gagliano: We remained in power for 20 years, and when we regain power, we will keep it for another 20 years, because we are going to prepare a proper platform. We are going to tell people where we are going. As for you, after two years in Government, you are still carrying out studies.
For instance, last year, the price of postal stamps was increased by two cents, and as a former small businessman, my friend the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) should know what a two cents increase means.
What does the Government do, Mr. Speaker? It says, this is the last increase. The Minister responsible for Canada Post at the time had clearly indicated that it would be the last increase that before the Government could impose another one, Canada Post would have to demonstrate that it has increased its productivity. This Government does not even have the guts to say no to Canada Post! The more so because business people have written letters stating: "Listen, now is not the time to increase postal rates; now is the time to administer this Corporation properly and fine tune its management." But no, Mr. Speaker, they announce that there is going to be a business plan. They have been saying for the past year that it is coming. We thought we were goint to get it by Friday. Apparently, it has been postponed, because even within the Conservative caucus, not everybody agrees with this increase. My friend the hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) may be prepared to accept it, but not the others. There are a few Members who have the courage to stand up and say, as some did the other day in the House: "We are going to fight

October 29, 1986
Excise Tax Act
this increase and perhaps delay further this action plan." But the Government will have some day to tell the whole truth about this matter and state its intentions, because it cannot continue administering this country without knowing where it is going.
But to return to Bill C-14, Mr. Speaker, there are tax increases everywhere. This is going to hurt consumers and corporations, and we are now dealing again with taxes in the Elouse. How many other things have we not had the opportunity to debate that went past us unnoticed. For instance, as a lawyer, you know that it used to cost $200 for a federal incorporation; today it costs $500. From $200 to $500, a $300 increase for an incorporation! It is unbelievable and frightening! But, who incorporates? It is certainly not the large companies which will suffer, since in legal fees only it costs them ten times that much. It will hurt small businesses, which will not be able to take advantage of the benefits which accrue from incorporation. It is a well known fact that incorporation brings a number of benefits, and in particular a reduced rate of taxation. Today, the cost of incorporation jumps by $300. This is a hidden tax, which was announced in the Budget, but is not even mentioned in Bill C-14, although it is still there.
Take the increase in postal rates, Mr. Speaker, that is also a hidden tax. If you calculate the cost for a small business, even at 2 cents a letter, it can add up to $1000 to $1500 a year. Take now the subject of liability insurance. What is being done? My colleague from Duvernay should know very well that all the car dealers and repair shops in Montreal have the same problem. They cannot get liability insurance, even for a small fortune. I known one case where the premium increased to $7000, although it was only $1000 two years ago. Yes, you are in Governement and you let the insurance companies do whatever they wish. Are we going, one day, to have a Canadian policy dealing with insurance? Are we going to let people from London or New York set the rates?


Mr. Della  Noce@: We are going to change everything.


Alfonso Gagliano: Change everything, exactly, Mr. Speaker-


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


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


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, with respect, we are considering a Bill that deals with federal sales tax, and the Hon. Member is talking about insurance premiums. I think we should get back to the subject of this debate, which is federal sales tax. If the Hon. Member has no particular comments on the subject, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he could let someone else take the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) has a point. I will let the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (M. Gagliano) give us another example. However, that does not mean he can devote his entire speech to these details. I'm sure the Hon.
Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou understands. The Hon. Member may proceed.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I was taking insurance and our postal services as examples. These are taxes too, and my point was that small businesses will be stuck with all the taxes we are increasing here, sales taxes in addition to all the other charges and licences that are being increased by hundreds and thousands of dollars. At the end of the year, how can they expect to survive? I wanted to use this as an example, Mr. Speaker, to make Canadians understand the impact of this tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, I also would like to inform the House that in November 1985, the Angus Reid company polled Canadians on entrepreneurship in Canada. The results, published in February 1986 when the Budget was brought down, show that Canadians agreed with the Budget. They were prepared to start new businesses, to take risks, to work long hours and even to move to other areas. They were ready to take chances to become good entrepreneurs. But two things in the poll caused a certain amount of anxiety, and these were higher taxes and the lack of pension funds for small businesses.
Before the Hon. Member rises to reply and waste the time of Hon. Members here in the House, I want to say that this information is indeed relevant, because small businessmen and small businesses and Canadians do not want to go into business because taxes are too high, and now, once again, the Budget is an excuse to increase taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote some figures, and perhaps the Hon. Member could learn something here.
Here it is: the 1984 Economic Statement and the May 1985 Budget. If we look at the 3 per cent deindexing of income tax, this has cost Canadians $570 million, which means a 5 to 10 per cent surtax amounting to $550 million, and there is also the 1973 tax rebate that was eliminated and which has cost us $490 million. We have a whole list to show that, as I said earlier, Canadians will spend $5 billion more in taxes in 198687. That is a fact.


An Hon. Member:: They will save $7 billion!


Alfonso Gagliano: And how will they do that? The Hon. Member says that they will save $7 billion, Mr. Speaker.
That is not all, even though we have just been told that there are no other measures. However, we have to wait for the next Budget when the Minister of Finance introduces his new tax so that even the air we breathe will be taxed. This will mean billions of dollars more, Mr. Speaker.
Such is the Conservative Government: Taxes, taxes and still more taxes.


An Hon. Member:: It costs a lot to pay for Brian's friends.
October 29, 1986


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak about the deficit. Naturally, we want to reduce the deficit-


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, but we want to do so without strangling the Canadian taxpayers as you are doing!


An Hon. Member:: That shows intelligence.


Alfonso Gagliano: As for you, you speak about reducing the deficit, but what do you do? An amount of $41 million has been wasted to keep the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) happy and build a penitenciary in his constituency. And there are many more examples.
Why should we not tell the truth to the Canadian people? How can you explain that the deficit will be $2.5 billion more than forecast in your Budget?
The Hon. Member said earlier that we knew nothing about the oil crisis in the West. However, Hon. Members will recall that, during the Budget debate, we asked the Minister of Finance questions such as: How can you expect to keep to the figures announced in your Budget in view of the decrease in oil prices? Does this mean that the taxation figures are wrong?
You knew what was going on. You said: We shall succeed. But now, you are saying: Well, we made a mistake in our figures. That is childish, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Claude Malépart: But they have money for their friends in the banking sector.


Alfonso Gagliano: The Hon. Member has reminded me about the banks. Those $1 billion would have reduced the deficit, Mr. Speaker!
The billions of dollars spent for the banks would have reduced the deficit.


An Hon. Member:: The Gulf deal!


Alfonso Gagliano: The capital gains tax exemption, which even your friends are now criticising. Yesterday, the Economic Council said that this measure should be abolished. How many billions of dollars, which could have been used to reduce the deficit, will this cost Canadians? You want to reduce the deficit on the backs of the poor! But for your rich friends, you go overboard. That is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. We are in favour of reducing the deficit, but only if this can be done without hurting Canadians because people still have to live. We are going through an economic crisis. Naturally, the Governement has to act, but it is up to us to stimulate the economy. I have just quoted Alain Dubuc, an expert from the newspaper La Presse. Indeed you have stifled economic growth and fueled inflation which we had managed to bring down.
Let us talk about the creation of 500 or 600 ... what is the latest employment figures, they change every day. Let us talk
Excise Tax Act
about that. I have something to read here, again by Alain Dubuc, Mr. Speaker. Here it goes!
Job creation. This is where the Mulroney Government told the truth. Between August 1984 and August 1986, 569,000 jobs were created in Canada, but the figures seem to indicate this was a one-shot deal. Not a single job has been created since early 1986. There were 11,632,000 jobs in January, we now have 11,615,000, a net loss of 17,000 jobs since the beginning of the year.
It is all here. How do you explain the fact that you created these 569,000 jobs and that now, in 1986, we already have
17,000	fewer jobs than at the beginning of the year? It is quite simple. The Liberals had set up the Canada Works program. Under this program-


An Hon. Member:: Do talk about this program.


Alfonso Gagliano: Listen, you will learn something here. How do you juggle with statistics? Listen. How do you juggle with statistics?
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member simply will not listen to the truth.
Once in office the Conservative Party came out with its very own job-creation program and cut the number of weeks from 52 to 26.
The fact is that they create the same job twice. This is how you create jobs, and it makes all the difference. This is where you have been juggling with the statistics, so much so that after a year and a half of those programs we are losing jobs. And so it is. But the truth hurts, they are not prepared to accept the facts.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Malepart@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member from Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Duver-nay (Mr. Della Noce) used to be a leader of gas station operators, and now he is leading the muffled ones. Would you please ask him to listen religiously to the speech, the excellent speech being made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), rather than interrupting . . .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) could well resume his speech.


Mr. Della  Noce@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) on a point of order.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Mr. Speaker, I think that no leader of gas station operators, nor any Canadian for that matter has any lesson to learn from the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte

October 29, 1986
Excise Tax Act
Marie (Mr. Malepart) because he should have been here to see what happened before his speech-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. Order, please. Would the Elon. Members let the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) resume his speech and listen to him?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take too much time, but I would simply like to share an experience with my colleagues, even if they do not want to listen, and, as I say, usually they do not. What can you do about that, the facts are there. We have had this Conservative Government for two years now and, as we have already seen, their great thrust, which is on the economic side, is leaking from everywhere. But last summer, Mr. Speaker, I had an interesting experience. I led a task force on small businesses for my party. Then I had the privilege of travelling across the land, from Vancouver to Halifax, and I met with many business people, men and women, who were committed to this country's economic development and who worked long hours in their businesses, often with very little reward or profit.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, they were concerned, as I said earlier and as shown in the poll taken in February 1986 about a pension fund and because taxation rates were too high in Canada. And when I say taxation, I cannot do as the Minister of Finances who wants to reduce income tax and increase the other taxes, because when Canadians talk about taxes, they have in mind sales taxes, permits and income tax, everything. Nowadays, when Canadians figure out their taxes, they add up all what they pay. Mr. Speaker, I think that my comments apply to all parties in this House. It is too much. The message was clear, the Canadian taxpayers' tax burden has to be lessened. This is one of the major concerns of Canadians either whether they live in Vancouver, Halifax, Calgary, Montreal Quebec City or whatever.
The other concern of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, had to do with pension plans. Small businesses can only create their pension fund with what is now called a RRSP or registered retirement savings plan, it is the only way. This is not like our own retirement plan. There is a pension fund for Members of Parliament, for public servants, and for teachers; everyone has a pension fund. However, the businessman has no pension fund and often those people work for 20 or 30 years and when a misfortune occurs, they have nothing left, no unemployment insurance, no pension, nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Government should move in that direction. The Conservative Government being in power, it should act without delay. We, in the Opposition, are going to make it part of our Party platform, and as soon as we form the next Government, we are going to act immediately contrary to the Conservatives who are still studying after two years. Of course, the whole tax issue must be addressed seriously; significant and concrete tax breaks should be given to small businesses. We should make it possible for them to invest in a pension fund. In fact, in its May 1985 Budget and again in its February 1986 Budget, this Government had proposed to allow
a certain amount of the pension fund money from various municipalities or organizations to be invested in small businesses. However, Mr. Speaker, this plan does not work, because it is very difficult to convince business people to invest in a concern with only one manager and lacking the administrative structure of a large corporation.
Theoretically, therefore, it could be possible to invest pension funds in small businesses; in real life, however, this does not happen very much and what people would like to have is for the Government to consider a system whereby a businessman who has put away some money in a pension fund or RRSP, to invest this money in his own small business. Wherever we went, that was one of the recommendations that were made.
Of course, this matter should be examined from every angle, because it is nevertheless necessary to preserve the pension funds, so that when the time comes, there is pension money, because we are well aware that small businesses are high risk ventures; but there is also the whole tax issue, and the small businessman should be allowed to use as capital for his business the money he has invested in his own registered pension fund.
Mr. Speaker, as Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou, I know small businesses very well, having worked in the field as an accountant for several years. I will make a commitment to seek a pension scheme, so that we-even our young people, because they often tell us: Yes, we should like to go and work in the Public Service because of its pension plan. When the time comes for us to retire, we would be O.K.; but in the business world, there are too many question marks. When one has a pension scheme, one can say: Listen, beside the privilege of being self-employed, with all the power a businessman has, the courage he can demonstrate, in the end, to get a pension fund-


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order. Earlier today during Question Period the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) referred to various documents. He indicated his willingness to provide them to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Would it be appropriate to ask the President of the Treasury Board to table those documents in the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise on the same point of order. I know that would normally be something that is addressed directly after Question Period. On behalf of the Government, I will be pleased to make inquiries and see if we cannot table those documents or make them available to the opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, resuming debate.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I note the lateness of the hour and see that it is a scarce House of Commons. Because it is the supper hour, I assume that a fair
October 29, 1986

number of Canadians will be tuned in and listening to what is going on in this House.
For those Canadians who have tuned in, Parliament is now debating Government Bill C-14. This Bill will increase the hidden taxes that Canadians will be paying. This Bill adds a 3 per cent surtax effective July 1, 1986. This is a 1.5 per cent surtax for 1986 and 3 per cent for each year following. This is contained in the Budget that was originally introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on February 26, 1986. It deals with the 3 per cent surtax on income.
What we are debating today is the increase in the sales tax, which will raise a fair bit of change for the Government. This is a 1 per cent increase in the sales tax. This will cost the average family an additional $150 per year. There is a 4 and 6 per cent increase respectively on alcohol and tobacco. This will cost the average family $20 per year. This Government has introduced a new sales tax, excise tax, and hidden taxes on numerous items. It has increased the tax not only on cigarettes and alcohol, but automobile fuels and gasoline.
The Government has introduced sales tax on candy bars and soft drinks. It has put a sales tax on vitamins and pharmaceutical items. It has placed a sales tax on a whole slew of items. It even placed a sales tax on pet food. When that was dealt with in committee, I tried on a symbolic basis, and also on a real basis, to have that tax measure amended to exempt blind people. They have to feed seeing-eye dogs, which are generally large German Shepherds, and whose food costs run into quite a bill. The Government was not interested in hearing any of this. It is determined to increase the amount of sales tax charged to Canadian people.
What is the record of the Government in terms of sales tax? In the two short years it has been in office, it has dramatically increased the amount of revenues collected through sales tax. In fact, in 1988 the sales tax introduced by the Government in its two Budgets will yield more than twice the amount of revenue drawn from the changes to personal income tax and more than four times the amount of revenue accruing from corporate tax changes. In other words, from 1984 to 1988 the sales tax introduced by the Conservative Government will amount to some $6.7 billion of additional revenue, whereas the increases in personal income tax will mean an increase of some $3.3 billion in federal revenues, and the corporate income tax changes will only mean an increase of $1.4 billion.
In the name of fighting the deficit, the folks opposite have increased our taxes quite substantially. Of course the smallest increases go to their corporate friends. The next highest hit group is average Canadians. We have all seen the increases in personal income tax. However, the biggest tax is the hidden tax, the sales tax, or the back-door tax.
Let us look at the impact of these changes upon the average Canadian family. In the November 1984 economic statement, just after the Conservative Party was elected, it increased the
Excise Tax Act
sales and excise tax, which will cost the average Canadian family some $350 extra per year. It again increased the sales and excise tax in the May 1985 Budget, which will cost the average family some $325 more per year. The increase in the February 1986 Budget will result in an extra $170 being paid per year by the average family. That totals some $845 in extra taxes which the average Canadian family will be paying.
Approximately 69 per cent of the individual tax increases introduced by the Conservatives since they assumed power was in the area of hidden taxes, while only 31 per cent was in the area of up front personal taxes.
As I said, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of sales tax under the Conservative Government. In fact its use is quite extensive. When we compare it with the other OECD countries, we find we are one of the highest in terms of relying upon hidden or sales tax as a form of public revenue. I should like to refer to an article by John Ferguson which appeared in The Ottawa Citizen the other day. In part it read:
Figures from the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development show that taxes on goods and services already make up nearly 33 per cent of all taxation revenue in Canada, compared to 30 per cent in Britain, 29 per cent in France, 27 per cent in West Germany, 18 per cent in the U.S. and only 15 per cent in Japan.
I acknowledge that those OECD projections include provincial sales tax as well.
The extensive use by the Government of the sales tax is not surprising. A sales tax is hidden. I suppose to politicians like the ones who now form the Government there is a certain attractiveness; they can increase taxes without people feeling them directly. These are the taxes which they pay every time they purchase a chocolate bar or some other manufactured item. These are the taxes which they pay if they drive automobiles and purchase gasoline. They pay the nickels and dimes. It is a nickel and dime Government. It nickels and dimes Canadians to death.
It is not surprising that Hon. Members opposite bring in these types of tax increases. It is because they are regressive. They affect the poor more than they affect the rich. Everyone must eat. Everyone needs shelter. Everyone needs some form of transportation. Ostensibly we all take some form of vitamin pill, drink pop, or whatever. However, if one is on the low end of the income scale, the percentage of one's income going to pay these taxes is quite a bit higher than that paid by a high income person. Experts agree that generally sales taxes are regressive because the poor pay more as a percentage of their total income than do the rich. It is no wonder the Conservative Government prefers these types of regressive tax measures.
We talk about the hidden nature of these taxes and about the unfairness of them. They do not affect the well-to-do in the same way as those with lower or middle incomes.
Two years ago some of my colleagues and I visited Washington to learn about some of the proposals in its Government's tax reform package. I will never forget a luncheon we attended with the chief lobbyist for the American Manufacturers Association. That Association bitterly opposed the tax reform

October 29, 1986
Excise Tax Act
package, but it acknowledged that the United States had a problem with its deficit and that some new revenues needed to be created. It certainly did not want to see an increase in the corporate tax. It wanted the United States to introduce a new form of tax on consumption, a sales tax, an excise tax. That is how the Association wanted the U.S. to generate more revenues.
It was not surprising to hear the Business Council on National Issues make the same proposal. It does not want tax reform. They do not want to see the Government touch the exemptions, loopholes, and special tax treatment for large corporations. On the other hand, it complains about the deficit all the time and recognizes that some proposals must be brought forward to generate more revenue. Lo and behold, the Business Council on National Issues suggested an increase in sales tax or an increase in taxes on consumption. We in the New Democratic Party are opposed to that form of taxation because it is hidden, because it is unfair, and because it is regressive. We stand behind the notion that a fair tax system must tax income, not consumption.
One reason for insisting that taxes must be on income rather than on consumption is that we can ensure that those people in a better position to pay will pay a fairer share, a larger share. The principle of the ability to pay is adhered to on a tax based upon income rather than one based upon consumption. However, the Conservative Government prefers to increase its revenues from consumption rather than from income.
Another reason we are not happy with a tax on consumption is that it erodes the disposable income of the Canadian family. The most recent quarterly economic review published by the Department of Finance shows that during April and May of 1986 the disposable income of Canadians fell by 2 per cent after rising 3 per cent in the previous quarter. The Conference Board of Canada agrees that consumer spending will be slowed by Conservative tax increases. Personal outlays are projected by the Board to slow from a growth rate of 5.2 per cent in 1985 to 2.7 per cent in 1987. The National Council on Welfare has also joined in this course on consumer spending, noting that a steady decline in the disposable income of all Canadians should be expected over five years as a result of direct and indirect tax increases.
The third reason we are opposed to this tax measure is that it erodes the ability of Canadians to spend. It decreases the disposable income of Canadians. If we are to have an economic recovery then surely it must depend upon the average Canadian family being able to buy the goods and services it needs. If Canadian families are able to buy the goods and services they need, then we will have people working. We will have new incomes being generated and new economic activity. Then we might have some chance to reduce the deficit. To take more and more of the disposable income out of the pockets of Canadians means that the average Canadian will have less money to spend on the items that he needs. In turn, that will
create business failures, low consumer demand, lay-offs in plants and a steady decrease in economic activity.
When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) introduced Bill C-14 he spent a fair amount of time talking about the deficit. I also wish to spend some time talking about the deficit. The deficit is important regardless of what the Conservatives might claim. We in the New Democratic Party consider deficits to be serious problems. I come from the Province of Saskatchewan where we have had CCF and NDP Governments. Those Governments maintained balanced or surplus budgets throughout all the years they were in power, through good times and bad times. We recognized that if we had to borrow money from the banks in order to pay for government operations that in the end it is the banks and the big boys who benefit the most, as indeed they do benefit from deficits. The banks and the financiers benefit since there is no better entity to lend money than governments. Governments will always pay back, and always at the going interest rate.
Why do we have the deficit that we do in Canada? Some Conservatives and some Liberals, especially when they were in Government, claim that we have been living beyond our means. According to the OECD we are one of the lowest spenders on social programs of all OECD countries as a percentage of our Gross National Product. We spend less than Italy, Ireland, Germany, France, Holland, Denmark and Great Britain. When we consider education, health, pensions, family allowances and income support programs we spend less than all the other OECD countries. When I hear these people tell us that we are living beyond our means, I know that compared to other industrialized countries we are not spending more than they are on hospitals, pensions, unemployment and education. In fact, we are far from it. When I am at home talking to my constituents who are pensioners, I see that they are scraping by on the pensions that they receive.
We also see cut-backs in terms of educational institutions. My university back home is starving for funds. Day in and day out we hear Members of the Opposition attacking the Government for the cut-backs on research. However, the Government justifies these cut-backs in the name of fighting the deficit. My statement in the House today is that it is not because of the NRC, hospitalization, pension funds, unemployment insurance or the family allowance that we have the deficit today.
I suggest that the cause of the deficit dates back to a few years ago when the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Minister of Finance. He and his Government started a program of economic recovery based on tax breaks. The theory at the time, and one which is still adhered to by the Conservatives, is that if the boys at the top, the large corporations, make more money and more profits then those profits will be re-invested. This will create more demand, more plants and equipment, more jobs and more economic activity. In other words, if the guys at the top do well, economic recovery will occur because their profits will be circulated throughout the system. That is why in 1983 some 79 profitable companies
October 29, 1986

paid no corporation tax at all. In fact, 64 companies made over $25 million in profits apiece, and those companies did not pay one cent in tax. This was so that they could do better, which would create an economic demand which would in turn create jobs, and so on and so forth. So that year there were some $13 billion in earned income and profits that were not taxed. If there was a fair tax system in place, in 1983 alone the Government would have collected $10 billion in revenues which would have substantially reduced our deficit.
Members opposite do not see things differently from the Liberals. They have no different philosophy. They have continued giving tax breaks to the corporate elite. They point out that they have plugged up a few loopholes. They take great credit in having plugged up the scientific reseach tax credit scam. I call it a scam because it was a scam. It was introduced by the loony Liberals. It was a loony idea. It threw open the doors of the Treasury. All the money-grabbers in the country were invited in for a free lunch. They came in, and it cost the Treasury some $3 billion. The Conservatives, of course, claim that they plugged it up. They did, but they took their time doing it.
In October of 1984 the Minister of Finance rose in the House and declared a moratorium on the program. However, he included a grandfathering clause. What we have discovered is that of the $3 billion that was lost, around 45 per cent of it was lost after the Conservatives came to power. They knew this was wrong. They knew it was a scam. They knew it was a raid on the public Treasury, but they just could not close the doors all at once. They had to do it gradually. Thus they allowed another 45 per cent of that $3 billion to go out the window, some $1.4 billion. That was their contribution to plugging up this loophole.
We suggested on October 10, 1984, when the Minister announced the moratorium, that the Government shut the loophole, and shut it tight. We told the Government that it was wrong. The Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue told us it was wrong. The Government did not listen. It had to put in a grandfathering clause which cost us an extra $1.4 billion. Then the Government introduced a $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Hon. Member says "Hear, hear". He figures it is going to be of great help to the farmers in his district.


Mr. Towers:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Hon. Member, who claims to be from Saskatchewan, speaking on behalf of Saskatchewan farmers? I would like him to answer that question yes or no. He is talking about the $500,000 capital gains exemption.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.
Excise Tax Act


Simon Leendert de Jong: If I might continue my remarks, I do not think that was a very valid point of order. If the Hon. Member would just keep his seat and hear me out.
In two years time, maybe one year, the Hon. Member will discover that the farmers in his riding will consider the $500,000 capital gains exemption to be meaningless. I predict the value of their land will decline so rapidly in the next two or three years because of the state of agriculture in this country that they will be happy to be able to get out of the farming business with the shirts on their backs.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Tell that to your farmers!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Unfortunately, that, to me, is the state of agriculture in this country. I stand here on the floor of the House of Commons and state in public-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Simon Leendert de Jong: -that agriculture is facing a horrendous crisis. Land values have already started to erode to a very significant extent. Financial institutions will have their backs to the wall. A horrendous transformation of agriculture will be forced upon us. Unless and until this Government gets serious about agriculture, it will slide into the most dismal state imaginable. The $500,000 capital gains tax exemption will be like eating cake while the tragedy unfolds.


Thomas Gordon Towers: You don't know what you're talking about.


Simon Leendert de Jong: 1 challenge the Hon. Member to stand up in this House two years from now and prove me wrong.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I will be happy to.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I sincerely hope that I will be wrong.
One of the reasons for this situation is the U.S. Farm Bill and the subsidies European countries are paying their farmers. It would cost us $4 billion to $5 billion, not $1 billion, to catch up. Of course, we cannot afford that. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) says Canada is in no position to compete with the treasuries of Europe and the U.S. Part of the reason for that is the deficit. Part of the reason for the deficit is the tax policies of the former Liberal Government and this Government here.


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be made clear to my friend that when he refers to the former Liberal Government he should not suggest that we are part of that. We were elected in 1984 to improve the administration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. I would also like to remind the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) that he has one minute left today and he will have 11 minutes when we resume debate on this Bill.

October 29, 1986
Excise Tax Act


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, is the time taken in these scurrilous points of order deducted from my allotted time? All right, good. I am afraid that not too many Conservative Members will be standing up speaking on behalf of this tax increase in C-14. They are trying to bootleg their name into Hansard by these scurrilous points of order which have no validity whatsoever.
Let me continue my remarks if I may. We now begin to realize why we have the kind of deficits we do.


Arnold John Malone: Because NDP Members were elected.


Simon Leendert de Jong: We have not had a fair system of taxation where those who are able to pay their fair share do in fact pay
their fair share. We have instead a system where a teller at the Royal Bank of Canada in 1983 paid more dollars and cents in taxes than the bank did, even though it had over $300 million in profits.
My comments will continue tomorrow on the same station at eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.16, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, October 30, 1986


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a massive rally being held today in Toronto by Indian people. About 2,000 people from Indian communities throughout Ontario are attending this rally. The Premier of Ontario and the Ontario Attorney General will address them.
This rally is being held in support of the right of aboriginal people to self-determination and to show politicians, both federal and provincial, and the Canadian public that selfgovernment has grassroots support. The people support the efforts of their leaders who are trying to get their rights to selfdetermination and self-government recognized in the Canadian Constitution.
At the next First Ministers' Conference in the spring of 1987, the Government will have a special responsibility in this issue and must show leadership. The aboriginal peoples of Canada will not be satisfied until the rights of aboriginal peoples to self determination and self-government are recognized in the Constitution of Canada.