1986-12-17

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, bluefin tuna fishermen in Atlantic Canada are hopping mad. The Minister has sold them out. Two Japanese longliners have caught 400 bluefin tuna weighing less than 300 pounds each. That is 400 bluefin tuna which our Canadian fishermen will never catch.
Does the Minister think he can go against the advice of his own advisory committees, his own Department, and Canadian fishermen, and get away with it? No slight reprimand, or "I promise not to do it next time", will satisfy fishermen in Atlantic Canada.
The Minister calls this sell-out experimental. Fishermen call it exploitation. The Minister said he wanted to put money into the pockets of fishermen. Then why did the Minister line the pockets of Bayshore Tuna?
Tuna fishermen in Atlantic Canada deserve better answers than the Minister has given. They will not forget the Minister and his secret deal with his Tory cronies.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF GREATER QUEBEC CITY'S CONCERNS
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to a historic event that occurred last Friday in Quebec City.
For the very first time, federal and provincial Members from the greater Quebec City area met to discuss the region's major issues, including industrial development, the future of research and high technology in Quebec City, the dossier on the hi-tech industrial park, transportation, tourism, the Sommet de la francophonie, and so forth.
In a spirit of co-operation, we worked together on policies for the major projects that will enhance the area's economic development and the future of the people of the greater Quebec City area.
Mr. Speaker, this was a very successful and important meeting for the future of the area, and above all, it illustrates the sustained efforts being made by this Government to achieve national reconciliation.


HUMANITY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, because male and female sperm determinant differ, it is now possible to choose whether a boy or girl will be born. For those for whom a 50-50 chance has produced the reality of several children of the same sex, this technology can provide a happier balance, and for that it is to be welcomed. But all may not be well as gender selection kits appear on the shelves of corner drug stores.
Dare we ask whether a mechanism produced by billions of years of evolution to ensure equal proportion of males and females and the perpetuation of the species should now be replaced by the same kind of preference as that for the colour of a new car?
Does not the establishment of gender selection clinics by oh, so humanitarian, multinational corporations in the Third World suggest a new and dramatically effective means of birth control, namely, the elimination of female births?
Are not the kind of ethical and political questions raised by science in the service of personal choice in a narcissistic age as momentous as those for science in the service of war? And is it not time for us to weigh these questions and implications of our creativity, and act to preserve our humanity? Remember, a coin that always turns up heads means someone is always the loser.

December 17, 1986


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this past week marked the anniversary of one of the most significant dates in Canadian constitutional history. I am referring to the passage of the Statute of Westminster passed 55 years ago in December, 1931. In the long constitutional development of this country, that date is as significant as any other.
After the Statute of Westminster, we can say that Canada truly became an independent country. The document confirmed that no legislation passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom would apply to Canada unless expressly authorized by Canada's Parliament. By 1931 the country had come a long way since that day in 1791 when Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe opened the first Legislature of Upper Canada in Niagara-on-the-Lake.
The Statute of Westminster did not, however, sever our allegiance to the Crown, and that is why it was appropriate that the Union Jack flew over government buildings again last week. As one of the local newspapers in my riding, The Niagara Advance, indicated: "The royal standard Union Jack was being flown ... in recognition of Canada's allegiance to the Crown and membership in the Commonwealth of Nations".


THE LATE HONOURABLE SENATOR JEAN-PAUL DESCHATELETS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, Senator Jean-Paul Deschatelets died in Montreal after a long illness. I wish to pay tribute to this public figure who for many years played a major role on the federal political scene, first as a Member of the House of Commons, then as Minister and later as Senator.
I had the privilege of working closely with him during those years and was able to appreciate his exceptional qualities as a humanist. He was the soul of integrity, and those who knew him well will remember him as a philosopher in politics. One is tempted to ask what on earth he was doing in politics. I think he even asked himself that question on occasion. In any case, he always remained faithful to his roots and to his deepest convictions.
We have lost a patriot, and speaking on my own behalf, on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party and especially the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I wish to extend our sincere condolences to Mrs. Deschatelets and the family.


ABORTION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the winter 1986 issue of Healthsharing, a feminist magazine published in Toronto, reports that an organization calling itself Concerned Citizens for Choice on Abortion is raising funds to open an illegal abortion clinic in Vancouver.
Last week we learned from the final comprehensive annual abortion statistics from Stats Canada that British Columbia still has the highest abortion rate in the country, 26 abortions for every 100 live births. The Vancouver General Hospital already has a separate accredited facility which alone is responsible for 400 abortions per month, and yet we hear that there is a group in Vancouver raising funds to open an illegal abortion facility.
In British Columbia, over 20 per cent of the children conceived are killed by abortion, while a group of people are raising money with the expressed intention of breaking the law in order to kill even more unborn children. Will we wait until half of the children of B.C. are killed before we address the situation? I hope not, Mr. Speaker. I think we in this House must address the abortion issue now.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has said that environmental issues are not part of the free trade negotiations with the United States. Unfortunately, life is not that simple. Whatever either party to the negotiations wants to have on the table is on the table, whether the other party likes it or not. We have already seen that the Americans may consider our social programs to be a government subsidy to Canadian business. There is no reason to believe they will not think the same about our environmental programs.
For example, the Americans could consider government sponsored reforestation programs or pollution abatement programs to be non-tariff trade barriers which we should bargain away. Or, where Canadian environmental laws are weak, we could be locking ourselves into a situation in which they would have to remain weak.
At the moment these environmental dimensions of the free trade initiatives are being overlooked by the federal negotiators. No environmentalists sit on Canada's free trade negotiating team, nor are they among Simon Reisman's 85 staff people or his 54 advisers. There is no commitment on the part of the

*

December 17, 1986

Government to conduct an environmental assessment of the final free trade agreement. Canada must not bargain away the political and economic power it needs to build a truly healthy, sustainable and environmentally sound economy.


PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's edition of La Presse we learned about the existence of a common front made up of representatives of the business, political and scientific communities, and dedicated to the promotion of Bill C-22 dealing with drug patents.
Such prestigious personalities as Mrs. Manon Vennat, President of the Montreal Board of Trade, Mr. Marcel Daoust, President of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, and Dr. Jacques Gagne, Dean of the faculty of Pharmacology of Montreal University, have publicly indicated their support for this Bill.
These people believe that the 10 years period of exclusive right granted to manufacturers is not only essential to recognize copyrights but represents for them bare minimum.
The future legislation will make it possible for the Canadian pharmaceutical industry to reach new levels of prosperity. In the Montreal region alone, investments up to $200 million, out of an expected total of $500 million, have already been announced and will create hundreds of high-tech jobs.
Everybody warmly supports this Bill. Apparently, only Members of the Opposition are unable to see its potential benefits.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the depletion of the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect and climatic change, and the long-range transport of acidic and toxic substances are interrelated and cause man's contamination of the atmosphere. A new approach and ethic toward discharging wastes and chemical materials into the air must be adopted on an international scale.
A number of substances, including chlorofluorocarbons, have major impacts on climate and the ozone layer. Chlorofluorocarbons are used in refrigeration, solvents and foam insulation, as spray can propellants, and in fast food containers. Identified as a source of chlorine in the stratosphere, they
contribute to a chemical reaction which is eroding the ozone layer. Scientists say that on average a drop of 1 per cent in the ozone layer means a 4 per cent jump in skin cancer rates.
Canada should take the initiative of urging other nations to control and reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons, companies should be urged to limit their use, and their disposal should be carefully handled. The ozone layer must be protected to protect human health.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Less than 24 hours after the Liberal Party of Canada convention, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) contradicted his leader by telling him that he had to follow the policies duly endorsed by Party delegates.
The leader certainly did not rush to ask for a public retraction from this recalcitrant Member.
In a letter published today in The Gazette the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East makes a feeble attempt at making amends, but he simply will not bow to the leader. Indeed he cannot refrain from stressing in his letter, and I quote: "Some resolutions were passed unanimously and others by a narrow margin. Some were detailed and others general, some were clear and others vague, some were complimentary while others contradictory, and finally, some issues were not dealt with at all. More significantly, many of these resolutions were carried without information on their financial implications."
The Liberal Member did take a last shot at his leader by stating that "their first responsibility is to the electorate and not to their party."
In the next few days we will hear more about the recalcitrant attitude of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. Who will win? The leader or the little red rooster?


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have yet another letter I would like to share with the House about the Government's plan to amend the Patent Act. The letter reads:
A couple of questions are the bitter pill the Minister of Consumer & Corporate Affairs wants the country to swallow blind:

December 17, 1986
Oral Questions
I have been moved to tears, almost, about his plea that the Opposition is denying 3,000 "young research scientists" a chance to work wonders, etc., etc. But if Mr. Andre is so devoted to young scientists, why the cuts at the National Research Council?
Further, if the new patent legislation is not going to cost consumers "one penny more", why are the multinationals so hot to have it passed? If there's not extra money in it for them, they are obviously wasting their time.
Or is Mr. Andre gilding as well as coating the pill? Is he equally ready to declare that the new legislation will not cost the taxpayers of Canada "one penny more"?
How come this Government hates old folks so badly that first it tried to chisel their pensions, now it's after their potions?
Yours truly,
H. W. Somerville.


MISSING CHILDREN
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Christmas is the time of year for families to gather together and reflect on our good fortunes, as we remember the birth of the Prince of Peace.
However, there are many families who are not so fortunate. There are over 2,000 missing children in Canada today. In my hometown of Edmonton, Tania Murrell has been missing since January, 1983.
What has our Government done to address this tragedy? Well, a missing children's registry has been created for access by all police forces. A missing children's research project has been established in four urban centres, including Edmonton. Customs officers at our borders will be provided with names and photos of missing children. This is a positive start, but all Canadians must work together to prevent this tragedy from continuing.
As we gather together this holiday season, let us remember the families of missing children and let them know our hearts are with them.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to go to Quebec City where I met with 450 early retirees who were denied benefits by this Government. I can tell you that the people of Quebec will not forget the former Member for Levis who is still here and who will be turfed out at the next election because he did not dare show up. Nor will they forget the
Members for Louis-Hebert, Langelier, Quebec East, Montmorency-Orleans, and Portneuf.
Mr. Speaker, the 450 early retirees have decided to lead the fight so that all Canadians who have been denied benefits will get refunds. These people also urge Canadians to enjoy their Christmas turkey, meat stew and ham while discussing the unfairness of the Progressive Conservative Government and of the Prime Minister towards older workers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows that 50,000 Canadians have lost their jobs directly in the oil and gas industry because of the current weakness in the energy sector in Canada, and another 40,000 Canadians have lost their jobs in the supplier industry. He knows that energy markets are in a mess, that major projects are on hold in Canada, and that we are risking our security of supply as a nation. When will the Government recognize the current situation and deal with the immense human suffering, particularly in western Canada, arising out of the failure of the energy sector since the Government took office?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has certainly identified a very serious problem. It is a problem that has been caused by depressed prices as a result of an action taken half-way around the world. The Government has responded in many respects. We dismantled the devastating National Energy Program which stripped billions of dollars from the energy sector and western Canada. We accelerated the demise of the PGRT. We have been and are working very closely with industry and the Government of Alberta on a number of ongoing initiatives. Clearly, the Government takes the problem and the issue of security of supply and energy self-sufficiency for Canada very seriously.


John Napier Turner: As the Government moves into the second half of its mandate, those arguments about what previous administrations did or did not do begin to wear pretty thin.


OFFSHORE EXPLORATION PROJECTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the offshore exploration both in the Beaufort and in Atlantic Canada will virtually cease next year. This will place the future security of supply for Canada in jeopardy. What action does the Government intend to take, despite the current relaxed attitude of the
December 17, 1986

Minister of Energy, in order to revive offshore exploration and ensure that Canada has security of supply in the years ahead?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one thing we have done is remove the heavy burden of taxation on the industry and the producing provinces. As a matter of fact, in the last two years of the Liberal Government some $4.5 billion to $5 billion a year was extracted from the oil patch. Today it is less than $500 million. With the demise of the PGRT it will be a lot less.
The Government of Canada is working very closely with the producing provinces and the industry. Quite frankly, the Government has responded to every request the industry advanced and we will continue to work very closely with it because we believe that through co-operation and consultation, not confrontation as was the case with the previous Government, we can revitalize the oil patch.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether that rhetoric will impress his fellow citizens in Alberta.
I have been unable to get an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister on general policy or whether the Government intends to take action on the frontier. Perhaps I can ask him a question about a specific project. Has the federal Government agreed to give financial assistance to the Syncrude project in Alberta despite the opposition of the Minister of Energy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that project is under consideration. If any arrangement is worked out with Syncrude and the Province of Alberta, an announcement will be made. I repeat that it is being looked at very seriously.


CHEVRON CANADA-DIVIDEND PAYMENT TO PARENT COMPANY IN UNITED STATES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A recent survey by the Petroleum Monitoring Agency says that a Canadian company made a dividend payment of $500 million because of the deferral of a major capital project. That payment was made by Chevron Canada to its U.S. parent because of the Government's inaction on Hibernia. How can the Government condone this bleeding of $500 million from the Canadian energy sector? Does it not prove that major Canadian oil companies have no confidence in a Government which lacks an energy policy?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: The voice of the NEP.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that the Hon. Member failed to consider all the
Oral Questions
report. That company made a dividend payment of $500 million, but he failed to say that they had not paid a dividend to their shareholders for a number of years.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, three years to be exact. However, that is $500 million that will not go into creating jobs in Canada.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: If the Government wants to do something it can start by appointing a full-time, not just a part-time, Minister of Energy. When is the Government going to do something to stop this bleeding of money from the Canadian energy sector and create exploration and development along with jobs in the energy sector?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member now admits that the company had not paid a return to the investors for three years. I would suggest that not very many people want to invest in an industry if they are not going to get a return. It is as simple as that.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The other day, the Minister of Finance of New Brunswick said that the federal Government had unilaterally withdrawn the offer it made in Edmonton to increase equalization payments to the provinces by $175 million for the next financial year. Today, I was able to confirm this with the Minister of Finance for Quebec and the Government of Manitoba.
My question is this: Why did the federal Government make this incredible decision?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this proposal was made by officials of the provincial and federal governments. The offer did not come from the federal Government. I told the provinces yesterday and last Friday that the federal Government could not possibly accept the one-year proposal. We were agreeable to an increase over two years, and that is what our Government has decided. This is in addition to the increase from 4 to 6 per cent in the annual increment for the equalization program.


John Edward Broadbent: I will say to the Minister that the people in the poorer provinces will know that instead of getting $175

December 17, 1986
Oral Questions
million in the coming year, they are going to get it in two years, which will mean they are going to have to pay a lot more out of their own revenues for increased education costs and everything else. They understand that, if the Minister does not.


POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that the federal Government did indeed offer $175 million at the Edmonton meeting in additional payments starting next year, and then a few weeks later at the Toronto meeting it cancelled that offer? Why is there this increased injustice for the parts of Canada which need more assistance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has it all wrong or he is purposely twisting the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: What's new?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the Hon. Minister would want to change the way he put his answer because, of course, it is inappropriate to say another Hon. Member is purposely twisting the truth.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to say he is twisting the facts?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can say to the Hon. Minister that that is an honourable occupation in this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me then, Mr. Speaker, state the facts as they should be stated.


John Edward Broadbent: That will be very different indeed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In Edmonton there was a proposition put on the table by a committee of bureaucrats, officials from both the provincial and federal levels of Government, to increase the size of the Equalization Program by $175 million.


John Edward Broadbent: The next fiscal year.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We had a discussion at that meeting. There was no consensus. I did not have a consenus to take back to my colleagues in Cabinet. Since the Edmonton meeting, I had an opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues. We agreed to accept the proposition of an $175 million increase on top of one of the fastest growing federal Government programs, equalization, growing at 4 per cent to 6 per cent per annum. We said we wo;uld accept it, but only over two years because of our fiscal position. So we are increasing
by a significant amount one of the fastest growing areas of government assistance.


John Edward Broadbent: I thought the very last thing this Government would do would be to raise questions about credibility in statements.


SIZE OF FEDERAL PAYMENT TO PROVINCES
John Edward Broadbent: I listened to the answer by the Minister of Finance with care, and following on with what he just said, will he now acknowledge that the federal Government did offer at the Edmonton meeting $175 million in additional payments to the Equalization Program, which would start in the coming fiscal year, but that the Government changed its offer at the Toronto meeting? Will he confirm that? And if he does so, will the Government finally come to its senses and admit it has cut back on hundreds of millions of dollars to the poorest parts of Canada which need increases, not reductions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 could make another comment about the facts just laid out by the Hon. Member. We did not withdraw an offer-there was never an offer on the table. There was a report. I challenge the Hon. Member to find one person who will say that there was a federal government offer on the table.


John Edward Broadbent: I just talked to three of them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Bring them in and we will talk about it. There was no offer on the table. We have recognized the position of the poorer provinces. We have increased the program by 4 per cent to 6 per cent per annum. On top of that the enhancement of the program will be by an increase of $87.5 million this coming year and by $175 million the following year. That clearly demonstrates the concern that this Government has for most parts of the country.


POSITION OF PROVINCES
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister just said that he needs witnesses to prove that this offer has been made. Perhaps the Treasurer of the Province of Alberta would be good enough for this Tory Government. The Treasurer suggested that the provinces had thought that the larger payment was a certainty because of statements made by the Minister of Finance at the meeting in Edmpnton two months ago and reaffirmed by the Prime Minister in Vancouver at the meeting of First Ministers. Why has the Minister of Finance broken another promise to the provinces?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Hon. Member to prove on the floor of this House that I have broken a promise that there would be an increase
December 17, 1986

in this program by $175 million. Prove it on the floor of the House of Commons, or withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the evidence was there. The facts are-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


John Napier Turner: Bring in the provincial Treasurer, he will prove it.


Raymond Garneau: I wish to ask the Minister another question. What I just read was from The Globe and Mail under the signature-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Allmand:: It's a Conservative Party newspaper!


Mr. Speaker:: I know that all Hon. Members will want to hear the Hon. Member's question. Will he please put his question?


Raymond Garneau: What I have just said came from the Treasurer of Alberta. He may come to the House and-


John Napier Turner: Bring the provincial Treasurer before the Bar of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please put his question?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: A coherent question!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I was challenged by the Minister of Finance and I felt I had to set the record straight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Challenges abound in this Chamber. Will the Hon. Member please put his question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Show a little honour and withdraw.


PROMISES MADE TO PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain to the House why his Department and his Government had enough money to reimburse shareholders at the Bank of British Columbia but did not have enough to keep the promises he and his officials made to the provinces across this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of our erstwhile banker, perhaps I may explain that this proposal was not a promise made by the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister or myself. It was an offer made by the committee of provincial and federal officials. There was
Oral Questions
no consensus at the meeting in Edmonton. After this meeting, I had discussions with my colleagues and they accepted the committee's proposal, but it would be for two years and not one. This is not a change in policy by the Government of Canada. We understand the position of the provinces located in the least advantaged areas of our country. We have increased the increment from 4 to 6 per cent, and on top of that, we are adding an increase of $175 million.


POSITION OF PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Why is it that the Ministers of Finance of Quebec and Manitoba believe that the federal Government made an offer of $175 million over one year? Why have these people confirmed to us today that that is what they believe the federal Government said?


John Edward Broadbent: And New Brunswick.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot answer why they are saying what they are saying. I am telling the Hon. Member, and I am laying my job on the line right in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Axworthy:: Now we have you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I put it right back to the Hon. Member. If he wants to lay his job on the line, then-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind all Members that time is slipping by. The Hon. Member for Churchill on a short supplementary question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Put your seat on the line.


PROVINCIAL MINISTERS' BELIEF
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a short supplementary question of the Minister. It is not only the Liberal Government in Quebec and the New Democratic Government in Manitoba but the Conservative Government in New Brunswick which say the same thing. Again I ask the Minister why they believe something which is completely contradictory to what he is saying?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the rules of the House are in this regard, but I have said to the House, and I have said to the Hon. Member, that I will lay my job on the line if he can prove that I have broken a promise. If he wants to continue this line of questioning then he should lay his job on the line as well, because I have not broken a promise.

December 17, 1986
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, it looks as if we have a revivified leadership candidate here.


Charles Joseph Clark: What are you running for, Sheila?


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the Secretary of State in the wake of the Irangate-Nicaraguan affair. The Minister is no doubt aware of concerns that have been expressed to him in writing about his attendance recently at a Toronto conference which included featured guest Mario Calero, chief U.S. fundraiser for the Nicaraguan Contras. Can the Minister explain whether he was at this conference in a private capacity or whether he was there representing the Government?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, unless I misunderstood the question, I was not at the conference.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Mr. Andre:: Don't let that stop you, Sheila!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will, I am sure, want to let the Hon. Member put her question.


UNITED STATES ARMS SALES TO IRAN-RCMP INVESTIGATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister was cited as being one of the patrons of the conference. He will know that he received a letter on December 5 from Canadian Action for Nicaragua specifically asking him if he was patronizing the conference as a Minister or as a Member.
In light of today's press reports linking a former Conservative MP with the Canadian connection in Irangate, can the Government give us the assurance that an RCMP investigation will include any role played by the former MP for York North?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the House that after the request of the Deputy Prime Minister to investigate all aspects of any Canadian involvement in the Iranian deal, that was commenced immediately. I had a meeting with the Commissioner yesterday and I can assure the Hon. Member that the investigation is indeed continuing and will involve anyone who comes to its notice.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Government House Leader and concerns the status of Bill C-45 which deals with employees on Parliament Hill. Now that the Board of Internal Economy has met to discuss the status of this Bill, can the Deputy Prime Minister give us any indication of when all or parts of the Bill will finally be Gazetted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will know that the Government has worked very closely with the Board of Internal Economy on this matter. I am pleased to advise the House that an agreement, with the concurrence of the Board of Internal Economy, has been reached providing that Part I of Bill C-45 will be proclaimed on December 24.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN QUEBEC
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Last year the Conservative Government agreed to and actively supported the shutdown of the Montreal East Gulf refinery. After yesterday's explosion at the Petro-Canada refinery in Montreal East, what does the Government plan to do to prevent a further decline in Quebec production and still higher prices for Quebec consumers?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that Petro-Canada has assured the Government of Canada and the Minister of Energy that there will be no disruption whatsoever in the gasoline supply resulting from the explosion.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEES
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, what guarantee will the Government give to avoid a worsening of the situation which Quebecers will again end up paying for? What guarantee?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I answered the
December 17, 1986

Hon. Member's second question the first time. I want to assure him that Petro-Canada has assured the Government that there will be no disruption in gasoline supplies or production from the plant.


CITIZENSHIP COURTS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State of Canada and is a general question concerning Citizenship Court judges. Would the Minister not agree that it is highly inappropriate for a Citizenship Court judge to ask a female applicant why she was not married and whether or not she was romantically involved with any individual? Would the Minister not agree that conduct of that kind would be grounds for the dismissal of a Citizenship Court judge?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which particular case the Hon. Member is referring. If he would like to bring that information or facts about a case which occurred in the past to me, I will investigate the matter if he will let me know about it.


DENIAL OF CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, specifically the question is about the case of Judge Walter. Can the Minister assure the House that during the course of this investigation he will investigate all cases of citizenship being denied by Judge Walter to determine the reasons citizenships was denied?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I gave assurance to the House yesterday that, because of the severity and seriousness of the allegations made, the investigation would take place immediately, and it has. The under-secretary has instructions to carry out a full investigation to make sure that he was carrying out his responsibilities properly and to deal with those allegations specifically. I still give that assurance to the House and I expect to make a statement on Friday morning.


PRINCE RUPERT COAL PROJECT-INVOLVEMENT OF FEDNAV COMPANY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the Minister has been warned by the President and the Chairman of Ports Canada that the continued presence of FedNav in the coal port
Oral Questions
of Prince Rupert will cost Canada control of the project and as much as a thousand million dollars-that should perk up the ears of a Government looking for money-because of FedNav's veto power, will the Minister explain why no action is being taken to cut FedNav loose from this deal before it extorts any more money from Canada or the Prince Rupert coal project?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member appears to be a slow learner. I went over all of this with him several months ago. There was a pre-incorporation agreement authorized by the Liberal Government of the day, as one might expect, in October of 1981, and approved by the Treasury Board of the day in December of 1981. Under that agreement there is no obligation on the Government of Canada to exercise its call option with FedNav or any other company in the universe, in the year 2001 or at any other time. There is a put option and there is a call option, a put and a call. It neither has to be put nor called by the Government of Canada.
With respect to the directors, they owe a duty to the company. The federal government directors can veto certain decisions and the FedNav directors can veto certain decisions but all directors must act in the general interest of the company. The Hon. Member would not understand that because he does not like companies.


COMPANY'S VETO POWER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the entire cabinet file on this matter and I would suggest that the Minister of Transport read it. It contains no shotgun clause. FedNav maintains the veto power and Canadians stand to lose a thousand million dollars. If the Government is hungry for money, why does it not boot FedNav out since it is composed of a bunch of Liberal hacks?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has more cabinet files than I have.


John Edward Broadbent: That's probably true.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why is it that I understand the situation and he does not? Let me just explain this once more. If the Government of Canada exercises its option now, it would cost us $49 million, but if we wait until-


James Ross Fulton: You're reading that out of the newspaper. Here, I'll give you the file.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in a very difficult position because the Chair cannot make out who is being put and who is being called. The Chair has an announcement to make which will be of interest to all Hon. Members. I know Hon. Members will give the Chair the courtesy of hearing it.

December 17, 1986
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MANITOBA LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Gary Filmon, Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, in a hurry to speed up construction of the Port-Cartier prison so as to comply with the Prime Minister's political agenda, the Government completely forgot-believe it or not-to connect the water pipes which would have made it a lot easier to put out the fire. One hundred and thirty-seven workers could have been killed.
I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he can explain why the most elementary fire fighting facilities were not available on the construction site. Was the Government in too much of a hurry to finish the job before the next election?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, usually water lines of the kind contemplated by the Hon. Member are not installed until 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the construction is completed. This is normal construction practice. Only about 30 per cent of the construction had been finished when the fire occurred.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INSTITUTE INVESTIGATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that the lives of workers be in danger. In my opinion, construction should cease forthwith.
I want to ask the Solicitor General whether he will launch an inquiry on the circumstances surrounding this fire, and in addition will he assure the House that work will not resume until the usual fire prevention standards are fully implemented?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, an investigation has already been concluded concerning the fire and the circumstances relevant to it. We are absolutely satisfied that nothing is in jeopardy and that the construction will proceed without further difficulty.


OLD PORT OF QUEBEC
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for Canada Lands Company (Vieux-Port de Quebec).
These days, in Quebec City, there is much speculation about the possible establishment of University of Quebec headquarters in the Vieux-Port area. Could the Minister advise the House whether this location could accommodate such an establishment?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, the House will be delighted to know that the Company has been responsible for investments totalling some S30 million in the Vieux-Port de Quebec area over the past year. There is also the possibility, of course, that the University of Quebec Headquarters could be moved to that area. I have personally met the minister responsible, Mr. Ryan, about this. He has indicated that he was not prepared to invest between $25 million and $40 million to finance the establishment of a university, but that he would be quite receptive to a proposal which is already before the Company to integrate the presence of the University of Quebec. We hope to be able to give a positive response in that regard within the context of a proposal which is before us and which would certainly delight both the residents and the authorities of the City of Quebec.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration, to whom I delivered yesterday documentation of a scandalous situation in the administrative review of refugee claims. Last Friday two brown-skinned women from Guyana were refused landing in Canada, to which they were entitled under the regulations of the administrative review of refugee claims. Will the Minister tell the House whether that wrong decision arose from orders given by senior immigration official, Ralph Girard, to increase the proportion of refusals for political purposes, or was it dictated by prejudice against brown-skinned women from the Third World?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government, unlike the previous one which kept people inhumanely waiting for a response, put an administrative review into place. Of the 2,900 cases heard in Toronto, only 450 are of European origin. There has been a 93 per cent success rate. The critera are well established, and I am not
December 17, 1986

aware of any contradictory directives which might have been given.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister examine the facts concerning the two cases I have referred to him and look very closely at the secret change in immigration procedure which apparently occurred following Mr. Girard's visit to Toronto?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish to thank my hon. friend for the letter he has delivered to me directly. I can give him every assurance that my officials are going to review these cases that we will follow up this together with the Hon. Members.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY-INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT WILLING TO REVERSE NOVEMBER 1985 DECISION
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is related to the footwear industry. On November 26, 1985, the Minister for International Trade stated, and I quote:
"I have the greatest faith that those industries and the people who work in them can compete with anybody in the world", referring to footwear, especially men's footwear.
Now Statistics Canada has determined and proven right the opposite. There are many more imports, in proportions reaching up to 50 per cent, in some areas of operations. Faced with that dramatic situation, will his Department agree to reconsider his decision of November 1985 and set quotas, the only way to maintain the thousands of jobs involved in the Canadian footwear industry?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the announcement, which was on the recommendation of the import tribunal, it was indicated in the Minister's press statement that they expected a surge of imports in the first 12 months to 18 months. We are just finished the first 12 month period, and we are experiencing a surge. However, there is still a 23 per cent tariff on imported shoes, so there is protection to the Canadian shoe industry.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the
Oral Questions
Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the Government's job elimination program in the shoe industry which has resulted in the dismissal of 140 employees at a plant in Alexandria, in my riding. That on November 25 the Minister promised in the House that he would try to arrange a meeting between the Shoe Manufacturers' Association and the Minister for International Trade. The organization has been refused a meeting four times. When will the meeting take place, or is he waiting for every single job to disappear in my riding and elsewhere before doing something?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is being a little unfair. He knows full well that the person responsible in the Minister's office has met, as late as last week, with representatives of the Association and has explained the situation very clearly. They know the Minister is occupied with the softwood lumber situation at the present time and that she will be meeting with them in the new year. The Hon. Member knows that full well and, to try to raise it in the House now is just showboating, as usual.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Since October last, rural route residents in Launay's range 4 in Abitibi have no more mail distribution. My question is this: Will Canada Post immediately reinstate that route before the Christmas season for the Abitibi area pioneers like Mr. Laroche, a farmer, Mrs. Bosse, who is turning 73 this year, and the 59 other people who are deprived of a longstanding service?
Canada Post has shown no respect for senior citizens in my area, and many people do not even own cars with which to go and get their mail several kilometers away.


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, of course I am most sensitive about the comments made by the Hon. Member. He knows very well that Canada Post's corporate plan has been tabled and referred to a committee. That committee has submitted its recommendations, and Canada Post is reviewing them in order indeed to respond in a more sensitive way to the problem of rural routes, and as soon as we have Canada Post's recommendations, we will release them to the public at large.

December 17, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Minister will be aware that during past months the United States has used its massive subsidy program to sell over 300,000 tonnes of Durum wheat in Canada's traditional market in Algeria. Now that the Americans have taken direct aim at a traditional Canadian market, has the Minister taken steps to reach Washington and present a strongly worded protest to the Americans about their predatory practices in the sale of wheat?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the straight answer to the Hon. Member's question, which is a serious matter for us, is, yes. We have let the Americans know that we do not approve of this kind of action. We do not think it is helpful to grain prices internationally and we do not think it is going to work. As the Hon. Member knows, with the good reputation of the Canadian Wheat Board and past performance we are and will continue to maintain our share of world wheat markets.


PRESERVATION OF DURUM WHEAT MARKETS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, since the Algerian market accounts for a large portion of our Durum sales, what specific action is the Minister taking to do something about the fact that we no longer have those sales so as to preserve our markets for Durum wheat?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we regularly sell to something like 60 countries around the world. Our reputation as a supplier of very high quality product is extremely well known. The action we have taken as a country is to support fully the efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is in an entirely different vein from what previous Governments did in backing away and putting in LIP programs. We have a major commitment to the industry in terms of a billion dollar payment just announced by the Prime Minister. That is a firm commitment to the agricultural industry and it is a firm indication to both customers and competitors alike that Canada is in the grain business for the long haul.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: note with some trepidation that the Prime Minister is embarking on a seven-day trip to Africa in January. Could the
Secretary of State of State for External Affairs relieve our anxiety about the costs of this trip by requesting the Prime Minister to pay for it from his own travel budget and practise some of that restraint so that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not be obliged to close other embassies or other posts abroad in order to keep the Prime Minister in the style to which he has become accustomed?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the spokesman on foreign policy for the Official Opposition should suggest that the Prime Minister of Canada should not travel to Africa, should not carry on consultations that will allow Canada to continue the role of leadership that we have taken on the question of South Africa and, indeed, allow Canada to continue to play the role of leadership commenced under this Government in the context of la Francophonie and in terms of encouraging international economic development.


An Hon. Member:: You are twisted.


Raymond Garneau: You are stupid, Joe.


ANNOUNCED CLOSURE OF EMBASSY IN FINLAND
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs sounded like the wise statesman that Maclean's magazine wrote about a few weeks ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Speaking then of closing embassies, yesterday the Minister refused to tell us what plans have been made if the Finnish embassy is closed. No Government would not have some plan to have those functions carried out. Would he undertake to table the detailed plan he has so that we know what will happen to the functions now being carried out by the embassy in Finland?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Moscow will look after them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the responsibilities that are now being carried out by the embassy in Finland which, because of the legacy of debt that we inherited from the former Government of which the Hon. Member was a part, we had to close down-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We don't believe you any more.


Charles Joseph Clark: -those responsibilities will be carried out through our embassy in Stockholm. There is not a detailed plan that has to be presented or tabled. I suppose I should say to the Hon. Member with regard to Maclean's magazine that, if he has a little bit of patience and waits for 14 years, perhaps his turn will come once too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 17, 1986


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that a resolution has been passed in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario concerning the Canadian Constitution. That particular communication has been sent to the Speaker.
In bringing that communication to the attention of all Hon. Members I shall read out the formal parts in a moment, but I want it clearly understood that this communication from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is by way of information and does not initiate any process within this Chamber.
I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication from the Hon. Hugh Edighoffer, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, transmitting to this House a resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly.
The motion reads:
Resolved, That this House authorizes that a Proclamation be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada amending Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to read as follows:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice,
and urges that the Senate and the House of Commons and the Legislative Assemblies of the other provinces do likewise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: What about the Alberta Legislature?


Mr. Speaker:: I want to inform Hon. Members that for the benefit of Hon. Members copies of the resolution are available at the Table in both official languages.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: 1 wish to bring another matter to the attention of Hon. Members. I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) that, due to a prior commitment, he is unable to be present in the House Friday, December 19, 1986 to move his motion during the hour for Private Members' Business. Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will thereby be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, could you clarify a point for me? I am having some trouble in
Business of the House
identifying just which Party the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) was representing today? Is he an Independent, a Conservative, or a Liberal?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, you have just indicated that I have a prior commitment that will keep me from the House on Friday when my Notice of Motion would otherwise have been debated. I would be pleased to have the record show that I am appearing that day before the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission in Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: I should say to the Hon. Member for York Centre that I welcome his comments so that the record is accurate. I hope the Hon. Member does not think that I in any way impugned his well-known habit of hard work on behalf of his constituents.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you know that I rise again to ask that serious consideration be given to protecting the rights of private Members in this House to use Private Members' Hour which is available to them to defend, present, and debate the issues that are their concerns. By allowing the procedure to continue that was just announced, we are giving the Government an extra hour or two or three a week and are depriving backbench Members of this House of the right to have their debates as ordered. I would like to ask the Chair again to give us a decision-I know you are thinking about it-on whatever solution you have to that problem, and given the fact that my motion on the Order Paper has not yet been taken up.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member has a very intense interest in this matter, as do other Hon. Members. The Chair will make a ruling soon.


André Ouellet: On the same matter, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to read a report submitted by the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), Chairman of the Committee on Private Members' Business, who made a series of recommendations which should be included in the Standing Orders and which suggest a procedure likely to enable us to avoid the dilemma now facing my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It has been suggested that the chairman or his deputy might be given more latitude when selecting private Members' business which can be introduced and debated during private Members' hour.
I urge you not only to read this report but also to make sure that the Government and Opposition Parties House Leaders reach an agreement to implement these recommendations next year.


Mr. Speaker:: The intervention of the Hon. Member is very interesting and might be useful to the Chair!

December 17, 1986
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1987, and in accordance with section 54 of the Constitutional Act, 1867, recommending these Estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages and pursuant to section 7 of the Statute Revision Act, the project of Revised Statutes of Canada (1985), prepared by the Statute Revision Commission.

I should point out that there are some 16 additional volumes, about 900 pages each, which I have already left with the Clerk in order to avoid causing back problems for this hon. gentlemen here.


SEALS AND SEALING
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table in both official languages the report of the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada.


FRENCH CONSTITUTIONAL DRAFTING COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
tabling of first report
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the first report of the French Constitutional Drafting Committee, created to help the Minister of Justice establish, in accordance with section 55 of
the Constitution Act, 1982, the official French version of some constitution acts.
[Editor's Note: For above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the following petitions: 332-43, 332-54 to 332-85 inclusive, 332-87 to 332-89 inclusive, 332-91 to 332-100 inclusive and 332-102 to 332-105 inclusive.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order concerning a grievous error made by The Globe and Mail concerning the clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. One Andrew McIntosh writes in today's Globe and Mail concerning a call I received that:
The clerk then confirmed that the caller identified himself-
That is absolutely incorrect and a grave injustice to an outstanding clerk. I think the record should show that.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.



CANADAIR LIMITED DIVESTITURE ACT


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, as chairwoman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-25, An Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, I have the honour to report the bill without amendment.
[Editor's Note: For above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
December 17, 1986

Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I would like to table two petitions verified by the Clerk of Petitions. The first one is signed by residents of Thunder Bay and the community of Nipigon. They are concerned about the Government's plan regarding generic drugs and call upon the House to reject the legislation.
The second petition is signed by residents of the community of Atikokan and Thunder Bay, and they too voice their concern over this measure which they believe will unfairly hurt the people whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on a continuing basis.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to try and sensitize the Government to the concerns of the reading public about the tax on reading. I have petitions from your part of the country, Vancouver, and I deposit them for your information and consideration. The petitioners are concerned that the tariff on books has had little negative effect on the U.S. publishing industry, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and culture. It is costing a fortune and has placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. The petitioners call upon Parliament to rescind this negative tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries with respect to free trade negotitions.
I have been begging you, sirs, to remove this ridiculous tax on reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is vigorously-


Mr. Friesen:: Is it a petition or speech?


Mr. Speaker:: -making a point but I must move on. The Hon. Member's petitions will of course be received.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table petition after petition from Ottawa, Regina, British Columbia, Windsor and Saskatoon, all protesting the Government's Patent Act changes which will delay drug price decreases in this country.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present petitions concerning tariff, levied on books, and signed by Canadians from all parts of the country.
I have petitions coming from Halifax, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This Government should respond to the wishes of the Canadian book industry and rescind this regressive tariff.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am also pleased to present petitions on behalf of Canadians from Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
All these people humbly submit that 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. The tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, book distributors and Canada's culture. Rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. The hundreds undersigned 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 to free trade negotiations.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition from the undersigned residents of Canada who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. The petitioners are asking the Government to reconsider the decision to proceed with changing the Patent Act which they feel will allow prescription drug prices to be significantly higher than they need be. They, therefore, are asking Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which I wish to present to the House. It is from residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The petitioners also ask the Government to back off from its move to increase the price of drugs.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which has been approved by the Clerk of Petitions. It is from a number of residents of the City of

December 17, 1986
Motions
Toronto who complain that, in order to cut costs, the Post Office is removing letter drop boxes from the City of Toronto. About a third of them will be removed. The loss of this large number of boxes is greatly inconveniencing residents as well as causing risk to young children and older people who may have to cross arterial roads to mail letters. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Canada Post replaces these mail boxes and consults with the residents of the communities affected before removing these boxes and other services in the future.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of a number of communities in the Province of Newfoundland, including the communities of Torbay, Grand Bank and St. John's. These residents complain that the low-level flight training by NATO pilots in the region around Goose Bay, Labrador, is disrupting the life of the native people there and is also a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action which tends to endanger world peace. Therefore, the undersigned have called upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for establishment of a larger base there.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to submit a petition duly authorized on behalf of a group of Canadians protesting the imposition of the retaliatory tariff on books imported from the United States which is, as my colleague has observed, a tax on reading.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by citizens in Ontario and Vancouver protesting the Government's tax on reading. The petitioners point out that the retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language hurts Canadian consumers, book publishers, book sellers and distributors rather than the publishing industry of the United States at which the measure was aimed. The petitioners request that the tariff be rescinded.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to present a petion sent to me by constituents from the town of Watrous, Saskatchewan, who point out that the proposals to change the Patent Act will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs and will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. It will also result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83,1 move:
That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, laid upon the table earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual discussions with the House Leaders of the other two Parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the adoption of the following motion with respect to the order of business for tomorrow:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, at 3.30 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, December 18, 1986, proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted and the House shall proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as scheduled on that day's Notice Paper;
Provided, that in relation to the proceedings to be interrupted at 3.30 o'clock p.m., the provisions of Standing Order 11 shall apply;
That at 4.30 o'clock p.m., on that day, the House shall revert to Statements by Ministers for the purpose of the presentation of a statement by the Minister of State (Finance), and the replies thereto;
Provided, that the Minister shall lay upon the table a document in relation thereto;
That provisions of Standing Order 19(6), in relation to the extension of that day's sitting, shall not apply; and
That, immediately upon the conclusion of proceedings in relation to this statement by the Minister, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I move,
December 17, 1986

seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret):
That the report of the Statute Revision Commission, Volumes 1-17, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General; and
That the Committee report its findings and recommendations with respect to this matter to the House no later than Friday, May 1, 1987.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret):
That the first report of the French constitutional drafting committee be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Phillip Kaplan: That the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 2, 1986, be concurred in.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there have been any discussions with respect to this matter. There usually is.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I raised the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis) weeks ago and I am prepared to defend it.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is true, Mr. Speaker. This matter was raised last week, at least, and is presently being studied. We have had no notice that the Hon. Member intended to move his motion today. I will definitely undertake to see what is holding up the answers to this case and get back to the Hon. Member tomorrow.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the motion, the Government can speak against it, and then we can have a vote. I am assuming that I can now speak to the motion.
It is a very simple matter. It is a unanimous report from the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in which we basically ask for concurrence to
Motions
have a quorum of four Members because we have great difficulty in attracting larger numbers of Members to our committee meetings. I would ask the House to concur in the motion.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to this motion rather unexpectedly. As I indicated to the House, the Hon. Member brought this matter to my attention. We undertook to determine from our members on the committee the reasons for the change in the quorum. We understand that these meetings have been taking place and that there are difficulties in finding a quorum on certain days. I believe we have had discussions about this at the Whip Level as well as among the House Leaders.
In this last two weeks prior to the Christmas break we are trying to proceed in a manner in which matters such as this would not be brought to the floor of the House of Commons without prior discussion among House Leaders. In fact, a House Leaders meeting has been scheduled for 3.45 p.m. this afternoon and I find myself at a bit of a loss to know why there had to be a tearing rush by the Hon. Member to bring this to a vote.
Often, committees have motions that may be unanimous and make a great ijpal of sense from their standpoint, but may not make sense when considered in conjunction with the activities of the rest of the House or the other two Parties. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that is why we will discuss this even if it may impede the business of the day somewhat. I think it is important.
When we bring changes to the Standing Orders forward to the House, they are the subject of a great deal of discussion, along with some give and take on the wording or on issues that one Party may support and another may not. However, we try in all circumstances to come to the House with an agreement so that we can present to the House what is essentially a fait accompli. The Chair and all Members will realize that when changing House orders it is important that they be agreed upon by all Parties.
I have not had an opportunity to discuss this fully with my colleagues who sit on this Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, nor have I had an opportunity to discuss it with the House Leaders, Deputy House Leaders and Whips of the other Parties.
Without indicating how I intend to vote on this motion, I suggest that there be further debate in order to determine if it is acceptable with the Whip of our Party, the Whips of the Opposition Parties, as well as the House Leaders. We can take into account all of the problems that impinge upon whether or not we support this motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, let me indicate that there have been some discussions. On December 2, 1986 the Hon. Member in fact presented the first report of the Standing Joint

December 17, 1986
Motions
Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and, following that intervention, the Hon. Member did take time to inform the other parties of his concern regarding the difficulty in getting a quorum in order to conduct the business of that joint committee. After reflection and discussions, we felt this was in order and we have no hesitation about supporting the motion.
However, perhaps I should draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that when we are introducing motions such as this and asking for support in a matter as important as enabling the committee to function effectively, we usually receive a notification that such an initiative is being made. Perhaps that is where there is some confusion this afternoon, and nothing more than that.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has raised a very important point in his motion. The House Leader for the New Democratic Party pointed out that this matter came before the chamber well before today, even well before notice was first given of the intention to move this motion. In order to move along with the business of the House, may I propose to the Government that, while I understand the desire to look at this motion in the context of other suggestions with respect to changing quorums of committees, perhaps it would be willing to accept this motion without creating a precedent for any other issues with respect to quorums of committees. I believe the Hon. Member for York Centre has proven that a real effort has been made to operate the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, which is a very central committee, with the present quorum.
Without reflecting on any Members of the House about why they can or cannot attend the meetings of the committee, I think it has been demonstrated that the committee cannot function with its present quorum. I repeat, I think it has been demonstrated that the committee cannot function with its present quorum. I am not, nor are my colleagues, reflecting in any way on the interest of any Hon. Members of the House in the work of this committee. However, I think something which adds weight to my proposal is that the report we are debating has been signed by the co-chairman of the committee, a Conservative Member of the other place. Therefore, I would urge upon Hon. Members, particularly those Hon. Members on the Government side, to agree to this motion without prejudice to the position they may take with respect to any other issue regarding quorums and membership of committees.
I understand the desire of the Government House Leader and the Deputy Government House Leader to ensure that some problem is not being created through some inadvertence if this motion goes through. I think it has been made clear in the debate so far that there is a case for this motion being adopted. In my position as Opposition House Leader, I will say that if the motion is accepted, I would certainly not attempt, nor would my colleagues, to say it is a precedent with respect
to any other issues involving size of other committees or the size of their quorum.
I conclude by once again urging the Government House Leader to consider the proposal I have just made.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the House Leader of the Official Opposition and also the remarks of my good friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I find this rather strange in as much as we have been playing with a number of these things, looking at the structure of committees and revising quorums, on the basis of mutual discussion and co-operation. To have this inflicted at this particular time is a bit of a surprise. I think it really takes away from the spirit we have tried to develop.
What we do here on various occasions is modify the rules and regulations to adapt to the particular proceedings before us at the time. Not having been given prior notice that this was going to be brought up today, I think is really very unbecoming.
Having said that, and having regard to the caveats expressed by the House Leader of the Liberal Party-I think he would agree that it really is not a very good way of doing business-I would prefer to have an opportunity to consult with the Hon. Members representing the Government on this particular issue as to whether or not they have any objections to the report being concurred in. Hopefully, we can bring it forth on another day. That is what I would prefer. I wonder if the Hon. Member might consider that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the committee is hoping to meet again tomorrow. We have had four meetings scheduled and at each of those four meetings of that committee, which has nine Conservative Members, two Liberals and one New Democrat, we have had either zero or just one Conservative show up and the meetings could not take place.
Our workload for those meetings has piled up. I spent hours, as did the other regular members of the committee, and the former vice-chairman, sitting beside the Government House Leader, knows that, and the meetings cannot take place because Conservative Members do not come to make up the quorum.
Here is our report. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) says I did not give him notice. You know, Mr. Speaker, I did give notice. At the beginning, when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to give unanimous consent so those earlier meetings could take place, even in the absence of most of the members of the Conservative Caucus, the Parliamentary Secretary refused to give his unanimous consent. Now the Conservatives are asking me for my consent to subvert the rules which now permit me, as chairman of that committee, to have the question decided now. No thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
December 17, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Kaplan) agreed to.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday December 16, consideration of Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and a related Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and motions Nos. 7 and 14 (Mr. Garneau) (p. 2178-2179) and motions Nos. 8 and 15 (Mr. Cassidy) (p. 2179).
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, yes, I intend to finish what I have to say about Motion No. 7 and then proceed with Motion No. 14. The purpose of Motion No. 7 was to reduce, from seven years to three, the period during which a taxpayer who paid the minimum tax will be able to recover that payment, and my point was that if a taxpayer is given seven years to recover the minimum tax he
Income Tax Act
paid in a given year, we might as well not adopt this legislation, because in the final instance, no one is going to be stupid enough to have to pay this minimum tax.
I see this as a useless complication of our tax system, since everyone should be able to recover this tax.
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 14 concerns an equally basic aspect of the minimum tax. The tax was proposed to ensure that people who make use of tax shelters are nevertheless subject to paying a minimum of income tax. People who purchase flow-through shares, people who purchase what are referred to as MURBs in the housing sector, and people who purchase shares that are tax deductible, are all using ways to avoid paying income tax.
The minimum tax was introduced to ensure that these taxpayers pay at least 17 per cent on income computed according to a different set of rules. This income, as explained in the legislation, will include tax shelters such as flow-through shares, MURBs and other types of tax shelters, all of which are to be reincluded in the alternative minimum income for the purposes of the minimum tax. The number of exemptions is very limited and includes only basic personal exemptions, charitable donations and a few other exemptions of this kind.
What is rather surprising, however, is that among the exemptions listed by the Minister of Finance in his technical notes and which we find in the legislation, we see that the taxpayer is allowed to deduct 50 per cent of his capital gains, which means that the only tax shelter that will not be included as income for the purposes of the minimum tax is the lifetime $500,000 exemption on capital gains.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is an insult to people's intelligence to propose a minimum tax and then, first of all, allow recovery of the tax over the next seven years and second, to subtract from income otherwise taxable for the purposes of the minimum tax, the lifetime capital gains exemption.
And something strange, that lifetime exemption on capital gains, for minimum income tax purposes again, comes under the same headings as personal exemptions, student exemptions and handicapped exemptions, the deduction for medical expenses, the deduction for charitable donations, the deduction available to people who took vows of perpetual poverty, the deductions in respect of certain social benefits, the deduction for due refunds of unemployment insurance benefits, the deduction for income averaging and finally in the total deductions they will include the lifetime exemption on capital gains on the same level as charitable donations, personal exemptions and exemptions for the handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough in my view. And this is why we are proposing in our Motion No. 14 an amendment by which, in computing the minimum income tax, the $500,000 lifetime exemption on capital gains would be treated the same way as other tax havens like flow-through shares, or MURBs, or benefits derived from investing in certain areas of economic activity.

December 17, 1986
Income Tax Act
And the reason why we are moving this at this stage is that during the previous discussion of the Bill, on the basis of the comments made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Hockin), everybody on the Opposition side at least and many observers also realized that for the purposes of the minimum income tax, the $500,000 lifetime exemption on capital gains should receive the same treatment as the other tax havens, but we learned at the committee stage only, when we had officials before us, that what should finally be realized was that the capital gains exemption was also to be exempt from the minimum income tax. We believed that was unacceptable, and this is why we introduced the amendment in Motions Nos. 7 and 14.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the motion of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). He simply wants to abolish the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption. That is the only purpose of his motion. Yet, Mr. Speaker, to date, this tax exemption has proved useful economically. Small businesses and business people are all happy with this tax exemption, but the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides simply wants to abolish it.
I was listening to a television program not so long ago where he was publicly rebuffed and told that he was not being serious and that the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption was a good initiative.
He is at it again today since he wants to have this tax exemption abolished.
As for the minimum tax, he criticizes the fact that the amounts which may be payable in one year because of a very high income or salary can be recovered over a period of seven years. This is petty politics, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides is playing political games. I would like to give an example to explain the reason for this seven-year period. For instance, an artist might sell one, two or perhaps three paintings in one year. However, in a given year, he might be lucky enough to sell 25 and to have a very high business income for that year, but not for future years. If he has to pay the minimum tax that year, which he will have to do, this provision will be perfect to ensure that he pays his fair share of taxes.
However, what garantee is there that this same artist will not have a very low income in the next two, three of four years? The minimum tax is aimed at those who have high incomes year after year and who do not pay their fair share of taxes. Its purpose is not to tax someone who has a high income one year only.
Let us look, Mr. Speaker, at a young man from your constituency who has the good luck to sign a good hockey contract. He has a good income. However, in following years, either he is not considered to be a future hockey star or he has an accident which prevents him from playing. His career was
in hockey. It is true that he had a high income in 1986, but in 1987, 1988 and 1989, he will no longer have any income, but he would be taxed at a higher rate than other people.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to be realistic and this is why we set a period of seven years to adjust the tax rates of all taxpayers so that no one will be penalized compared with others. This is simply fair to all Canadian taxpayers and this is what we are doing with the Income Tax Act... I hear a Member on the other side laugh. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they do not always understand.


Mr. Cassidy:: A justice for the rich.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced the minimum tax a year ago-I remember it clearly, I was here-his Leader rose in the House to congratulate us; now, one year later, he is laughing.


Michael Morris Cassidy: In principle, but not in practice.


Pierre H. Vincent: One year later, Mr. Speaker, it is no longer good. It changes every day. They say that in the political world, one day is quite a long life. I realize now that for NDP Members, one year is a very, very long time, that policies and ideas change.


Michael Morris Cassidy: This is not a true minimum tax.


Pierre H. Vincent: It is a minimum tax, Mr. Speaker, and his Leader supported it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: No. Not at all!


Pierre H. Vincent: All of this to say that this is the purpose of the legislation, and I respectfully submit that the two motions should be lost.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly remember that my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) had supported the principle of a minimum tax which had been introduced by the Government in its last year Budget. But what is significant is that because of the pressure from the New Democratic Party, the Conservatives have finally accepted to have a minimum income tax. But in reality, Mr. Speaker, it is not a minimum income tax but simply an advance tax which will be excused in the future, which means that it will be simply a tax pre-payment, an advance payment of the tax and not at all a real minimum tax.
What we are really faced with is a situation where high income people earning over $100,000 or $200,000 are not paying any income tax at all. Justice for low income earners and ordinary people who have to pay income tax year after year demands that rich people who have all kinds of benefits, who have legal counsels, real estate brokers and accountants at their service should not be able to avail themselves of all the loopholes in the tax system to avoid paying taxes.
December 17, 1986

[DOT]	(1550)

This is the problem which the Parliamentary Secretary does not appear to understand. People who earn $250,000 a year are paying no tax at all while people who work as bank clerks, truck drivers and secretaries who earn $12,000 to $20,000 per year are paying a substantial portion of their incomes in tax. This is what we sought to have fixed by insisting that there be a minimum tax.
I remember the debate on television during the course of the 1984 election campaign. It was not the Progressive Conservatives who proposed a minimum tax. Nor was it the Liberals who proposed a minimum tax. It was the NDP. We proposed it and, finally, the other two Parties decided that they had better come on board. We now see their true stripes. The finance critic for the Liberal Party says that this is such a messy tax we might as well not have it at all. His Party really does not want there to be a minimum tax. The Government wants people to think that there is a minimum tax. But, in practice, because of the seven-year carry forward and because there are extra loopholes built into this minimum tax, it is not a minimum tax at all.

That is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, we introduced motions to delete the sections dealing with the minimum tax as proposed by the Government. We do not want to do away with the minimum income tax, but to give the Government a chance to reintroduce a really effective tax, a real minimum income tax.
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary did not mention people earning around $100,000 a year, for example. To start with, half of their capital gains would be exempt. Second, they would be able to take advantage of personal exemptions. Third, they are going to be entitled to a $40,000 deduction. To recapitulate, someone with a family, having an income of $100,000 a year and able to use all the loopholes to escape paying any normal income tax, would not pay 17 per cent in minimum income tax, but may be about half that amount, that is to say a minimum tax of $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 depending on the proportion coming from capital gains. But even that small amount is not really a tax, it is a deposit against any normal taxes the taxpayer might have to pay during the next seven years. In effect, Mr. Speaker, the only benefit for Treasury Board, for Revenue Canada, will be to receive $7,000 or $8,000 in 1987, for example, rather than in 1988, 1989 or 1994. That is the only result of this measure.
[DOT]	(1600)

That is not enough.
In the United States, that bastion of capitalism, tax reform proposals have been put forward by the Reagan administration, an administration which is certainly not a friend of this
Income Tax Act
Party, nor are we are friend of it. These proposals provide for a carry-forward of a minimum tax only in cases where it is judged that there has been a genuine tax deferred. For example, a corporation-and there is a corporate minimum tax in the United States-which defers tax by means of accelerated write-offs will in fact be able to take a tax credit for the minimum tax it pays in order that it can then pay off the tax that comes due later when the deferred tax becomes payable. However, if a tax is forgone in this country because of the tax-free exemption on capital gains, there is no such carry-forward at all. The American legislation, therefore, does not allow for three years of carry-forward as proposed by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), but for no carryforward at all where there is a total exemption from tax in the regular tax system. It seems to me that we should be looking at that kind of thing here.
According to the rules of the House, we will only vote once on each of these two motions, Nos. 8 and 15. While we propose to wipe out the seven-year carry-forward and then to review it in the context of an effective minimum tax, we will support the motion of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides for a three-year carry-forward since it is better than the clause as it exists and it will indicate our opposition to the measures proposed by the Government.
Motion No. 15 deals with Clause 51 of the Bill. That is the clause which allows, among other things, for the deduction from the income assessed for the minimum tax of 50 per cent of capital gains on top of the regular 50 per cent exemption. In other words, while capital gains will become liable to minimum tax, they will be liable at half the rate of other income. That perpetuates the ludricous policy of the Government which allows $500,000 in capital gains to be tax-free.
The people who will benefit from the capital gains tax exemption are not ordinary taxpayers. They are people with high incomes. Perhaps 90 per cent of the benefit of that measure will go to the 5 per cent of the people who are top-income earners because they are the ones who invest and stand to make capital gains.
Capital gains on personal residences are not taxable in Canada because of the view that people will in fact roll that money forward and because one has only one principal residence at a time. Figures in today's newspaper suggested that only 17 per cent or 18 per cent of the population invests in the stock market and only a portion of that group receives any appreciable amount of capital gains. We are talking about a very small proportion of the population. Inevitably, those are the people who tend to be better educated, have better jobs and receive higher incomes. The ordinary people in my riding and the riding of Regina East, the farmers in Saskatchewan and others like that will have to pay extra taxes in order to provide a tax benefit to upper-income earners.
In addition, upper-income earners will have special privileged treatment when it comes to computing the minimum tax payable because some of their income came through the lifetime capital-gains tax exemption. These people are classed

December 17, 1986
Income Tax Act
as being as worthy as people who have taken a lifetime vow of poverty and receive a special income tax exemption for that purpose. I find that ludicrous. The amendment of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides would at least do away with that particular objectionable and offensive part of the minimum tax. We will support that proposal. If we had the chance to do so, we would vote against the entire clause on the grounds that while the Government promised a minimum tax, and while we welcome the principle of a minimum tax, we did not get it.
We in Canada will really miss what is now in place in the United States and that is a minimum corporate tax. The use of preferred-shares financing and other dodges has allowed many of the largest and most powerful financial and industrial corporations in Canada to avoid virtually all corporate income tax. If it is a good principle that individuals should not be able to avoid paying a reasonably fair share of tax through the application of an effective minimum tax on personal incomes, that should be the case with corporate incomes as well. I regret the fact that the Government has not acted on that.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about the minimum tax let us not forget that the issue was raised during the 1984 election campaign by members of the New Democratic Party. The issue came up when the leaders were debating and, not to lose out on a good issue, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) immediately realized that Canadians on the whole are outraged by the fact that there are individuals who earn substantial income but year after year do not pay one cent of tax. The notion of a minimum tax became quite popular and the commitment was made by the Conservative Party that if elected it would introduce a minimum tax.
Today we see what type of minimum tax the Conservatives had in mind. It is a minimum tax full of loopholes. It is a sieve. As the Chairman of the Finance Committee so aptly put it, only unsophisticated taxpayers would be caught in this net. Certainly those who know how to plan their taxes and finances will escape paying one cent under the existing proposal for minimum tax.
I have here a copy of a newsletter entitled The Tax Letter which is put out by an accounting firm. It states: "Yes, you can beat the minimum tax," and it goes on to list several ways sophisticated taxpayers with the aid of accounting firms can avoid paying any minimum tax. The suggestions are numerous. Some tax shelters are still in effect. Interest deductions, tax havens, employer RPP contributions, business or investment losses and holding companies are some of the techniques that may be used to avoid paying the minimum tax.
A wealthy individual who has succeeded over the years in not paying any tax but does not quite have his finances in order this year will be hit with the minimum tax, but the Government gives him another loophole. He can claim those deductions in future years, in fact in seven years. It amounts to a deferral of exemptions. I would point out again that it is a
very ineffective minimum tax. I would be very surprised if indeed the Treasury collects any revenue under this proposal.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance pointed out that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced the minimum tax, the Leader and every Member of my Party welcomed the initiative. Certainly we understood it to be a commitment and recognition on the part of the Government that it was unfair to have Canadians earning substantial incomes year in and year out and not paying any tax at all. We welcomed that recognition, and we also took the Minister of Finance at his word when he stated the following:
What the minimum tax does is to prevent high-income taxpayers from using the capital gains exemption, alone or in combination with other tax incentives, to avoid paying tax in any one year.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary heard the Minister of Finance when he stated that the minimum tax would prevent individuals from using the capital gains exemption to avoid paying any tax at all.
Our amendment would put into force what the Minister of Finance promised the minimum tax would be when introduced. For the Parliamentary Secretary to defend the capital gains tax exemption in the minimum tax proposal contradicts what was promised by the Minister of Finance and what our Leader supported at that time.
When we see what the Tories mean by a minimum tax, can anyone blame us for not supporting the measure before the House? Surely everyone understands why we are not supporting that measure. Surely it is understandable to the Parliamentary Secretary and to other government Members why we are attempting to introduce some amendments to the piece of legislation, so that indeed it will become an effective minimum tax and there will be some tax justice and fairness in the country.
What about those individuals who live below the poverty line and began to pay taxes this year? I am referring to those persons who never paid taxes before. At least with a minimum tax, a sense of justice and fairness would be reintroduced into the system, and those persons earning from $50,000 to $100,000 or more per year would also pay a fair share in taxes. I urge the House to support the amendments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
December 17, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.

The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) on a point of order.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a recorded vote on Motion No. 7, and I ask you how I should proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Indeed there will be recorded votes after all motions have been put. This vote is simply deferred. It will probably take place this afternoon or on another day.
So the vote is now on Motion No. 8.

The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand, according to the ruling of the Speaker, that the votes on Motions Nos. 7 and 10 have been deferred; they will be taken subsequently.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes. Motions Nos. 9 and 10 will be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 will obviate the question being put on Motion No. 10, and a
Income Tax Act
negative vote on Motion No. 9 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 10.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-23 be amended in Clause 42 by striking out lines 1 to 6 at page
71 and substituting the following therefor:
(i)	a person in respect of whom the individual, or his spouse referred to in paragraph (a), was the only person who claimed a deduction under section 109 for the year, or
(ii)	a person (other than a person referred to in subparagraph (i)) who is a child of the individual and who was living with the individual at the end of the year.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 42.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 9 is meant to clarify the Government's intention concerning the federal sales tax child tax credit. For example, in the case of a separated or divorced couple, the way Bill C-23 was drafted when it was first introduced made it possible for both former spouses to claim the federal sales tax child tax credit.
We are moving this amendment because the intention of the Government is that the spouse who is keeping the dependent child or children should be the only one eligible for the $25 federal sales tax child credit. That is the purpose of Motion No. 9, and I urge Hon. Members to adopt it.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on Motion No. 10. As I said before in the House, granting a tax credit with respect to the federal sales tax is something entirely new in this field. It is an innovative approach which will make the tax system more objective. As a result of this measure a family earning less than $15,000 will be eligible for a tax credit related to items which it may have bought during the year and on which the federal sales tax may have been slightly increased.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is important because 75,000 Canadian families are involved, and as early as next year they will be eligible for this tax credit, $50 for adults and $25 for children.
So this is important because we now have a system where sales tax can be increased for people with higher incomes who can afford to pay, and at the same time we can protect low-income individuals and their families. My point is that we had to introduce both the increase and the sales tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I submit, with respect, that Motion No. 9 should be approved in order to restore what the Minister of Finance intended when he brought down the Budget, which was that per spouse or per child, if you prefer, a federal sales tax credit of $25 would be available, and that the federal sales tax credit proposed in the Budget by the Minister of Finance

December 17, 1986
Income Tax Act
in February 1986 be maintained. I feel this is a progressive measure that shows the Conservative Government's concern for low-income families, and at the same time opens up new possibilities for the application of the Income Tax Act and related Acts. It shows this Government is creative and is capable of thought and action. It shows that we can have a Canadian tax system that will be fair to all Canadians. That is what we have sought, and I think that up to now, Mr. Speaker, we have been successful.
I shall, if I may, quote some comments by the well known C.D. Howe Institute, Mr. Speaker, which mentioned in a recent report:
The Government's record in identifying priorities over the past year or so has been good. The February 1986 Budget introduced a fiscal plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt ratio at below 60 per cent by the end of the decade.

Mr. Speaker, the C.D. Howe Institute is known as a nonpartisan group. These are people who analyze and look at what the federal Government is doing in the fiscal area, in its Budget and what it is doing for the Canadian economy and the individual provinces. I think that what it says here and what I just quoted is an accurate reflection of the mandate we received in 1984.
They go a little further, Mr. Speaker and perhaps I may quote, this is called Fiscal Responsibility and Tax Reform, and it mentions the $2.5 billion increase in the deficit announced by the Minister of Finance in September. It says here, Mr. Speaker:

In the Institute's assessment, this deviation from the target is acceptable, provided that the Government continues to demonstrate its commitment to deficit reduction in the medium term. No single deficit number is the dividing line between responsible and irresponsible fiscal management.

And it goes on like this, in that they understand the problems the Canadian Government has had to cope with in the West and the additional needs and expenditures with which it was confronted. However, Mr. Speaker, the important thing is that for the second consecutive year, we managed not to increase our spending. The increase in this year's deficit will be due, not to an increase in spending but to a drop in Government revenues. That is something, Mr. Speaker, that had not been seen in Canada in the last ten years. It is important to stress that, since we are discussing Bill C-23 that provides for most of the tax schemes which we introduced in February 1986 and which necessarily worked their way through the Canadian economy and the economies of all the provinces, of your constituency and of the beautiful constituency of Trois-Rivieres which you know of course. By the way, things are going well in Trois-Rivieres, we have a low 10 per cent unemployment rate. But this again is due to the concrete steps taken in the May 1985 and the February 1986 budgets.
I will conclude on this Mr. Speaker, by urging the House to pass Motion No. 9 as rapidly as possible, and to reject Motion No. 10.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, our amendment asks for the rejection of the Government motion. In essence what the Government has done is, it has taken one thousandfold from the poor and by this measure will return a fraction. The Government is proposing a rebate to "your average family" of two parents and two children. It will return to those people $150 if they earn $15,000 or less. By the time the family earns $18,000 it will get nothing back.
You have to consider, Mr. Speaker, that since the Government came to power it has taken some $845 per year out of the pockets of your average family in increased sales and excise taxes. The Government is willing to pay back $150 to low-income groups. That is cynical to say the least. What happens to the people in the income brackets of $18,000, $19,000 and $20,000 a year, again a family of four trying to make ends meet? These people very often in this day and age are living in tremendous insecurity and desperation. Their lifestyles are not like those of us in the House of Commons. Their lifestyles are not like those people in the Finance Department. These people live in genuine economic insecurity and fear. They are the working poor. Very often they have great difficulty maintaining permanent jobs. They are often the first to lose their jobs. They are perhaps living in the the most difficult period in our history. Very often they are trying to raise families under extremely difficult situations. They have had extra tax burdens placed on them by the Government since it came to power, not only through hefty increases in sales and excise taxes but on vitamins, non-prescription drugs, chocolate bars, soft drinks and a host of other items. As well there have been changes to the Income Tax Act. The other week I heard testimony from the National Council on Welfare. It presented a graph. The line on the graph keeps going up. Starting in 1985 for the first time earnings equal to half the poverty line in Canada will be taxed. In other words, people earning half of what is considered to be the poverty line will start paying income tax. That line continues upward from 1985 to 1986 to 1987 to 1988 to 1989 to 1990 and so forth. It is true though that the Government has introduced some measures that will soften the blow to the very poor. When you deduct the sales tax credit and the marginal increase in benefits for children from those increased taxes you will find that the very poor are worse off than they were before.
The other part of the equation is the benefits that the well-to-do have received from this Government. The Financial Post of March 8, 1986, analysed the effect of the Conservative Government budgets on the $40,000, $60,000, and $150,000 income groups. The $40,000 group will end up paying marginally more, around $800, in taxes from 1984 to 1987. The $60,000 group will end up paying roughly $1,200 less in
December 17, 1986

taxes in 1987 than they did in 1984. The $150,000 group will end up paying some $6,000 less. I call that obscene. There is no other word for it.
The Government tries to dress up this inequity by pointing to the $150 it will pay to a family of four. This is not only unfair, it is unjust. That is why we are asking now, as we intended in committee, that the minimum tax credit be $200 for an adult rather than $50, and $100 for a dependant, rather than $25. That is less than what the anti-poverty groups have called for. They asked that the tax credit for an adult be $400, and $200 for a child. They feel that at that level the poor will be protected from the increase in the cost of living due to these sales and excise tax increases put forward by the Government. That is also why we have no alternative but to oppose this part of the legislation. By doing so we hope to raise the awareness of the Government which has been socking it to the poor. For heaven's sake, redress the injustice in the next Budget and allow a decent tax credit for poor families.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 9 introduced by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Hockin), which adds details to the definitions of people entitled to the income tax credit, I have no objection and I do not think it is worth the trouble discussing it at length. Indeed, the new version might be more specific and prevent interpretations that could prove costly or unfair. So, as far as Motion No. 9 is concerned, I have no objection and we will support it immediately.
As far as Motion No. 10 is concerned, I do not understand it, Mr. Speaker. I do not understand it in the sense that it proposes to remove clause 42 entirely .
I understand the objective of the mover and of the New Democratic Party, but if this motion were adopted, there would be no tax credit whatsoever to reimburse the sales tax which have been dramatically increased by the Conservative Government in the last two years. This tax has gone from 9 to 12 per cent, which is an increase of 33 per cent. It is not surprising that the Government should feel somewhat embarrassed by its harassment of low-income families and that it would want to provide a tax credit.
I agree with the mover of motion No. 10 that the tax credit as proposed is completely insufficient. As the previous speaker has just pointed out, at the meeting of the Committee on Finance when representatives of the Canadian Welfare Council came to express their views, it was clearly established that to compensate, not future increases, but those which have already been proposed and implemented by the Conservative Government, we would need a tax credit of $400 per adult, while Clause 42 of this bill only provides for tax credits of $50 per adult and $25 per child. This is totally insufficient.
This tax credit is not only insufficient, it is also embarrassing. If I were sitting to the right on the Government benches and had to vote on this measure, I would be embarrassed to propose such a thing when all organizations, including Government agencies such as Statistics Canada, have set the
Income Tax Act
poverty line for a family of four in a major urban centre at $21,000 and the tax credit being proposed is only $50 per adult and $25 per child based on a maximum income of $15,000. This represents a $6,000 difference for a family of four. It is senseless. The amount is totally insufficient and I am surprised that the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres did not say so in his comments earlier.
Mr. Speaker, we are put in a difficult position because, on the one hand, if we support motion No. 10 now before us, there will be no tax credit whatsoever. And on the other hand, if we vote against the motion, we feel we may be supporting a Government proposal that is totally inadequate. Basically, we are caught between two evils, but I believe it is still better to have a totally inadequate provision than no provision at all. And this is why we are goin to support Motion No. 9 but reject Motion No. 10, not because we agree in any way with the amounts indicated but, quite the opposite, because if we were to support Motion No. 10, we would in effect preclude all form of support, all form of help to compensate families at least in part for the dramatic tax increases that have been imposed by the Tory Government over the last two years. So we will support Motion No. 9 and reject Motion No. 10.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment very briefly before the vote, just to say that the Government's proposal is so inadequate there is no way we could support it. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides said he and his party felt squeezed, and for that reason they were going to support the motion even though they saw it as totally inadequate. On this side of the House, this utter inadequacy leads us to say simply that we should scratch that clause from the legislation, in order that the Government may put in place a more adequate provision. Now, it is not the Opposition's right or privilege to propose measures that entail expenditures, and we therefore have no way of introducing a motion to put in place an adequate provision for the sales tax credit.
It is therefore one of two things: Either we support our proposal, our motion, to defeat that clause and allow the Governement to bring in another proposal, or else we tolerate an intolerable situation, as proposed by the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to Hon. Members that I hope they will vote with us and reject that inadequate measure, for the main reason that if the Government intends to bring in a business transaction tax with a small compensation for low income families, it is very clear that, under that Government proposal, their idea of what is adequate and acceptable is so unacceptable that the new business transaction tax will be totally regressive.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

December 17, 1986
Income Tax Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of Mr. Mclnnes (for the Minister of State (Finance)). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Hockin) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with the ruling, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the question being put on Motion No. 10

Motions Nos. 11, 12, and 13 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-23, be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-23, be amended by deleting Clause 47.


Raymond Garneau: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-23, be amended in Clause 49 by striking out lines 6 to 45 at
page 87 and lines 1 to 11 at page 88.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, Clauses 42 and 43 cut the corporate tax break from 46 to 43 per cent. In addition, the Government is widening, by another 1 per cent, the tax reduction for manufacturing businesses. In essence, the Government is taking a head start on its proposals for tax reform. It took significant steps to broaden the corporate tax base in the Budget of February, 1986. It did so by eliminating the 3 per cent inventory allowance deduction, by eliminating investment tax credits, and by tightening the rules on limited partnership tax shelters.
The problem is that although the Government earned a certain amount of revenue by broadening the tax base, it promptly used that revenue to cut corporate tax rates. The consequence is that when we get to tax reform in the new year, as we have been promised we will, there will be nothing in the kitty to finance other changes in taxation.
I believe most Canadians hold the view that the corporate sector has been undertaxed and that we need to consider very seriously whether corporations should not pay a greater proportion of the total federal Government tax revenues. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows that that is the public perception. Polling by the Department of Finance itself has indicated that.
The share of taxes paid by corporations has fallen during the last 10 or 15 years. However, rather than trying to redress that problem, the Government and the Department of Finance have taken the view that corporate tax changes should be "revenue
neutral". That means that anything gained by broadening the base should promptly be given back to the corporate sector through rate reduction. We think that is wrong. We think the Government should hold its bets with regard to the ultimate levels of corporation tax until the entire picture of tax reform is before Canadians.
Second, a number of the tax expenditures which are being eliminated were established initially to achieve certain objectives and worthy goals. Groups from all across the spectrum have concluded that the use of the tax system for that purpose is ineffective. I was on television a few months ago with the head of the Canadian Federation for Independent Business. I was most surprised to learn that he was saying much the same as I was. We had grave doubts as to whether the tax loopholes which were designed to further worthy goals were working and we felt they should be removed.
You can be darn sure, Mr. Speaker, that if the corporate sector is denied tax loopholes, it will be looking for grants, subventions, and other forms of assistance. An example is that which is happening at the GM plant in Quebec. There is talk of a substantial interest-free loan which amounts to a grant. That will not be seen through the tax system, but it will have to be paid for in one way or another. We are going to have increased amounts to pay in terms of industrial incentives.
In certain circumstances an NDP government would be prepared to look at such a policy in the context of an over-all industrial strategy. The money must come from somewhere. A revenue-neutral tax reform for corporations means that you have given away the money you may have redeployed into grants and other forms of incentives. The Government has taken the view that in broadening the base corporations should be assessed lower tax rates. Money given to the corporate sector to assist with worthy objectives through grants or other above-the-table payments will have to come from elsewhere. It will obviously have to come from either the transaction tax or income tax which is paid for by ordinary Canadian taxpayers. Once again, the Government's priorities are distorted. The effect of its giving an immediate tax cut to corporations will be to impose a larger tax burden on ordinary Canadians.
The marginal rate on corporations is now 46 per cent. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that the effective rate on corporations is well below that, perhaps 20 or 25 per cent. My belief that if you demonstrably increase the effective rate on corporations it will be possible to cut the marginal rate was confirmed by the visit of the Finance Committee to Washington to study tax reform. However, the Government has this reversed. It is cutting the marginal rate on corporations without demonstrating that there is a substantial and effective increase in the effective rate in corporation tax.
I believe, therefore, that the Government is acting in error. A sceptic or cynic would say that while the Government cloaks itself in the mantle of tax reform, it is in fact finding a way of delivering, under the guise of a modernized tax system, a
December 17, 1986

further benefit to its friends on Bay Street and St. James Street.

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, 1 simply want to say that the Government is acting prematurely when it reduces the corporate income tax from 46 to 43 per cent, and when it widens by another 1 per cent the tax reduction for manufacturing businesses. First of all, there is precious little indication that such tax incentives really create jobs. In addition, broadening the tax base does not in my opinion, justify a tax reduction until the Government unveils the entire picture of its tax reform.
The Government seems to think it is a good idea to have a revenue-neutral tax system for corporations, which means that if revenues are increased as a result of a broader tax base, corporate tax rates should be promptly reduced instead of considering the possibility of transfering part of the personal tax load to the corporate sector.
Mr. Speaker, we the NDP members agree with most Canadians who believe that corporations do not pay their fair share of the total tax revenues in Canada, and we think that corporations should indeed contribute more.
We also believe that instead of simply letting the Government reduce corporate tax rates we should wait to see whether or not the effective corporate tax rate will increase.
The United States reduce the marginal rate at the same time as they raise the effective rate. If we had evidence that the same thing is being done in Canada, then we might be more inclined to accept the Government proposition. But since no such evidence has been forthcoming either in committee or in the House, we will oppose these measures until such time as the Government discloses its entire tax reform and gives Parliament an opportunity to scrutinize it.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I was not quite sure that you were pleased to recognize me, but I should be quite prepared to yield to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides if he is ready-
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.
Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) say that he is against helping the GM plant in Quebec; on the other hand, I read recently that a great friend of his, Mr. Bob White, was fully in favour of it. I suggest, therefore, that the Hon. Member should consult his friend about this and report to us. But to return to motion no. 11 standing in his name, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about reducing the corporate tax rate, there would be at the same time a broadening of the tax base. In this connection, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has been fair and emphasized what we have done about this in our last Budget. However, when he talked about reducing the corporate tax rate, Mr. Speaker, we must take the entrepreneurship into
Income Tax Act
account. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has taken the view that corporate tax changes should be "revenue neutral". I am all for that, but we should not overlook the fact that corporations in Canada should have enough of after-tax revenues to reinvest them.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre referred to our Bay Street friends. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no friends on Bay Street, but I do have some on Desforges Street in Trois-Rivieres-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You act as though you had friends on Bay Street.


Pierre H. Vincent: -and it is those people from Desforges Street, from the constituency of Trois-Rivieres, from your own constituency and from the Laval-des-Rapides riding who reinvest. They are the ones responsible for the current excellent economic situation in Canada. If we want those people to reinvest, we cannot tax away all of their profits. We have to help them and this is what we are doing. The response has been excellent. It is too bad that the New Democratic Party cannot understand it. This is how it is. Our businesses must have enough money left to reinvest.
In Trois-Rivieres, car dealerships are doing very well. They are expanding. Trois-Rivieres dairies invested large amounts last year. I hope that they will soon be reinvesting to change their fleet of trucks. They can do that, Mr. Speaker, because they have enough money left after taxes to go on, to expand, to create new jobs, to make the economic wheels turn. Whether we are speaking about our own region, the province or the whole country, it is something that has to happen.
Some say that we should be increasing the corporate tax rates, but I think that this is a bad idea. If the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre told me that we should see to it that all companies pay their fair share of taxes, I would perhaps be more willing to discuss the matter with him. However, let him not say that we should tax businesses more. I therefore respectfully submit that motion No. 11 should be defeated.
As for motion No. 12, which would simply eliminate the manufacturing processing tax credit, I believe that the same principle applies.
In the case of motion No. 13, unfortunately, 1 did not have the opportunity to hear the arguments of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides. I shall wait to hear his views, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I will comment more substantially on Motion No. 13 which has been regrouped for debate.
I would just like to comment briefly on the two preceding motions which would delete two clauses in the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I agree generally with the principle of broadening the tax base to lower the effective tax rate, and I

December 17, 1986
Income Tax Act
think the Government's objective in this respect should be twofold. First, it must ensure that companies pay their fair share of taxes. Easy to say, but very difficult to define.
The second point the Government will have to bear in mind when setting these tax rates is the competitive position of Canadian companies in the production of goods or services, as compared with Canada's competitors on the international markets. It is easy to say: this person or group of persons or group of companies has to pay more. However, I believe our objective must be to maintain a high level of employment, which will be difficult to achieve if Canadian companies are taxed more heavily than their American counterparts who, in many cases, are only thirty or forty kilometers away, and who, because of the free movement of goods between the United States and Canada, can easily enter the Canadian market and vice versa. So our competitive position must be maintained.
In Bill C-23, the Government has abolished exemptions and broadened the base, and this has a direct impact on business. However, reducing the tax rate over a given period is done in such a way that despite what the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) said earlier, this year, Canadian businesses will pay slightly more taxes because on the one hand the base has been extended and immediately implemented and, on the other hand, rates have been reduced on a two, three or four-year period so that in the meantime, businesses will pay slightly more income tax.
Mr. Speaker, my proposal contained in Motion No. 13 is aimed at striking out some lines in Clause 49 the purpose of which was to rescind several investment credits in some areas of the country. Those investment credits have been useful because they have enabled some remote areas to take advantage of investments which they would not have obtained without that help extended through the tax system for businessmen who had decided to invest in some prescribed areas, that is as set under the regulations.
At present, Section 49 will rescind for all practical purposes investment tax credits which will be solely limited to some areas such as Cape Breton and other parts of the country but in a very limited fashion. This means we will no longer have a regional development policy in Canada, since the only instrument the Government had left in place was the tax credit that is now going to be abolished by Clause 49. I am not saying that the tax credits we had in the past were the answer to all our problems. Certainly not. But at least our tax legislation provided some encouragement for businessmen and women who wanted to invest in remote areas. In its February Budget and in Bill C-23, the federal Government has submitted that these policies no longer meet the desired objectives. They are being abolished but not replaced. Not a single regional development policy has been developed by the Government for this country, not a single one, as far as our businessmen and women are aware. And now, the Government is going to destroy one more instrument without providing for a replacement.
From the very outset, when I first arrived in the House, my concern was the attitude of a Government that wanted to apply one rule and one rule only: the principle of market forces. I agree that our economic system should continue to be based on a market economy, especially since we live on the North American continent and belong to international organizations for the liberalisation of trade, and so forth, but in a country like Canada, I don't think we can envisage the harmonious economic development of this country without a regional development policy for industrial investment and for air, railway and marine transportation.
This country was built around regional development policies, and since it came to power, the Conservative Government has been steadily demolishing the regional development instruments that were in place, however imperfect they may have been and however great their shortcomings. I would agree if they had said they were going to replace them with better policies. I am willing to sit down anywhere, on any committee or here in the House, to discuss the parameters of such policies. However, I cannot agree with abolishing instruments, however imperfect they may be, if they are not replaced. If Motion No. 13 is not approved, this means that investment tax credits applicable to remote areas will be abolished, at a time when the Government's budget for regional and economic development assistance has already been cut by several hundred million dollars. The Government is on the point of abolishing various transport services because of the sacred law of the market and we shall end up with a country eroded by a lack of consistency and the absence of an economic policy to facilitate the East-West movement of goods. What we shall have instead will be a North-South movement and with free trade, there will be a multiplication factor of ten. This country of ours was built on regional development policies which were based first on railway transport and then on other tools of regional development. This might seem very simple, Mr. Speaker, but if yet another tool of regional economic development is abolished and is not replaced by anything, an economic situation will develop in Canada where there will be two or three prosperous major centres, perhaps Toronto, and up to a point, Montreal, and even then, we have to wonder about Montreal with what happened in Eastern Montreal and what is now happening in Sainte-Therese, and so on. Finally, there might be two or three centres of activity and all the rest will be disadvantaged peripheral regions which the Conservative Government will have abandoned by abolishing one after another all our economic development tools which, while not being perfect, have been built up over the years.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre
December 17, 1986

(Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


An Hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Cassidy) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 12. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), moved that Bill C-23 be amended by striking out Clause 47.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Cassidy) negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 13. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), seconded by the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), moved that Bill C-23 be amended in clause 49 by striking out lines 6 to 45 at page 87 and lines 1 to 21 at page 88. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Income Tax Act
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Garneau) negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 17 and 18 will be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 17 will obviate the question being put on Motion No. 18. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 17 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 18.


Raymond Garneau: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-23, be amended in Clause 67 by striking out line 6 at page 122 and substituting the following therefor:
"180.1 (1) Every individual whose income is above the poverty line, as defined by regulation, liable to".


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-23, be amended by deleting Clause 67.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate on Motions Nos. 17 and 18. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if we refer to debates which took place during the 1984 election campaign and to statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the House or outside the House during debates or in answer to questions asked by newsmen before TV cameras, we remember that the two leading stars now on the national scene-the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance-had made very firm commitments concerning taxation.
Speaking of the Prime Minister, for instance, I have here a quotation from the Toronto Sun of 1984, and I will read what is reported as being the comments of the Prime Minister, which were never denied, I might add. I quote:

"Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, says he does not favour higher personal income taxes to reduce the swelling federal deficit because Canadians are already over-taxed".

Mr. Speaker, I should think that at the time all Canadians agreed with this statement made by the present Prime Minister of Canada.
Later on, the same Prime Minister of Canada said, and this time I am quoting from the Toronto Star:
In The Toronto Star of June 1, 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is quoted as saying that Canadians are already over-taxed. He stated that Canadians are already paying a pretty hefty bundle for their government services and that they feel they are paying enough. He concluded by saying that that view is not without its support in government, private industry and labour circles.
2222

December 17, 1986
Income Tax Act
I think most taxpayers and voters would have agreed, and would agree today, with the words of the Prime Minister. I could also quote the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who said that taxes were already too high.
What this Bill does is to impose another huge increase in taxes not just directly or indirectly but through a surtax. The amazing thing is that if this Bill is adopted, for part of 1986- and I suppose it will be because of the Tory majority-and when we fill out our tax returns in 1987, we will have three surtaxes to pay. It takes a special clause in Bill C-23 to fix that. There was the 5 per cent surtax mentioned in the Budget of 1985, as well as the 10 per cent surtax. We will now have a 3 per cent surtax over and above the other two.
I say that enough is enough, particularly for those who are in financial difficulty. I refer to those who live below the poverty line as established by Statistics Canada, or any other group which has studied this matter. In committee, representatives of the National Council on Welfare explained the difficulties low income earners face. For example, they told us that the poverty line for a family of four in cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg is $21,000. Everyone knows that it is not easy for a family of four to live in a large city with an income of $16,000 or $17,000 per year. Now the Government will impose an additional 3 per cent surtax on these people. In this way a family of four will have to pay $24 in 1986, because it deals with only six months of the year, and $47 more in 1987. When people fill out their income tax returns for 1986 they will realize that they have to pay $200 to $500 more in tax because of these surtaxes.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this Bill will add a third surtax and what we would like to do, what I would ask the Government- besides, this, came very close to being introduced directly in the House, because the Chair's deciding vote in Committee would have been required to defeat the motion I had proposed at that point. So I call upon Conservative Members to think this over well, as some of their colleagues did in committee. If the Government feels a 3 per cent surtax is absolutely needed, at least it should not apply to people living below the poverty line. They already find it hard enough to pay their regular taxes, without the Government slapping on them a 5 per cent tax plus another 3 per cent tax for the last six months of 1986.
I call upon Hon. Members to show compassion before the holiday season, and the Minister of State (Finance) probably is in this House. I would ask him to show some compassion for those who must live below the poverty line and to see that at least the surtax imposed by his colleague the Minister of Finance does not apply to them.
This is why the motion before the House, although we could have specified the amounts, proposes that, in order to leave some more elbow room to the Government, Clause 67 be amended so that the 3 per cent surtax Cannot be charged to those who live below the poverty line, which could be established by the Government by regulation. What I have in mind
is that the Government should follow the recommendations and data provided by Statistics Canada, a Government body, so that the poverty line for income tax purposes agree with Statistics Canada. But if, for different reasons, a somewhat lower level were prefered, let at least the principle prevail that people below the poverty line should not be charged that 3 per cent additional surtax that is levied by Bill C-23 under Clause 67.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words against the motion of the Hon. Member. This time of Christmas charity when we think of those less fortunate than ourselves can be no better time to raise the point raised by the Hon. Member. I wish to speak very seriously to the point he makes.
First, I would like to remind the House that over the course of the last two or three weeks people have been receiving the prepayment of the child tax credit, a meaningful amount of money. Depending on the size of the family the prepayment can be anywhere from $200 to $500. This money will help these families at this time of year.
There is also the refundable federal sales tax credit which is geared to low income Canadians. Both the prepayment of the child tax credit and the refund of the federal sales tax credit mean that we are compensating those who live below the poverty line. These are important matters. As well, there is the disability allowance which has been increased. We have also added to the qualifications for it. People who are in need in this country have been looked after through these measures.
With respect to the motion of the Hon. Member, I know that when he makes his point he seeks to Find a place at which we can stop the surtax. It would be logical for him to suggest, as he has, that that place is the poverty line. The problem with his proposal is that it would create an administrative nightmare. More important, it would not be fair to those with incomes just above the poverty line to have to pay the tax and the surtax while those below the poverty line pay nothing. The poverty line is itself an arbitrary barrier.


Michael Morris Cassidy: So you tax the poor instead.


Thomas Hockin: If we put this motion in context with all the other budget measures for lower income Canadians that the Government has taken, we have to say that the motion cannot stand.
It is important for other reasons as well, reasons which affect all Canadians, including low income Canadians. Once again, this is a measure to decrease the deficit. It will produce revenues of $1.2 billion. That is in the interest of all Canadians. If control of the deficit helps us to come to terms with and build confidence in our economy, then that will lead to investment. Then small business and large business will be able to create jobs for Canadians. That is really what we have been producing. It is the most important way to attack the problem of poverty.
December 17, 1986

In the spirit of the Christmas season, I remind the House of these things that we are doing for low income Canadians and I must ask that the motion be defeated.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) has invoked the Christmas spirit. Let me lay clearly before the House the record of the Government's treatment of low income families. I will quote from the report of the National Council on Welfare which says:
Giving and Taking: the May 1985 Budget and the Poor argued that, despite the increase in the child tax credit, many poor and all middle-income families with children will receive lower net child benefits as a result of the partial indexation of family allowances and the reduction in the children's tax exemption.
The report goes on to say:
The analysis takes into account the following changes: the partial indexation of family allowances, the gradual increase in the child tax credit and the lowering and partial indexation of its turnover point, the gradual decrease in the children's tax exemption, the partial indexation of personal tax exemptions and tax brackets, the elimination of the federal income tax reduction, the raise in tax deduction limits for private pension plan and RRSP contributions, the imposition of federal surtaxes and the introduction of the refundable sales tax credit.
We do not include the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption or the impact of increases in federal sales and excise taxes (which affect the cost of a number of goods and services but not the disposable income of families and individuals).
Taking all that into consideration, the council has found the following:
A two-earner couple supporting two children on earnings equal to three-quarters the estimated poverty line ($16,280) will lose over $1,200-
That is over five years.
-while a family with combined spouses' earnings at the low-income line ($21,700) is behind by more than $2,100. A couple earning $25,000 loses $2,500 in disposable income.
Note that the high-income couple with $100,000 loses only $2,182- significantly less than middle-income families. In fact the family earning just $21,700 loses about the same amount of disposable income (close to $2,200) as the $100,000 family which earns five times as much.
The Minister tells us that the Conservative Government has been good to the poor. We have found that for the first time, people with incomes at half the poverty line will be paying income tax because of the tax measures of the Government. For the Minister of State for Finance to place on the record the claim that the Government's tax policies have been good and beneficial to the poor and then not to hear rebuttals to that is shameful.
The record shows that the Government has benefited well-to-do income-earners while it has put extra tax burdens on the poor. Keeping in mind the spirit of Christmas, I find it shameful that people who live on incomes of half the poverty line are being taxed for the first time by the Conservative Government. People who try to scrape out an existence with incomes of three-quarters of the poverty line will see their taxes dramatically increased as will people whose incomes are on the poverty line.
Income Tax Act
For the Government to claim that it has been fair to the poor and has given them extra tax measures is obscene. Not only has the Government cut back on the programs that helped the poor but it is extracting more money from the poor. As far as the poor people of Canada are concerned, this Government will go down in the history books as being one of the meanest Governments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and a related Act. The first vote will be on Motion No. 3. Mr. Cassidy moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-23, be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Mr. Garneau moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-23, be amended in Clause 39
(a)	by striking out line 40 at page 67 and substituting the following therefor: "section (3) for the 3 taxation years"
(b)	by striking out line 25 at page 68 and substituting the following therefor: "section (3) for the 3 taxation years".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote will be on Motion No. 8. Mr. Cassidy moved:
Motion No. 8
The Bill C-23, be amended by deleting Clause 39.


Raymond Garneau: May I suggest that we apply the vote taken on Motion No. 3 to Motion No. 8.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for what the Hon. Member suggests?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, could my name be added to that list?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next vote will be on Motion No. 14. Mr. Garneau moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-23, be amended in Clause 51 by striking out line 33 at page 96
and substituting the following therefor:
"110(2), 110.4(1) and 110.6(2)".


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the vote on Motion No. 14 be the same as that on Motion No. 7.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the vote on Motion No. 14 be the same as that on Motion No. 7?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next vote will be on Motion No. 15. Mr. Cassidy moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-23, be amended by deleting Clause 51.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you could apply the vote taken on Motion No. 8 to Motion No. 15.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has suggested?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question will be on motion No. 17. Mr. Garneau moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-23, be amended in Clause 67 by striking out line 6 at page 122 and substituting the following therefor:
""180.1 (1) Every individual whose income is above the poverty line, as defined by regulation, liable to".


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I propose that the vote taken on Motion No. 7 be applied to Motion No. 17.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the Hon. Member's proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 18. Mr. Cassidy moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-23, be amended by deleting Clause 67.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the vote on Motion No. 18 be the same as that taken on Motion No. 17.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the vote on Motion No. 18 be the same as the vote on Motion No. 17?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and a related		
Act, as reported	(with amendments)	from the Standing
Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I believe that you would find unanimous consent to not seeing the clock for a period not to exceed 10 minutes until third reading debate has been completed, allowing three minutes for debate per Party. It is also my understanding that a recorded division will not be demanded upon third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Hockin: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-23. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to insist on the significance of Bill C-23 and the need to adopt it before the end of 1986 for all Canadian men and women.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-23 is to streamline the Income Tax Act while rendering the tax system more fair and equitable for all Canadians. This legislation must be seen in the context of the economic recovery which started when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Conservative team came to power on September 4, 1984. It will help Canada's economic activity, first by decreasing corporate taxe rates, and second by extending the corporate tax base. It also is aimed at establishing a minimum income tax for all Canadians with a certain level of income each year and who pay little or no income tax.
As I pointed out again this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party had expressed his agreement when we tabled our notice to establish a minimum income tax for individuals-


Michael Morris Cassidy: On the principle.


Pierre H. Vincent: -on the principle. On the other hand, the legislation must be enacted before the end of 1986 because it also is aimed at increasing the allowable RRSP deduction from $5,500 to $7,500 a year as early as 1986. This, Mr. Speaker, is something important for all working people who want to invest more money in view of their forthcoming retirement.
There is also a social fairness aspect to Bill C-23, as you certainly have noticed it Mr. Speaker, with the sales tax credit.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent piece of legislation following in the wake of an excellent Budget, and I would urge the House to enact it as rapidly as possible.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand that a Bill under which nearly $1.2 billion will be drawn from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers can be labeled a good piece of legislation. This is why we are going to oppose the Bill on third reading, without calling for a recorded vote in view of the Government majority. But we certainly are going to ask that it be carried on division.
This Bill will increase taxes for thousands and thousands of Canadians by more than $1 billion.
December 17, 1986

This Bill is contrary to the statements that have been made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during and after the 1984 election.
As a result of this Bill and Bill C-14, which was adopted on division by the House earlier this week, the Canadian taxpayers will pay an extra $1.2 billion. The total amount of new taxes for the fiscal year 1986, as a result of the 1985 Budget and the 1986 Budget, will be $6 billion.
Since the Minister is in the House, let me quote what he said on August 28, 1984. He said:
We have no intention of raising income taxes to Canadians. What we have to do is get down government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Up the taxes.


Raymond Garneau: Up the taxes and get the Canadian taxpayers down is the reality. The Minister introduced $6 billion in new taxes after he made those remarks in 1984, before the election. Of course, he was making promises in order to obtain votes.
On March 1, 1985, after the election, the Minister of Finance said on CTV Question Period:
I don't want to increase taxes-I think we have a good deal of scope on the expenditure side to deal with the deficit problem. A tax increase, certainly a general tax increase, puts a dampening effect on the economy and I don't want to see us do that.
Since then we have seen the Budgets of May, 1985 and February, 1986, with $6 billion in new taxes. If anyone should put his seat on the line it is the Minister of Finance who made those statements before and after the election and then increased taxes by $6 billion.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to this Bill briefly because it is close to Christmas and Members want to leave the House. First, I want to talk about the process.
This Bill was initiated in the Budget of February 26, 1986. There was a Ways and Means motion in June, but the Bill did not come before the House for debate until December 8, just over one week ago. The Government cut short debate on second reading and jammed the Bill through in the committee without allowing the opportunity to hear from outside groups or organizations who may have wished to testify on the Bill.
The Bill has come back to the House and now, on third reading, we are allowed three or four minutes to speak because it is very close to Christmas. That is not a good way to deal with tax legislation. While it may be necessary to pass such legislation before the end of the year, I suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should introduce such legislation into the House at least one or two months before the deadline, if such a deadline is necessary.
In just over two years of office the Government has raised taxes on ordinary Canadians by $1,350 per family per annum.
Income Tax Act
The Government has never challenged those figures. The Minister of Finance is here but he is not challenging them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I challenge them.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Although the Government is moving toward tax reform that broadens the base and lowers the rates, Bill C-23 narrows the base with unsupportable concessions on pension contributions and increases on RRSP deductions.
Not only is there an ineffective minimum tax, the Minister, despite his promises in 1985, has slipped in a loophole with respect to capital gains so that if there is any minimum tax on capital gains it will be borne at half the rate of other forms of income.
The sales tax credit is inadequate, particularly when one considers that the Government intends to use a sales tax credit to promote its business transfer tax. Corporation taxes are being cut in advance of tax reform and, rather than placing a surtax on the rich, it has been replaced with a surtax on every taxpayer, including taxpayers who are below the poverty line.
Canadians did not vote for that kind of tax system in 1984 and that is why the Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) has joined our caucus. The people of Quebec and all Canadians voted for real change in June, 1984. They did not get it from the Conservatives but they will get it from the New Democrats, whether it is on taxation, jobs or the creation of social justice for all Canadians.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, December 18, 1986