1986-01-30

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-80, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Before indicating the grouping, I gather the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, there are two matters that I wish to raise. With regard to the amendments that appear in the Notice Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), with the consent of the House I would like to withdraw on behalf of the Hon. Member Motion Nos. 13, 17, 18 and 21. The reason is that the subject matter is dealt with in other amendments and it would be redundant in our opinion to debate them and take the time of the House.
I also wish to seek consent of the House to have the other amendments that are acceptable to the Chair for the purpose of debate moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in the absence of the Member for Regina East.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Hon. Member is indicating he has the consent of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and that the Hon. Member for Regina East consents to other matters in his name being moved by someone else. Is that correct?


Ian Deans: That is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: For the information of the House, the same effect is obtained by not moving the motions when they appear. Since these are notices of motions on the Order Paper, we are now withdrawing the notice and, therefore, no unanimous consent is required.
I apologize to the House. I prefer to give my ruling in both official languages but I was only handed the English text. There are 19 report stage motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-80, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) should be debated and voted on separately.
Motion Nos. 2 and 3 will be combined for debate and voted on separately.
Motion Nos. 4, 5 and 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), present me with some procedural difficulty. Motion No. 5 appears to change the formula by which the tax rate for regular leaded gasoline is adjusted. This would increase the charge on the public by increasing the rate of taxation for regular leaded gasoline. I would draw the Hon. Member's attention to Citation 524 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Thus, I would be forced to rule the motion out of order. Since Motion Nos. 4 and 6 are consequential on Motion No. 5, they likewise could not be put to the House.

Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: a vote on Motion No. 7 will also apply to Motion No. 9. Motion No. 8 will be voted on separately. Motion No. 10 will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 11 and 12 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 14 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) proposes to increase the tax rates on petroleum products and would infringe on Schedule II of the Bill. It appears to exceed the provisions of the Motion of Ways and Means, which makes the motion procedurally inadmissible. I would refer the Hon. Member to Citation 523 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.

Motion No. 16 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion Nos. 19 and 20 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion Nos. 22 and 23 should be combined for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 22 will obviate the need to put the question on Motion No. 23. A negative vote on Motion No. 22 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 23.
There may be some desire to make procedural argument with regard to Motion Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 15. Members are free to take some time to consider my comments and make some arguments if they wish, but I intend to begin with Motion No. 1.

January 30, 1986
Excise Tax Act
Before I do, may I ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), just for clarity, whether he is seeking the consent of the House that the motion be in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


Ian Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Or does the Member simply want the motion moved on his behalf?


Ian Deans: If I may, Mr. Speaker, it would be better if we just moved the motion on behalf of the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is as follows: Mr. Orlikow, for Mr. de Jong moves:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 44 to 46 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) Subsection (3) shall be deemed to have come into force on July 1,
1985."


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, but I thought I heard you say July 1, 1985. I believe it was July 1, 1986. I may be in error, but that was my understanding.


Mr. Speaker:: The Order Paper says July 1, 1985. Has the motion been submitted not in the way in which it was intended? If so, the House can, by unanimous consent, treat it as a typographical error, or another Member may move an amendment thereto.


Ian Deans: If you would, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the debate could start as you put it, and I will check.


Mr. Speaker:: Commencing debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we moved this amendment because we believe the whole thrust of the changes and increases in the excise tax are very regressive. Sales taxes are a regressive form of taxation because everyone pays the same amount of tax no matter what his or her income. Consequently, these taxes take up a large proportion of the income of low-income consumers.
The Canadian Council on Social Development has estimated that for a family of four these sales and excise tax increases will result in an increased tax burden for a family with an income of $15,000 a year of $140.00; the increase and tax burden for a family with an income of $20,000 will be $282; and for a family with an income of $40,000 annually the increase will be $361.
Let us contrast the regressive increase in the sales and excise taxes with the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption announced in the Budget. In the 1982 taxation year, persons with incomes over $50,000 accounted for 63 per cent of the value of net taxable capital gains, according to the National Council on Welfare in its publication issued in July, 1985. This
capital gains exemption applies on all capital gains, no matter where they come from. An investor can write off capital gains that accrue to his or her from an investment outside of Canada, for example, Florida real estate.
If one can make an argument to support this kind of proposal by the Government surely it can only be made if the money saved is invested in projects that will provide more jobs and a more efficient industry than we now have. Certainly there is nothing to be gained, except for the person not paying the tax by investing in a boat or a condominium in Florida.
On the other hand, if we look at corporation taxes, recent figures indicate that the effect of tax incentives will reduce the average federal corporation income tax from 36 per cent to 15 per cent, especially if qualifying under certain grant programs. When the benefits from special tax incentives are added, we are looking, in some cases, at extraordinarily generous levels of assistance. That is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said in a speech to the Canadian Tax Foundation on November 28, 1984.
Let us look at what Bill C-80 does. It is the legislation which implements the key elements of last May's Budget, namely increases in federal sales taxes and excise taxes. The difference between the two taxes in that the sales tax is an ad valorem tax, being assessed as a percentage of the price of the good, for example, 7 per cent, while the excise tax is assessed at a fixed rate per unit of good, and, for example, 2 cents a litre on gasoline. This is being done at a time when oil prices around the world are coming down.
The main thrust of Bill C-80 is to increase revenue through changes in both the scope and rates of federal sales and excise tax. Another less important aspect of this Bill includes changes to the administration of the Excise Tax Act as far as retailers are concerned. The changes are similar to the current system under the Income Tax Act, and incorporate the recent changes to that statute in the areas of search and seizure and the deferral of collection action by the Government until the taxpayer has had an opportunity to resolve any disputes arising with respect to his or her tax liability.
Let me list the major tax increases in the Bill. We have taken all these figures from the budget papers. The rates of federal sales tax will be increased by I per cent effective January 1, 1986, and the new rates are 7 per cent on construction materials; 7 per cent on cable and pay television services; 14 per cent on alcoholic beverages; 14 per cent on tobacco products and 11 per cent on other taxable goods. The total cost to the Canadian consumer in 1986-1987 is $990 million. In other words, just when the consumer needs more disposable income to keep the economy going, these proposals take almost a billion dollars out of his pocket.
The federal sales tax is broadened. Sales tax exemptions for candy and confectionary, soft drinks, pet foods, a host of health products, non-prescription drugs and energy conservation equipment are repealed. The total cost to the Canadian consumer is $785 million to the end of fiscal year 1986-1987.
January 30, 1986

Let me pause for a moment and ask if there is one Member of Parliament who has not heard from our seniors about the adverse effect of the provision in sales tax which will now be applied to drug items, such as aspirin, liniments, cough syrups and a host of items which seniors use so frequently.
Excise taxes have been increased. Effective September 3, 1985, there is an increase of 2 cents a litre on gasoline and aviation gasoline; 2 cents a litre on diesel fuel and aviation fuel. Effective January 1, 1987, there is an increase of 1 cent a litre on gasoline and aviation gasoline and I cent a litre on diesel fuel and aviation fuel. The cost of this motive fuels tax increase to the end of fiscal year 1986-1987 is $1,325 billion.
The various per unit taxes on different categories of alcohol are increased by 2 per cent. The price of a package of cigarettes has increased by 25 cents a package of 25. The cost to the consumer by the end of the fiscal year 1986-1987 is $440 million. The cost to the Canadian consumer of these excise tax increases is $1,765 billion. When combined together, the cost of these tax increases to the end of fiscal year 1986-87 comes to $3.54 billion.
Let me summarize all the figures. The 1 per cent sales tax increase for 1986-87 will cost consumers $990 million. The broadening of the federal sales tax will cost consumers $785 million by the end of fiscal year 1986-87. Fuel tax increases will cost consumers $1,325 million, and the alcohol and tobacco excise tax increases, $440 million. The total, to the end of fiscal year 1986-87, will be $3.54 billion.
In the annual review published by the Economic Council of Canada in 1984, it was pointed out that corporate tax expenditures, forgone tax revenue, was between $30 billion and $50 billion per year. That is precisely what we object to so strenuously. At the same time as the Conservative Government of Canada is sticking it to ordinary Canadians, it is permitting and encouraging further giveaways to corporations, in particular to large corporations.
Let us look at some of the dubious corporate tax expenditures. Accelerated capital cost allowance allows a business to write off, against income, depreciation of assets at a faster rate then is actually the case. The cost in 1981 was $2 billion. This gives incentive to corporations to use capital instead of labour. It is an invitation to corporations to use more modern machinery and to lay off workers. Then we have the infamous one which was brought forward by the Minister of Finance in the Liberal Government, Mr. Lalonde, and continued by the Conservative Government, even though we have all seen how misused it was.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are at report stage, and I think speeches are limited to 10 minutes. I would like them to be pertinent to the amendment before us, if possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was just about to rise to say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-
Excise Tax Act
kow) that his time had expired. I am sure he was getting to the point of relevancy, but I regret that his time has expired.


David Orlikow: I wonder whether I could just complete the example I was trying to give. The infamous proposal made by the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Lalonde, was supposed to cost taxpayers $100 million or $200 million and was supposed to encourage scientific research. That proposal has been misused by corporations and by very bright tax lawyers and tax accountants. Through the quick flip which corporations have used, they have been able to sell research tax credits even though no research was ever done. It was estimated in 1984 that it would cost taxpayers $2 billion and, by the time it is closed off, $3.5 billion.
I have indicated some of the reasons we are opposed to this provision of the Bill and why we are proposing that the amendment be postponed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to debate Motion No. 1 further, I gather the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is ready to make arguments on his motions.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago you drew my attention to Motion Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 15 standing in my name and to Citations 523 and 524 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. As directed by Your Honour, I have read those citations and have to conclude that the scope of the amendments which I am proposing at report stage does not fall within the framework of those citations. I must admit that I was hoping to find an appropriate vehicle for those amendments, because I feel very strongly about them for environmental reasons. From a policy point of view, I think they are worthy of consideration.
At this stage, and to make my intervention as short as possible, I thank Your Honour for directing my attention to the two citations. Of course I accept your directions. I will participate at third reading debate by putting forward the thoughts which are contained in those amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. Therefore, Motion Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 15 will not be presented to the House.
Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 1 ?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 which has been moved by Mr. Orlikow for Mr. de Jong. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.

January 30, 1986
Excise Tax Act


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


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


David Orlikow: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 40 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:

Motion No. 3
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 43 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"force on January 1, 1987."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in debating the earlier motion I indicated the reasons for opposing virtually all of these. I do not need to make any long speeches about why we oppose the taxation on video cassettes.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Motions Nos. 2 and 3 which are combined for debate. Both motions have the effect of postponing for one year the effective date of tax increases on goods taxed under the Excise Tax Act. I do not feel strongly on spirits and so on, but I wish to address myself to Schedule V goods, construction materials.
We find many fixed-price contracts in the construction industry. It is extremely difficult, especially for small construction firms, to be asked to absorb the costs of this large increase in sales tax on construction materials without notice. Therefore, the proposal of the Hon. Member that the tax be postponed for one year is a compromise. It would be preferable not to have the tax at all, but at least a postponement for one year would avoid a situation where small construction businesses and contractors may be forced out of business because they are locked into fixed-price contracts.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a few comments to make in support of this amendment because it is a very important one for the construction industry.
As Hon. Members are aware, long-term planning is characteristic of this industry. Contracts are signed that sometimes, and I would even say often, extend over several years in order to finish the work under these contracts, and a tax increase on such short notice, as little as a month, will put the construction industry especially in a risky situation.
We all know that the profit margins, which are in fact quite small in this industry, depend on the amount of the contract. The tax would therefore have a disastrous impact on the growth and survival of this industry.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would make sense for the Government to give fairly generous notice, and that is why we are supporting this motion.
As a member of the Legislative Committee on this Bill, I would like to point out that the construction industry made some very substantial and serious representations, and I would ask my fellow members to support this amendment.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today proposes to postpone the implementation of a budgetary measure for one year.
I am a little surprised at the stand taken by the Opposition in this respect, especially when we realize that in previous Budgets, all fiscal measures usually became effective on Budget night. In this case, we have allowed a period of five weeks, that is, five weeks between notice and application of this change.
Mr. Speaker, I feel this Government has allowed for the specific cases referred to by the Opposition, and considering the five weeks the industry will have had to plan accordingly, I think this is entirely fair and square. Postponing the implementation of this legislation for one year would in the final instance make no difference at all to the problems experienced by the industry in general.
On the other hand, the federal Treasury would lose the sum of $90 million which it needs, considering the mandate we received from the Canadian people on September 4, 1984, which was mainly to reduce the deficit, a deficit that as you know, Mr. Speaker, we inherited from our predecessors. It is easy for them to say today: Don't do this, don't do that. The fact remains that the $34 billion deficit we have to work with and we must fight daily is a legacy of the former Liberal Government.
The changes we are proposing are aimed at getting a healthier economy and better productivity in this country, an economy that will at last be what it should be, the kind of economy the construction industry, like any other industry, would like to have.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak to the motion under consideration rather than comment on the deficit, which is not even mentioned in the motion.
The Parliamentary Secretary has just told us that this measure will cost Canadians an additional $90 million in taxes. Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the House that this excise or sales tax, or this additional Government levy will hit construction materials particularly hard, as shown in the amendment under study, and that it will also impact on prefabricated Canadian houses and structures such as summer cottages,
January 30, 1986

which create a lot of jobs. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, shortly after this Bill was introduced a number of asphalt and building materials firms that had already been awarded municipal contracts urged the Government to heed their representations concerning contracts already granted to companies which had filed bids in good faith but now found themselves faced with new taxes on their products. On second reading, Mr, Speaker, I remember the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) pointing out to the House that it was unfair to levy such a tax at this time because contracts had already been awarded and that the additional tax would be levied at the manufacturer's level, which would inflate costs and severely reduce the operating and profit margin.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House that this tax will affect energy conservation. For instance, slow combustion stoves used to be tax-exempt, and they can contribute to energy conservation in Canadian homes. Now the Conservative Government slaps a sales tax on low combustion stoves, hardly the way to encourage Canadians to switch heating systems and do their bit in conserving energy.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this motion to put off the adoption of the Bill for one year, just so Canadians will have that much more time to plan their energy conservation efforts and review contracts that have already been awarded. The Government would have a whole year to reconsider and perhaps change this tax.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 moved by Mr. Orlikow for Mr. de Jong. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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

The next question is on Motion No. 3 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
Excise Tax Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are grouped for debate.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by adding immediately after line 30 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 on the sale price of fabricated structural steel and pre-cast concrete for buildings and other structures shall be imposed on only sixty per cent of the sale price thereof."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 37 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 on the sale price of fabricated structural steel and pre-cast concrete for buildings and other structures shall be imposed on only sixty percent of the sale price thereof."


Alfonso Gagliano: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 30 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by Section 27 of the sale price of Structural Precast Units shall be imposed at only sixty percent of the sale price thereof."


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by adding immediately after line 30 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 on the sale price of fabricated structural steel and pre-cast concrete for buildings and other structures shall be imposed on only sixty percent of the sale price thereof."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 37 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 on the sale price of fabricated structural steel and pre-cast concrete for buildings and other structures shall be imposed on only sixty percent of the sale price thereof."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by adding immediately after line 30 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 shall come into force on January 1, 1986."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 37 at page 19 the following:

January 30, 1986
Excise Tax Act
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 shall come into force on January 1, 1986."


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, during consideration of Bill C-80 in Committee, representatives of various associations in the construction industry gave us very detailed explanations. This morning, however, for the information of the Members of this House, I would like to quote or perhaps even put forward some of the proposals made by these representatives of the construction sector before the Committee. The Canadian Construction Association said it failed to understand why the Minister tried to justify the amendment to Subsection 26.4 by saying, and I quote:
Construction practices have since changed substantially, and there is now virtually no on-site manufacturing of these products.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no change in construction practices since this subsection was introduced in 1963, at which time the previous exemption from sales tax for construction goods was withdrawn. We do not know the origin of this statement and believe the changes were made without proper research being done as to the impact.
Mr. Speaker, we wondered about this during the Budget debate, and during question period we asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) whether there had been any consultation on the subject, and now representatives from the construction industry have admitted that there was no consultation.
Subsection 26.(4) was put into the Excise Tax in recognition that without the subsection, prefabricated construction goods would attract more sales tax liability than alternative construction methods which can be performed on site. Subsection 26.(4) had four paragraphs. With respect to Bill C-80, in subsection 19.(1) and subsection 19.(2), the Government recognizes the validity of continuing the tax equity provided by paragraph 26.(4)(a), by providing for the sales tax on mobile homes and modular building units to be determined on the basis of 70 per cent of the manufacturer's selling price.
And that is the purpose of my amendment. It has been acknowledged indeed that mobile homes do have some parts which ought to be tax-exempt, and we fail to see why the same rationale would not apply in the case of the various precast concrete units. Here is what the Canadian Construction Association had to say to the committee:
We are recommending similar recognition be granted to precast concrete building sections and fabricated structural steel. There is no rationale which we can see that recognizes relief for one category of subsection 26.(4) without also applying to other categories within subsection 26.(4).
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Construction Association tax consultants went on to say:
We do not understand that statement, because the disparity is now much greater than it was before-and the Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute will be giving details on this in their presentation-but essentially what you have is a situation where the goods were taxed on the same value; that is, the materials, taxable materials, going into it before the budget. After the budget, prestress concrete was taxed on the factory gate selling price, including material, labour, overhead and profit. Of course, this includes all the non-taxable ingredients, such as sand, gravel and water, which were non-taxable before they all came in the tax base. The poured-in-place concrete becomes taxable on the cement delivered at the ready-mix plant, but the difference is that the on-site labour, overhead and profit are not in the tax base. Labour, overhead and profit should be added. In plant they are taxable, whereas they are not on site. The disparity is much greater. We do not understand the Minister's statement at all.
Mr. Speaker, this statement made by a member of the Canadian Construction Association was to the effect that the
Minister had said that the major reason for this budget measure was to avoid any disparity between precast concrete and poured-in-place concret. The industry has shown that such is not the case. I say, therefore, that this provision in Bill C-80 is not right because it will create discrimination within the same industry between one type of construction and another.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee heard various testimonies concerning precast construction, including the following:
Let us now look at how Bill C-80 would be applied to our industry and to our principal competitor, cast-in-place construction.
When we compare two identical buildings which are built using the two different methods of construction we see that Bill C-80 will tax materials supplied by either method to the full extent: 6 per cent now, 7 per cent in 1986- no difference. However, when we compare the labour components we see that plant labour is fully taxed; yet the field labour, which has performed essentially the same function and achieves the same result, is not taxed at all. Plant overhead and profit are fully taxable. On the other hand, cast-in-place construction has no tax applied to this portion.
As we have shown in the slides, similar costs of labour and overhead and profit are fully taxed for precast construction and not taxed at all for cast-in-place construction. In our opinion, this is not equitable. The two methods are identical and the end result, the completed building structure, is the same.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, to prove their point, these organizations even brought slides to the committee responsible for examining Bill C-80, and that all the members of the committee, representing the three parties, were unanimous in saying that this provision should be withdrawn from the Bill.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, among the amendments we are considering now is Motion No. 7 which I moved on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). The reason we moved Motion No. 7 is quite simple. I would like to support the argument made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) who just completed his remarks.
I am sure all Members of Parliament are aware of the fact that for a couple of years now, the construction industry in Canada has been in tremendous difficulty. A large number of companies have gone bankrupt. Many of them, and not only the small companies, have hung on by the skin of their teeth.
The situation in the City of Winnipeg is not an exceptional case. In fact, Winnipeg has done better than many other cities, particularly cities in Alberta and British Columbia. However, there have been periods when the unemployment rate among construction workers in Winnipeg has been at a low of 40 per cent and a high of up to 60 per cent or more. Hundreds of workers who had worked almost continuously during the 1960s and 1970s subsequently were without work for long periods of time, used up their unemployment insurance benefits or went on welfare. Some of them had to travel great distances to other provinces to get work and experienced lengthy separations from their families in order to get any kind of work at all.
January 30, 1986

We find it incomprehensible that the Government of Canada would propose to increase the tax on any activity associated with the construction industry. It is an industry which needs all the help it can get in order to become viable and for companies to be able to operate, make a profit and provide jobs for workers.
What we have proposed in this motion is that Clause 19 be amended in such a way as to permit the tax imposed on fabricated structural steel and precast concrete to be set at 60 per cent of the sales price. When we moved the motion we were simply acting upon concerns expressed by representatives of the industry that we put forward a measure which would ensure that the construction industry would remain competitive and that no advantage would shift to any particular sector of the industry.
In moving the motion, and in speaking to it, I hope the Government will pay attention to the concerns of the industry and support the amendment.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues who have already spoken to these amendments, I too regret that sales tax is being increased on building materials. In my own constituency a very large proportion of the workforce is employed in the construction industry and anything which dampens construction activity is certainly felt immediately in terms of jobs.
Clause 19, which we are suggesting be amended, proposes to impose sales tax on a percentage of the sales price of modular building units and mobile homes. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), has pointed out, there is an inequity here on which many representations were made by representatives of the industry to members of the committee. Therefore, the amendment has the effect of equalizing the tax burden on makers of prefabricated construction units vis-a-vis their competitors, builders of similar types of construction on site.
I support these amendments in the name of equity. However, I deplore the fact that the sales tax is being imposed in the first place.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the comments made by Members such as the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I would like to say that the provisions related to the difference between goods manufactured at the construction site and those manufactured elsewhere, in subsection 26(4), were designed to distribute evenly the sales tax on completed buildings by ensuring that building materials would be subject to a tax whose absolute value would be the same, whether the materials were manufactured on the building site or in a plant.
Excise Tax Act
Mr. Speaker, attempts to distribute fairly the tax on various buildings and construction projects by applying the concept of manufacture at the site of construction and outside the site have been ineffective for many years since the manpower required on a building site to put up a structure varies substantially according to the design, the type of material, the time available, the temperature and a number of other factors.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that both the Opposition parties and the Government want a fair taxation system, but this cannot be achieved by trying to distribute equally the tax on buildings or similar projects since the erected buildings themselves are not taxed.
The best compromise, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the present tax system, to tax all manufactured components on a common basis, whatever manpower, general costs or benefits are added afterwards during the construction.
Mr. Speaker, repealing subsection 26(4) will achieve this objective by ensuring that the federal sales tax on all building materials will be collected on the price charged by the manufacturer.
Mr. Speaker, as we have already pointed out, the only exception concerns mobile homes and modular building units. These products are complete or nearly complete houses or buildings when they are sold, which is not the case of other pre-fabricated building materials and structural components which are simply part of the final structure of the buildings.
Application of this provision to structural steel and pre-fabricated concrete products cannot be justified by saying that special provisions have been provided for modular buildings and mobile homes, as these are quite different concepts. It is like mixing apples and oranges.
This would be totally unfair to the manufacturers of ready-mix concrete and asphalt paving mixtures or of wooden trusses, which also come under the provisions of subsection 26(4).
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I think that to do so would be an insult to the many manufacturers of building materials who have always been fully subject to the sales tax on the price of their uninstalled materials.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out that I was also a member of the committee referred to by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano). It is true that representations were made, but it is not true that all the committee members were unanimous on the proposals made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou. The change introduces more fairness into our tax system, and therefore I do not support the motion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add a few comments, since Motion Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are combined for debate. I would like to suggest to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that oranges and grape-
10316

January 30, 1986
Excise Tax Act
fruits ... since we deal with four motions, quite possibly this looks like a banana. But we should above all be careful not to add to the confusion. Therefore, to clarify, these are amendments dealing with off-site prefabrication, for on-site building. This is clear in my view.
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 10 is aimed at deferring for one year the impact of that sales tax, that is regressive in our view; in other words, the tax imposed by Section 27 would come into force on January 1, 1986. Mr. Speaker, this was proposed to respond to the industry itself, which told the Committee: "You are foisting on us a burden that was not expected. You are foisting on us a tax that was not in our computations, in our estimates and which of course we have had to add to the selling price, with the end result that our profits will decrease". The industry itself has asked for a delay. To meet that request which is quite justified, the Government has been very reluctant as usual, but that representation was made by the industry. It is beyond me that the Government will not understand that contracts signed before those budget measures are leading to financial difficulties. This affects or jeopardizes good relations between the Government and builders, manufacturers. Some day the Government will have to listen to what Canadians are saying, and will have to give a just, fair and decent response to their representations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendment itself is quite simple. We want to defer for a year the impact of that tax, so that those people who were not expecting it can adjust their costs to this taxation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of Mr. Orlikow for Mr. de Jong. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Since that vote will apply to Motion No. 9, the vote on Motion No. 9 also stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of Mr. Gagliano. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 10 standing in the name of Mr. Gauthier for Mr. Garneau. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11) Motion No. 10 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 34 by striking out line 46 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"applies therefor within three years after he".
He said: Hon. Members who will look at the Bill will see that Clause 34 is a very lengthy and quite technical clause. It changes tax rates for a whole range of products. It also permits a person or company, where an error or overpayment has been made on payment of tax, to make a claim for compensation within a period of two years. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the individual or company the right to make a claim within the same time period as the Government.
It does seem to us that the people of Canada, as individuals or as companies, should have the same rights of fair treatment as the Government in terms of time during which they can
January 30, 1986

apply to have errors or overpayments corrected. That is why we put forward this motion.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to repeat the argument which has been made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow). However, I want to say that we in this Party also very much believe in the principle of equity. As the Bill before us stands, Clause 34 would allow a citizen who considers that he has overpaid in error only two years to get that error corrected whereas in a subsequent clause, Clause 37, the Government is allowed four years to come back with a reassessment.
This motion before us, and another one, will make the terms three years for both citizen and Government which, I think, is fair and something which I hope all Hon. Members in the House would support. I, therefore, support Motion No. 11 which changes from two years to three years the length of time in which taxpayers may apply for the refund of moneys paid in error pursuant to assessment.
[ Translation]


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, this motion by the Opposition Member to extend the time period from two or three years seems to be asking a bit too much from our tax system. 1 dealt with taxation matters for a number of years before having the privilege of being elected here, and it is my view that for the taxpayer to have two years during which to apply for a refund or a reassessment from the federal Government is quite a reasonable period. Two years, Mr. Speaker, means that one has twice 365 days to look at one's books, to realize there is something to be changed, to write to the Government and apply for that change. Therefore, here again I must oppose that motion.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to go back to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary because, naturally, if he believes that two years, or 365 days multiplied by 2, are enough to enable Canadians to ask the Government to reconsider that tax, the same should be true for the Government. We see that in another motion, which we will discuss in a few minutes, a 4-year period is asked for the Government. I think that the point made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), is that in this instance the principle of fairness is involved. This principle says that the taxpayers and the Government should have their right to payments, to requests, to tax issues. However, if the amendment as proposed is not accepted, Canadians would have two years to make their case; if they think, for instance, that they paid too much tax, they will have just two years to ask the Government to reconsider its decision. However, at the same time in another motion, the Government is given four years to reconsider the tax paid by Canadians. The Parliamentary Secretary says no, but it is true.
If we read, for instance, the motion as proposed, we now know that two years are allowed, but the amendment would
Excise Tax Act
extend this period to three years during which the taxpayer could ask the Government to reconsider its assessment. I would like to talk about that, because it is linked to Motion No. 14 that we are now considering. The Government allows itself four years in which to prosecute a taxpayer. All we are asking for is equity, we want the taxpayer and the Government to have the same length of time in which to reconsider the tax, whether it be two, three or four years. We submit that if the Government can tell the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that he did not pay enough taxes in 1981, fairness requires that the said Mr. Gauthier be given the right to tell the Government that he paid too much that year. All we are asking for with these amendments is equity, a notion clearly spelled out by the former critic on revenue matters.
We recall very well that when the present Sollicitor general was the National Revenue critic, he asked for equity for all, he wanted the taxpayers to have a reasonable length of time to appeal decisions of the Department of National Revenue.
Now that they are in power, the Conservatives decide to give the Government four years in which to prosecute taxpayers, but only two years for a taxpayer to appeal. This is not fair. It should be three years for both parties, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg and supported by our expert on such matters, our president of the Public Accounts Committee, the Hon. Member for Trinity. It would be fair and equitable to give the taxpayer and the Government the same length of time in which to appeal decisions pertaining to tax matters.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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

January 30, 1986
Excise Tax Act


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


David Orlikow: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 34 by striking out line 8 at page 46 and substituting the following therefor:
"January 1, 1988."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I represent an urban riding and I do not suppose I have more than about six or eight farmers in my constituency. However, one cannot live in a city like Winnipeg without realizing the importance of farmers to the economy of this country, particularly the economy of western Canada. There cannot be a Member of Parliament who is unaware of the great difficulties farmers have had in recent years. Partly because of drought, partly because of cold weather, partly because of the price they receive for their goods, and partly because their costs have gone up, more and more farmers have gone into bankruptcy. Many more than that have simply quietly closed up and sold out. Clause 34(4) says the following:
Where gasoline or diesel fuel has been sold in bulk by a registered vendor to
(a)	a qualified farmer for farming purposes,
(b)	a qualified fisherman for commercial fishing,
(c)	a qualified hunter for commercial hunting,
(d)	a qualified trapper for commercial trapping,
(e)	a qualified person for use in logging, or
(/) a qualified person for use in mining, for the sole use of the purchaser and not for resale and the tax imposed .. . has been paid or is payable in respect of the gasoline or fuel, a fuel tax rebate in an amount calculated ... shall ... be paid to that registered vendor if he applies therefore within two years after he sold the gasoline or fuel.
Very often it is difficult to keep track of these things. So many of them are unable to make their claim for a refund within two years. Therefore, we are proposing that this clause be amended and the period for making a claim extended by one year. The date specified in the Bill would be changed from January 1, 1987, to January 1, 1988. It seems to me that this proposal should have the support of all Members of this House, including Members on the Government side.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of this amendment. Under the Excise Tax Act a repayment of the excise tax paid for gasoline and aviation fuel was available to certain purchasers who used the gasoline for specified purposes. Included among the categories of specialized users were the federal and provincial Governments, municipalities, farmers, hunters, trappers, certain commercial businesses, and public air transportation carriers. This measure is retained in part by virtue of Clause 26 and Clause 34 of the Bill. However, as of September 3, 1985, the amount of repayment is limited and the repayment measure is not extended to the newly taxed diesel and aviation fuels.
The amendment in Motion No. 12 extends for one year the expiration of the three cent a litre fuel tax rebate for fuel used for commercial purposes off public highways by farmers, fishermen, hunters, trappers, loggers and miners.
What we are dealing with to a certain extent is retroactive legislation, or at least legislation which gives commercial users very little time to adapt to what could be a substantial cost to their business. Whereas the Bill makes the change effective January 1, 1987, the amendment before us will make the change effective January 1, 1988. This seems more reasonable when one considers the impact on so many farmers, fishermen, hunters, trappers, loggers and miners who are not usually or necessarily the kind of people who have tremendous assets or are in a position to make provisions for sudden increased costs. Therefore, I hope the House will see fit to support this amendment which does not oppose the tax itself but does ask for a reasonable length of time to allow people to adjust to it.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on Motion No. 12, which reads as follows:
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 34 by striking out line 8 at page 46 and substituting the following therefor:
"January 1, 1988."
So the purpose of the amendment is to extend the right of individuals who engage in fishing, trapping, logging and mining to deduct three cents per litre of fuel they use in these operations.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair to allow these people, who up to now were entitled to a three-cent rebate per litre, to continue to enjoy this rebate for another year, that is, until 1988 at least, and as a result make their operations more profitable. And I am now thinking of a group I know well, I am referring to Ottawa Vally trappers in Calabogie, Arnprior and Renfrew-

-who earn their living mainly on trapping and tourists and a fuel rebate of three cents a litre is an important factor in their economic planning. I know that many of them have complained to me. I could give you names, but that is not necessary at this time. However, many of them have come to me and asked why the Government does not listen to them when they tell the Government that the rebate is important to them. They say it is important that they reduce their costs because they are under so much pressure. I am thinking of those in the trapping industry in the Ottawa valley who have seen their revenues decrease as a result of environmental concerns and the lobby which has been put up against their trade. In many cases this profession has been handed down for generations in the Ottawa valley. Third and fourth generations in the Ottawa valley have made a living on tourism, trapping and forestry operations. I know that mining is a very important component of the economy in the Calabogie area.
I plead with the Government to be responsive and understanding of the request that is made and to approve this extension of the rebate for another year.
January 30, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), my great grandfather, who was a mineralogist in the Ottawa valley, would roll over in his grave if I did not stand up to support this amendment. He made his living in this way when nobody believed it was possible. The story in my family is that he once had a stake to Hemlow. I do not know what happened to it, so here I am.
I support the amendment and urge its support from those Members on the Government side of the House who have remained stangely silent during the recent debate in the House on the issue of gas prices. A number of those Members were very vocal on this issue during the election. I am thinking particularly of the Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) who promised that he would reduce the price of gasoline.
This amendment may not directly influence the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) because she is perhaps immovable. However, this is a measure on which ordinary Members can stand in the House and support an extension of a 3 cent a litre rebate directed toward specific occupations.
One such occupation is farming. We are aware of how farmers have been devastated by the continuing high price of gasoline and the fuel tax. Others who would benefit from this amendment include fishermen, hunters, trappers, loggers and miners.
There are Members on the government side who are concerned about the inequities in the current government policy on the price of gasoline. We know that the world price of oil is dropping while the cost in Canada continues to rise, with Petro-Canada as our game leader in the increase of the price per litre. Therefore, I urge those concerned Government Members to speak out and support this small amendment which only provides for a 3 cent per litre rebate. Those who are familiar with the agricultural sector know that 3 cents a litre means much to farmers who are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
We ask the Government to support such an extension so that farmers, fishermen, loggers, trappers and hunters can get a small break when it is obvious that other consumers will not.
1 notice that one distinguished Hon. Member from Newfoundland is in the House today. I know he would like to support this amendment because of his concern about the fishermen. Perhaps he can convince other members of his caucus that the fishermen should get a break of 3 cents a litre by extending the rebate beyond the period set by the Government.
The Hon. Member is a former sea-going man and knows the importance of the cost of fuel to fishermen. He should express his views to show his colleagues in the House as well as his constituents the importance of this issue. I urge him and other Members who have remained silent on the issue to speak out in defence of those constituencies that will be assisted by this specific amendment.
Excise Tax Act
If they remain silent, their campaign speeches in the next election will fall on deaf ears. For instance, the people who voted for the Hon. Member for Duvernay believed that he may occasionally speak against government policy in support of those issues in which he believed, such as lower gas prices. We have not seen that happen, and 1 urge those government Members who have constituency interests in the areas of farming, fishing, forestry and trapping to support this amendment which would give a break to those who really need a break in these tough times.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the House that the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) did speak out on this issue in the House yesterday and, in fact, pointed out that in September, 1984, the price of gasoline in his City of Montreal was 59.9 cents a litre, but that even after increases in the present Budget and the legislation before the House, the price of gasoline in Montreal on January 28, 1986, had fallen to 58.3 cents a litre. The Hon. Member has been speaking out, as have other Members, and the Government's action has brought results in this matter.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a limited amendment which would extend the present rebates on gasoline and diesel fuel tax for another year. One of the tacit assumptions made by provincial and federal Governments about these gasoline and diesel taxes is that they are used for two purposes. One is to raise revenues for the Government, and the other is to provide some disincentive to consumers using the non-renewable resource of gasoline or diesel fuel as a source of energy.
The point has been made that this disincentive may influence consumers who live in cities and those who run factories to switch to alternative sources of power, such as electricity generated by coal or the use of coal directly. However, there are some sectors which are very important to the Canadian economy that do not have access to this technology for an alternative source of energy. Therefore, farmers and fishermen must rely on gasoline and diesel powered machinery for their production, as do those who are engaged in trapping, logging and mining. They need machinery which enables them to move freely in isolated areas in order to explore for minerals, drill test holes or construct mine shafts. In order for the economy of the country to benefit from these types of commercial activities, which are the backdone of Canadian economic activity, we believe it is only fair that this particular rebate should continue for another year. Therefore, we propose that it continue at least until 1987.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say a few words in support of this motion, because to me it is appalling that a one-year extension is being denied our farmers, fishermen, hunters and miners who represent a segment of our population that truly needs it. They should be allowed one more year to claim those three cents per

January 30, 1986
Excise Tax Act
litre on all the gas they use, for boats for instance, in the case of fishing and hunting guides.
There are other possibilities, Mr. Speaker. I fail to understand why Government Members would vote against this motion when we consider the tax give-away the multinationals received. Today, these Members want to vote against a motion that would not repeal the tax but give a one-year extension to these people who truly represent a segment of our society that needs it most. Here again, it is a matter of taking from the poor to give to the rich.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say that perhaps being a member of the Party that has formed the Government I have a better opportunity to voice my opinion pertaining to the welfare of my constituents in our caucus than Members in the Opposition, who do not have that opportunity.
I want to assure the Member from Hamilton that I am concerned about this Bill. I want to say, though, that perhaps when the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brings down his Budget some time near the end of the month there might then be benefits for fishermen and farmers of which we are not aware at this time.
[ Translation]


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I am quite flabbergasted. Frankly I am astonished to hear the speeches of the Liberal Members. They were in office for over 20 years, and the only thing they managed to do during their last two years on the job was to raise oil taxes. Then we came up with an ad hoc measure to solve a temporary problem, and taxes went down three cents a litre. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can still remember that when this measure was announced in November 1984 the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) stood in his place and said that it was a regressive step, that it would not improve the situation, and so on. Here we are one year later, Mr. Speaker, but this time it is a good measure which must be accepted and extended.
Mr. Speaker, no wonder I am surprised they did not implement this measure. How come they did not do anything? It was no good when they were in office, but now that they sit on the Opposition benches they have made a complete about turn. Well, we took action in a specific and temporary situation, Mr. Speaker, because we wanted to help Canadians through difficult times, but the problem is no longer critical and the Opposition motion ought to be defeated.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on motion No. 12, which has been moved by Mr. Orlikow for Mr. de Jong. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


David Orlikow: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 37 by striking out line 33 at page 58 and substituting the following therefor:
"three years after the tax, penalty, interest".
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to make any lengthy speech at this stage. This amendment proposes that the penalty period and the assessment period, for people who are penalized for not doing what they should according to a section of the Act-which I find very difficult to understand and which I am certain people affected find just as difficult as I do-be reduced from four years to three years.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think a number of Members have already made mention of this motion in relation to the previous one, which would give taxpayers an additional year in which to apply for reversal of possible errors or overpayment. It was pointed out then that in the Bill, as it is printed, the taxpayer has only two years in which to get an error corrected while the Government has four years.
In Motion No. 14, the amendment reduces from four years to three years the length of time during which the Government may assess or reassess taxes owed. Since the Government Members have declined to accept any extension of the two year period for a taxpayer, I hope that they may consider reducing the Government's discretionary period from four years to three years so as to reduce the inequity a little.
[ Translation]


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, allow me a brief comment. Reducing the verification period of assessments from four to
January 30, 1986

three years is an unacceptable proposal. Taxpayers know about their own situation and they should attend to their files. But on the other hand, you will understand that in the case of the Department of Revenue, there are millions of applications submitted each year, and it must be realized that the federal Department of Revenue cannot be expected to examine and scrutinize, within two or three months, or two years for that matter, everything in terms of applications and returns from taxpayers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the four-year period is needed for sound management, so that representatives of the federal Department of Revenue can make the required inquiries and verifications with taxpayers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 14, which has been moved by Mr. Orlikow for Mr. de Jong. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


David Orlikow: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 51 by striking out lines 15 to 28 at page 111.
He said: Mr. Speaker, until now fruit beverages that contain less than 25 per cent fruit juices have been exempted from this taxation. We are told by manufacturers that many of the powered fruit beverages such as Tang are used primarily by those people living in remote areas of Canada who do not have access to a wide range of products or to fresh and frozen fruit juices, as well as by families with low incomes. To apply the excise tax to these products would simply add to the cost of living of such people. They are the ones who need the protection. They find it necessary to use this type of product and
Excise Tax Act
cannot afford the increased cost that will be imposed upon them by this tax. It is for that reason that I have moved this motion.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I am glad to see that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) is present in the House at this time. The proposed exemption would significantly affect a large number of the people he is mandated to serve and whose interests he is charged with protecting.
For example, in my riding there are some 30 communities which cannot be reached by road and are totally dependent on air travel for all the goods coming to their communities. These people have to pay very high prices for anything which comes into their communities in liquid form.
If I might disregard for 30 seconds the rule of relevance, I would like to use the example of gasoline. In some communities in my constituency it does not sell for 55 cents, 60 cents or 65 cents per litre, which so rightly caused complaint in southern areas of Canada. Rather, it sells for prices ranging from $1 per litre to $1.80 per litre. That is approximately three times the price of gasoline in southern Canada. We see similar examples of price differential caused by air freight when we look at consumable liquids such as juices, fluid milk, pop and other fruit beverages. It is for that reason that I should very much like to see the House pass this amendment.
There are many communities in my riding where Tang is a staple. It is a staple to a greater degree than orange juice is a staple to those who are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a can of orange juice or a can of frozen orange juice at a price of $1.39 to $1.49. If these people had to purchase the same can, they would be paying something in the order of $3 to $4. This is no exaggeration. Those cans are not sold in northern communities because they are frankly unaffordable to the people who would buy them.
This is something that has implications. Of course we know the implications of a tax on this sort of food. It is a food, no matter how much some of us may ignore its presence in the market-place. I do not drink Tang except when it is the only alternative, but Tang and its commercial clones are fulfilling a very valuable role in northern Canada for people who do not have any access, particularly during the winter, to fresh fruit, vegetables or fresh juice in its fluid form. If the excise duty of 9 per cent is put on these beverages, we will see an increase, not in the order of one cent, two cents or three cents per package. When it gets to northern communities and because of freight costs, even on dry goods, we will see an increase in the package price of something in the order of 10 cents to 15 cents. That will not represent gouging; it will just represent those people in the transportation and distributing cycles taking their mark-up on the price which will have been inflated by the imposition of this tax.
I should also like to point out the position of low-income families in southern Canada. It is my belief that Tang is a popular product with those people. Very often it is used as a

January 30, 1986
Excise Tax Act
substitute, and it is a reasonably good one. Tang and the similar products of its commercial competitors are reasonably good substitutes for fluid juices. Many people rely on them as beverages and as a good source of vitamin C.
I do not accuse the Government of doing this intentionally, but I appeal to it to take into account that it would be an unintentional form of discrmination against the poor, particularly Indian and Inuit people in northern communities, if this amendment were not accepted. Therefore I entreat the Government to give it the most urgent consideration.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to support this amendment. The Bill applies sales tax to certain beverages which might be considered to be perhaps leisure beverages or without any food value. As the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) just said, possibly it was unintentional, but the drafting is such that it nets in beverages made from fruit flavoured crystal mix, even when they include vitamin C and might be considered as a healthy fruit juice substitute or food rather than a leisure thirst quencher.
The aim of the amendment is to create an exemption from the sales tax for beverages made from fruit flavoured crystal mix, sold for the purpose of a breakfast drink or a substitute for fruit juice, when it is not represented to be a product which is used for making a soft drink or thirst quenching drink and when it contains vitamin C in an amount not less than 48 milligrams per hundred millilitres when the drink is ready to serve.
As has been pointed out already, certainly this kind of product is used in isolated communities in the North where frozen orange juice and fluid orange juice are not available as a source of vitamin C or, if available, only at prohibitive prices because of the unusual transportation costs. Also, there are families with limited storage facilities who use this kind of product.
It would seem as though this kind of product were netted in with soft drinks in error and that it was an oversight. The amount of money involved in making this exception and giving some relief to low-income families, particularly to Indian and Inuit families in the far North, is not great to the Government, but the benefits to the people concerned would be great. It is a simple amendment, and I hope the Government will see fit to accept it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 16 which has been moved by Mr. Orlikow for Mr. de Jong. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


David Orlikow: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 51 by adding immediately after line 42 at page 111 the following:
2.1	Feeds and supplements for addition to such feeds for guide dogs used by
people requiring their assistance.
2.2	Feeds and supplements for addition to such feeds for horses used in
productive purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the clause to which I am proposing an amendment says:
Feeds and supplements for addition to such feeds, for animals, fish, fowl or bees that are ordinarily raised to produce or to be used as food for human consumption.
These shall be exempted from this increase in taxes. We support that idea. There are certain other very important groups which need the same kind of protection. There are blind people who require the use of a guide dog. Those guide dogs are fed dog food. Without the support of a guide dog which permits them a great deal of freedom of movement, which they would not have without the use of a guide dog, they will now have to pay extra tax imposed on dog food. We are suggesting that that should be exempt.
There are still a substantial number of farmers and people involved in logging, particularly in eastern Canada, who are engaged in agriculture or logging on land on which it is not possible to conduct operations using tractors, so they are still using horses. These are people who are operating very small operations. They are not big earners, we believe they are merely scratching out a living at quite a low standard. To impose a tax on the feed which they have to use for their horses would be to impose a burden on them.
This amendment includes the purchases of dog food and feed for horses as those products which would be exempt from the new tax.


Aideen Nicholson: This Bill applies sales tax to pet food, but makes no exceptions, even in the case of food for a guide dog, which is needed by a blind person. The
January 30, 1986

amendment would exempt pet food for a guide dog. The wording is:
Feeds and supplements for addition to such feeds for guide dogs used by people requiring their assistance.
I hope the House will consider this amendment seriously because blind people usually live on small incomes, very often on disability pensions. The small increase in sales tax on pet food is a large item if the total income is small. The issue here really is the mobility of blind people and their ability to enhance their lives and take advantage of opportunities for education and training. Many Members of this House worked in a very commendable and constructive fashion on two parliamentary committees which were concerned with enhancing opportunities for the handicapped. Members from all sides will know how important guide dogs are for blind people in enabling them to be mobile, to travel, to take advantage of new experiences and to take part-time work or to follow courses of instruction.
1 would ask the House to consider very seriously supporting this exemption from sales tax on pet food in the case of guide dogs needed by blind people. The amount of money is small, but the amount of the contribution to human freedom is large.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It appears that the original intent of the Government, when it proposed to exempt feeds and supplements for addition to such feeds for animals, fish, fowl or bees that are ordinarily raised to produce or to be used as food for human consumption, was to get away from attempts to collect taxes on the feed that would be going into productive usage of the use of Canadians. There are a number of procedures that would be almost mind boggling if we were going to try to figure out how these taxes would be collected if feed were to be taxed. You trade feed between farms, you raise it on your farm, you tax yourself for feed that you raise for your own uses and that of your own animals. The Government decided not to try to impose a tax on these kinds of feeds.
If the Government's intention was not to impose tax on the productive sectors of society and thus reduce its productivity, should have included, as this amendment does, people who must use guide dogs in order to contribute to society. People who are blind have to use guide dogs, most of them. There is no sense of consistency here if we are going to start taxing the feed for guide dogs. As well, it makes no sense to be taxing people who have to use horses to make their living, whether they are logging or working cattle in a live stockyard, as some people do. The tax on production there makes no sense either.
So we think the amendment is consistent with what the Government originally had intended, and I am sure that is why Your Honour recommended that it was a proper amendment. 1 simply hope that the government Members will support this amendment as well, because it is consistent with what I think is a very good approach in the Bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a few comments on the proposed change. The purpose of Motion No. 19 is to exempt feeds and feed supplements for the guide dogs trained to help many Canadians to live a normal life and be able to get out of their houses.
I believe that it would be completely fair and justifiable to show some understanding and sympathy for those people and to exempt from the tax not only the feeds, but also the additions to the feeds for the dogs which contribute to the safety and welfare of Canadians suffering from a visual incapacity, blindness or some other problem requiring the assistance of a guide dog.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this proposal is completely fair and reasonable and deserves our support.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It now being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the very disturbing news of dioxin being found in the drinking water of the city of Windsor and three other Ontario communities. Today we have heard reports of a Health and Welfare study showing dioxin in the blood of Canadians in all parts of the country. Today as well, we have the report of the Joint Task Force on the toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River, a report which does not give clear and reassuring answers to the concerns of Canadians about toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River or the finding of dioxin in the drinking water of the people of the Windsor area. There is evidence that, over the long term, even small amounts of dioxin in water can have an adverse cumulative effect on health.
Yesterday in the House, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), commenting on the presence of dioxin in southwestern Ontario's water supply, said that the quantity of substance found is minute, sporadic, and not harmful.

January 30, 1986
As a representative of the Windsor area, I must tell the Minister that his words are not enough to restore the confidence of the people. What we need is an urgent program of controls on industry and the necessary funds to ensure access to pure water for the municipalities downstream. The Government has an obligation to the United States and to its own people regarding the dioxins in the St. Clair River and the Government must act now. Words are not enough.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador issued a Green Paper on our health care system expenditures and funding. In the Green Paper the Conservative provincial Government indicated that it was looking at privatizing the medicare system, making dramatic cuts to health services, increasing the provincial deficit, and raising the already high taxes of the residents of that province.
In this document produced by a Conservative provincial Government, the blame for this is laid strictly on the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). The cut-backs that have now been announced a number of times by the Minister of Finance, supported, we presume, by the Cabinet, are going to have the result of destroying another sacred trust.
In the words of the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia, the Conservative Government of Newfoundland and of the New Demoratic Party of Manitoba, the Government is out to destroy medicare and post-secondary education through the back door by taking away the funding that is necessary. The Government will ensure that the universal program we have at the present time for health services is destroyed because of lack of funding. The Government should be ashamed of itself. Now that Conservative Premiers are attacking it, perhaps the federal Government will wake up and indicate in the Budget we expect next month that it will finally reverse the decision it announced on May 23.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the 41st anniversary of Raoul Wallenberg's arrest by Soviet authorities and the adoption last December 10 by the Canadian Parliament of an all-Party resolution naming Wallenberg as Canada's first ever honorary citizen are being marked by a nation-wide tour by Mr. Per Anger, former Ambassador of Sweden to Canada
and Wallenberg's close friend and colleague in Hungary during World War II.
The Raoul Wallenberg story is a chronicle of courage, dedication, and resourcefulness in the face of incredible odds and great personal danger. During World War II, Raoul Wallenberg, together with Per Anger, an attache of the Swedish Legation in Budapest, worked tirelessly to save the Jewish community of Hungary. They issued provisional Swedish passports placing thousands under the protection of the Swedish Government. It is estimated that Wallenberg and Anger, through their heroic actions, saved 100,000 Hungarians destined for Nazi death camps.
Despite their heroism and humanitarianism, both Raoul Wallenberg and Per Anger were arrested by Soviet authorities as they entered Budapest. Per Anger, head of the Stockholm-based Raoul Wallenberg Committee, firmly believes that the Soviets can be pressed into releasing Wallenberg, or at least be called to account for his treatment to date. As a nation renowned for its solid and noble record as a relentless advocate of human rights and human dignity, Canada is now well poised to make legitimate government-to-government representations to the Soviet Union on Wallenberg's behalf.
Through his brief visit with us, Per Anger has helped raise our sensitivity and awareness of a truly heroic chapter in an otherwise tragic story. The Wallenberg story is one of hope- hope for a man and hope for mankind. Per Anger's past and present actions fill us with hope. In this respect-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SENIOR CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING CHAMPIONSHIP HELD AT ALMA, P.Q.-CONTRIBUTION OF VOLUNTEERS

Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, although remote regions such as the one I represent rarely benefit from major investments, sometimes they do have the opportunity to hold major events.
In my riding yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian senior cross-country skiing championship ended in Alma. This event, which was widely reported in the media over the past seven days, was an unqualified success. This unqualified success was made possible thanks to the hard work and incredible dedication of the athletes, coaches, organizers and volunteers who have demonstrated that volunteering is still alive and well in our modern society.
The marvelous display which was offered to us is most encouraging. Our youth's performance was most promising for the 1988 Olympic Games.
January 30, 1986

I would be remiss if I did not emphasize also the enthusiastic welcome of the Alma citizenry.
Mr. Speaker, 1 take this opportunity to pay tribute to each and every participant.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 440 days is a long time to wait for anything. When one waits for 440 days for a Government to act in an emergency situation, it is really an abdication of responsibility.
In November of 1984 the Maritime Farmers Council met with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) at which time they put forward a solid plan to save an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the maritime economy. The proposal calls for moneys to be directed for research and development in order to make the maritime livestock industry self-sufficient in feed grain within 15 years. The second, and equally important aspect of the plan, calls for a reinstatement of federal feed freight assistance to the level of 60 per cent.
The Government has shown its true colours through inaction. On numerous occasions during the past 440 days I have asked the Minister for a decision on behalf of maritime farmers. The Council of Maritime Premiers has pressed for a decision, and the Maritime Farmers Council has been equally adamant in its demands for action.
Is the Government interested in maritime agriculture? After 440 days of hiding from this issue the answer is obvious. The answer is that the policy of this Government with regard to maritime agriculture is to let it wither and die. Shame-shame on this irresponsible Government!



RETAIL PRICES CHARGED FOR GASOLINE

Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks Canadians have been writing to their Members of Parliament about the gasoline retail price differential which exists between Canada and the United States. Not only does the retail price of gasoline vary between countries, it also varies between regions. Even cities which are close to one another will show price differences.
In my riding of Fraser Valley East the retail price of a litre of leaded gasoline in Abbotsford is 56.2 cents. Less than 40 kilometres away in Greater Vancouver the price for an identical litre of gasoline is also 56.2 cents. However, a transit tax of approximately one cent per litre of gasoline in levied in the Vancouver area, whereas Abbotsford has no such extra tax. Why then is the price of gasoline the same as in Vancouver?
Surely, the price of gasoline should be cheaper in Abbotsford than in Vancouver. But this is not the case.
In September of 1985 the Mayor of Abbotsford wrote to all the major oil companies about their pricing practices. In my opinion the Mayor received a less than satisfactory answer. Perhaps the oil companies were reluctant to pass on the benefits of cheaper gasoline to smaller communities. It seems that all the major oil companies follow a schedule of prices and are not anxious to compete with each other on prices. Only the independent gasoline retailers seem to be giving the consumer a break-at least they give a 4 per cent cash discount.


Mr. Cassidy:: Come on over!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INCOME TAX ACT


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I will deal today with the simplicity and clarity of the Canadian tax system. I should like to quote from Section 39.(1) of the Income Tax Act:
Meaning of capital gain and capital loss (1) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) a taxpayer's capital gain for a taxation year from the disposition of any property is his gain for the year determined under this subdivision (to the extent of the amount thereof that would not, if section 3 were read without reference to the expression "other than a taxable capital gain from the disposition of a property" in paragraph (a) thereof and without reference to paragraph (b) thereof, be included in computing his income for the year or any other taxation year) from the disposition of any property of the taxpayer other than
(i) eligible capital property,
(i.l) an object that Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board has determined meets all criteria set out in paragraphs 23(3){b) and (c) of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act and that has been disposed of,
(A) in the case of a gift to which subsection 110(2.1) applies, within 15 months after the death of the taxpayer or such longer period as is reasonable-


Mr. Speaker:: I must regretfully advise the Hon. Member that the time allotted to him has expired.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago Bell Canada Filed with the CRTC new criteria

January 30, 1986
for certain communities to be provided with regional service without long distance fees.
Mr. Speaker, at first sight one is tempted to welcome these relaxed criteria proposed by Bell Canada. But on closer examination of the proposals, they are unacceptable. Because of the new proposed criteria, only 40 new interconnections will be possible in Quebec and the implementation period needed will be six years. Moreover, of the 40 new interconnections in Quebec, 80 per cent involve three major cities in central Quebec, such as Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Sherbrooke. There is practically nothing for remote areas.
The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area is a typical example, although the removal of long distance fees for calls between Jonquiere and Ville de la Baie, a long awaited economic boon, has been requested for a number of years.
Mr. Speaker, the CRTC must turn down the new criteria as proposed. It should require Bell Canada to submit a special development plan for communities in remote areas.
Mr. Speaker, Bell Canada is the largest telephone company in Canada. It enjoys a monopoly situation and has always been protected. The CRTC is in a position to require Bell Canada to submit a special development plan to cope with the needs of remote areas.

(English |



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the Honourable Per Anger, who is the former Swedish Ambassador to Canada, is in Canada today to express and share with us his experiences as a former colleague of Raoul Wallenberg and, once again, to bring to our attention the fact that Raoul Wallenberg is a prisoner in the Soviet Union. I would, therefore, like to bring to the attention of the House, that on January 16, the forty-second anniversary of the arrest of Raoul Wallenberg, I said that because of the fact he is now an honorary citizen of Canada it is incumbent upon our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to do all that he can to secure Mr. Wallenberg's return to freedom.
I would like on this day to call upon the Minister of State for External Affairs to tell us what are his intentions and what action he will take in order that Canada may be in the forefront in its concern to bring Raoul Wallenberg back to freedom, thus guaranteeing his human rights.



EXPANSION OF OIL INDUSTRY'S ACTIVITIES IN ALBERTA

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House, and especially to the doomsters and gloomsters in the opposition Parties, the latest figures published by Oilweek magazine concerning the sale of oil rights in my home province of Alberta.
The final 1985 Alberta energy and natural resources land sale, as of December 11, brought in a total of $53.7 million, the highest total since March 26, 1980. This increase boosted the 1985 total to $796 million, the third largest in the province's history. What we are seeing today is the result of many of our Government's initiatives-the Western Accord, the new spirit of co-operation with the provinces, the forthright Budget we presented last May, and the favourable economic climate now prevailing in Canada. The most important thing, however, is that this high level of activity in the oil patch is creating thousands of jobs for Albertans and for Canadians right across the country.
We have reversed the tide of unemployment and dependency upon Government. We have revived the entrepreneural spirit in Canada and people are responding to the challenge. This the Liberals could never do. That is what responsible Government is all about.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF THE RAOUL WALLENBERG ASSOCIATION

Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate to Members the presence in our galleries today of the former Swedish Ambassador to Canada, now President of the Raoul Wallenberg Association, the Hon. Per Anger.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have in my hand a transcript of the words of the Deputy Prime Minister in which he admitted he improperly listened to, eavesdropped or, if you like, was associated with the bugging of private meetings of the Liberal caucus.
In light of what the Minister of National Defence and Deputy Prime Minister said, I ask the Prime Minister whether
January 30, 1986

he has obtained the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister in light of the conduct of that Minister which obviously undermines his integrity and, therefore, that of the entire Government?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that the Chair is in some difficulty on this question.


An Hon. Member:: So is the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Given the nature of the preamble and the fact the question concerns a Minister in the Cabinet, I think 1 must allow the Prime Minister to answer it. However, I must caution Members to deal, as best they can in all these matters, with questions to Ministers about their responsibilities as opposed to anything else.


Mr. Frith:: We are talking integrity.


An Hon. Member:: This has nothing to do with ministerial responsibility.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question contains a number of very serious misstatements of fact and a really quite grotesque error which casts aspersions on the reputation of someone who has served his country honourably, in times of war and peace, for 30 years in the House of Commons, and I think it ought to be withdrawn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is on tape as having said, referring to a meeting of the Liberal caucus:
-I was hearing every word that was spoken.
He also said:
There was a method by which we knew every Wednesday what was said in the Liberal caucus, word for bloody word.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I ask the Prime Minister, in those circumstances-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Can I ask the Hon. Member to put a question on ministerial accountability, please.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question of the Prime Minister about his responsibility to have people in his Cabinet who have the necessary integrity to be there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In light of the words of the Deputy Prime Minister himself, why does the Prime Minister allow that Minister to stay in his Cabinet?
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, these questions are no doubt founded on an article which appeared in The Toronto Star this morning. That is a very interesting story. However, what that article was speaking about was events which are alleged to have occurred almost a quarter of a century ago. They were the subject of an interview, according to the article, with Mr. Stursberg in 1973; the subject of a book published in 1976; the subject of a tape, apparently, which has been available since January of 1981, and which appeared in Saturday Night magazine in January of 1985 in these words:
"One of Pearson's ministers said (in caucus) that he had two tasks: one, to destroy John Diefenbaker and two, to destroy Erik Nielsen. How do I know the words spoken in the Liberal caucus?" Nielsen smiles.
"No, there were no bugging devices. Wires were crossed on an electronic system being installed between the committee rooms and we knew every goddamn word that was spoken inside!"
Mr. Speaker, 1 think that perhaps I speak too much to the media.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SECURE RESIGNATION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister stands condemned by the words from his own mouth which he said just a minute ago in the House. Does the Prime Minister not agree that he has a sacred trust as Prime Minister to defend the integrity of the parliamentary system, which includes the confidentiality of caucus meetings of all Parties and, as a result of the admission of the Deputy Prime Minister, he has no alternative but to seek and obtain his immediate resignation?


Mr. Nunziata:: No respect for Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Listen to who's talking.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in my 28 years in the House of Commons I have seen virtually a flurry of plain brown envelopes flying around the place. The Opposition Members, when in Government, were familiar with that, as they are now in both opposition Parties.
It is a practice which i have given my best efforts to terminate but thus far they have been a total failure.


ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In light of the Toronto Star revelations that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence indulged in electronic eavesdropping when he was a Member of the Opposition, does the Prime Minister find it acceptable to have as

January 30, 1986
Oral Questions
our NATO representative a man who in the past acted in such a deplorable manner showing a total lack of integrity?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member states that he has evidence allegedly showing that the Minister indulged in electronic eavesdropping.
Such a statement is absolutely false and the Minister has just made a categoric denial about it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Did the Prime Minister read the transcript of those notes, or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had not recognized a supplementary question until 1 could hear it carefully. A supplementary question now, please.


INTERVIEW WITH DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just said there were absolutely no facts to substantiate these accusations. Did he read the transcript of the interview with the Deputy Prime Minister, or did he listen to the tape which is the voice of the Deputy Prime Minister implicating himself directly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I read it and thought carefully. From this, I concluded that, contrary to my hon. friend, there is no suggestion that the Minister was in any way responsible for or caused to happen any electronic eavesdropping for which he was directly or indirectly responsible that would in any way be illegal or improprer under any circumstances.


John V. Nunziata: It's immoral.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Of all Members, this Member talking about immorality should be struck by a bolt of lightening right on the spot.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO EAVESDROPPING IN 1973
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I also must direct a question to the Prime Minister about this matter. On October 17, 1973, the present Deputy Prime Minister, speaking to a request by the New Democratic Party for a review of a bugging that occurred in our caucus room, asked:
-that Your Honour-
That is, the Speaker:
-cause a further investigation to be made into the whole matter of eavesdropping-
He went on to say:
This offence is serious enough to require the offender to come before the bar of the House and give an explanation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is getting long, that is all.


Ian Deans: Given that the Deputy Prime Minister knew full well that he had been the recipient of eavesdropping information with regard to the Liberal caucus at that time, does he not think that the advice given by the Deputy Prime Minister should be taken now, and that all of those involved in providing the information to the Deputy Prime Minister should be brought before the bar of the House to explain their actions?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my memory goes back a little further than that of the Hon. Member asking the question on this subject.
The first time the matter arose in the House of Commons was in the neighborhood of 22 years ago, to my knowledge. Indeed, it was raised by the then Leader of the NDP, Mr. Tommy Douglas, when the Chair asserted jurisdiction with respect to that matter and caused an investigation to be held. There have been at least two investigations subsequently that I can recall by Mr. Speaker, so that the idea of bringing unnamed persons before the bar of the House with respect to unsupported allegations is one which you should not, Sir, support, and which certainly falls within your jurisdiction.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If hon. gentlemen opposite have a specific charge to make, then they should make it and take the consequences if they fail to prove it.


RECEIPT OF CAUCUS INFORMATION-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is not necessary to make a charge. The Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that he was the recipient of information obtained out of a caucus room that he listened to himself and had translated.
In light of the admission of the Deputy Prime Minister-it is not a question of did he or didn't he, he did-does the Prime Minister not feel it would be appropriate now for the Deputy Prime Minister to step down from his position until such time as an inquiry is held into this affair and the results of it become known?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it could very well be that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is referring to information that may have been imparted to him by a caucus member dissatisfied with the way things were going in the caucus at that time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
January 30, 1986


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Read the text.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is possible. I think the appropriateness, Mr. Speaker, can be seen in a statement that His Honour made himself in an interview granted earlier this summer concerning a former Liberal Member of Parliament, a former Speaker, Ambassador Lloyd Francis. In response to a request for an investigation Mr. Speaker said:
To go back behind decisions that were or were not taken about things that did or did not happen years ago, in my ind, is not appropriate. It's pointless.
That is the position the Speaker adopted in regard to that. I hold that it is no less appropriate today.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF CAUCUS MEETINGS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should read the transcript. The transcript says:
I could scarcely believe what 1 was hearing and 1 was hearing every word that was spoken. He was speaking in French and I had the benefit of translation service as well.
Quite clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister was listening to some taping of the Liberal caucus as it was happening.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: More indignation, Ian.


Ian Deans: Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted he did this-there is no statute of limitations on matters such as this-does the Prime Minister not feel it appropriate to have an investigation into all of the relevant matters and to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to step down until the inquiry is completed?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise to that Hon. Member, or any Members who have been around here for very long, that information has a habit of finding its own way into other hands.


Ian Deans: Every Wednesday?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You can do better than this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: I can tell the hon. gentleman that this information has been in the public domain for almost 13 years. I wonder why it comes as such a surprise now. I can also tell the hon. gentleman, indeed both opposition Parties, that I like keeping current, and welcome any information that might come to me from within their own Party caucuses.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONSERVATIVE PARTY PRACTICE INQUIRY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I want to make at the beginning is the following: that behaviour became so unethical that it became a crime.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That's right.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Is it still the practice and policy of the Conservative Party to eavesdrop "word by bloody word" on the Liberal caucus and, if not, when did it stop-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind all Hon. Members, particularly experienced Members, that questions go to Ministers with regard to their ministerial accountability and not with regard to the way in which the Member is putting that question.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: We are talking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whatever policy of whatever Party exists anywhere, it is not a matter for the House of Commons.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: We are talking about the integrity of the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Is this the standard of moral behaviour that the Prime Minister will condone in a Deputy Prime Minister and then expect the young people of the country to look up to politicians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that on a careful reading of the transcript my hon. friend would agree that that kind of suggestion he just made is both malicious and unfounded.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Deputy Prime Minister, as I have indicated before, has served this country with honour in times of war and in peace. His reputation as an outstanding Member of Parliament is second to none, and I think my hon. friend would want to withdraw that kind of cheap shot.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEFINITION OF MORALITY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The dictionary defines "moral" as concerned with goodness of character or disposition. Can the Prime Minister explain why the bugging of MPs by the man who now holds the high office of Deputy Prime Minister falls into his definition-

January 30, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. It is perfectly clear to me that that question is out of order, as I am sure it is to the Hon. Member, because it attempts to make a charge without making a charge. Therefore, I remind Hon. Members that the questions have to be put to Ministers about matters which are under their current ministerial responsibilities. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. There is no need for a charge because there is an admission by the Deputy Prime Minister of improper conduct.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will give the Hon. Member one more chance, please, for a supplementary question only.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: It is not a matter of chance.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted this improper behaviour of systematically eavesdropping on MPs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Charles Dingwall: -will he not do the honourable thing and seek the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond will resume his seat.


Charles Joseph Clark: No wonder John Turner is absent.


An Hon. Member:: No wonder John Crosbie is absent.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Talk about integrity!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.



Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It deals with this very serious matter which has been revealed today. In light of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested that he overheard what was going on in the Liberal caucus room as a result of an accidental crossing of wires, and in view of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister said in the interview: "There was a method by which we knew every Wednesday what was said in the Liberal caucus, word for bloody word. I had nothing to do with it, but I had access to it", it clearly implicates the Deputy Prime Minister-


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


John R. Rodriguez: Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing that is consistent with the traditions of Parliament and have the Deputy Prime Minister step down and order an investigation into all matters surrounding the bugging?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there have been allegations that there was bugging of MPs by the Deputy Prime Minister. There is a suggestion that there was an admission by the Deputy Prime Minister. Neither is accurate. There was an acknowledgment by the Deputy Prime Minister that certain information was conveyed to him in a way that rendered-


An Hon. Member:: We are talking about bugging.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -of which he was not the initiator and for which he was not responsible. The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that he was entirely without responsibility for the initiation of this-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right, irresponsible.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and he has made no acknowledgment beyond that, but because the Member raises it seriously, I view it seriously. I think, given the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister and given the facts, if my hon. friend has a charge he wishes to lay that he ought to proceed with that charge, with the appropriate consequences.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF EVENTS IN 1963-64
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister, consistent with his responsibility as the Leader of Canada, stop stonewalling and immediately launch an investigation into the actions of the Deputy Prime Minister in 1963-64 and his behaviour then?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a matter that occurred some 23 or 25 years ago. I suppose the timeliness of it does not diminish its importance. The matter was raised. The Deputy Prime Minister has responded fully. He has indicated the circumstances whereby certain information was imparted to him. If my hon. friend feels that this is either inappropriate or improper or illegal, an event which transpired a quarter century ago in the circumstances that have been related, I think he ought to lay a charge and the House will deal with it.


CRIMINAL CODE PROVISIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Prime Minister that a former Mountie was recently prosecuted for something which happened over 30 years ago. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he is now denying the words that
January 30, 1986

made very clear in the transcript, within the meaning of the definition of "intercept"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I caution the Hon. Member for York centre that his questions should be put to Ministers with regard to ministerial accountability. Questions put with regard to what a Minister said in an interview are really not in order, and I think the Hon. Member knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is an experienced Member and knows that. Therefore, his question, please.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister as to the standard of integrity which is to be permitted in his Cabinet, does he deny the statement? Does he disagree? Does he challenge the statement made in this transcript by the Deputy Prime Minister that he was listening to-"I was hearing and I was hearing every word that was spoken"-the caucus while it was going on, and that that is within the meaning of "intercept" in the Criminal Code?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is an interpretation that my hon. friend places on a construction of events. The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that the incident which transpired was one in which he was entirely blameless with regard to the initiation thereof or any resonsibility flowing therefrom, on the one hand. Second, with regard to the point raised by my hon. friend regarding a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it is true, and I indicated it earlier, that the timeliness of this is not affected by the passage of time, but in the case of the member of the RCMP a charge was laid. If my hon. friend feels that something is illegal, he ought to lay a charge and assume the consequences.


MINISTERIAL STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOUR
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me simply ask the Prime Minister this. Is it acceptable today among his Ministers for them to intercept, that is, to listen to discussions which are going on in the Liberal caucus or in the NDP caucus? Is that an acceptable standard of behaviour today for his Ministers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't read anybody else's mail, I don't open brown envelopes, nor do I make unsubstantiated allegations against people without having the courage to stand up and put my seat on the line.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that the Government's position is that deliberate electronic surveillance of what is going on in the caucus of another political party in Parliament would be immoral and illegal, but if thanks to an electronic accident, the Government happened to have access to what was being said in another caucus, it would be all right to go on eavesdropping? Is that the Government's position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I know the Hon. Member believes seriously in his point, but it is now clearly entering into the realm of the hypothetical, beyond the realm of ministerial accountability, and into something that is between the Parties.
Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre have a question he wishes to put with regard to a Minister or to a matter that is under that Minister's jurisdiction?


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question will be very simple, since the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that in the past he listened to the caucus meetings without letting the other caucus groups know. Does the Prime Minister intend to ask for the Deputy Prime Minister's resignation, pending an investigation of this matter before the House?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is hypothetical. It has already been asked two or three times today. I am therefore going to rule it out of order. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: I think the Prime Minister must feel, as all Members do, that there has been a shadow cast across Parliament today. I would like to ask him would he be prepared now to have this entire matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that the air can be cleared and we can know exactly whether there is any ground at all for charges or for the call of the opposition Parties for a resignation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the allegation, it has been denied by the Deputy Prime Minister. No charge has been laid. Therefore the matter is in the process of being resolved by the House.

January 30, 1986
Oral Questions


Ian Deans: There is no question about what happened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: I want to ask the
Prime Minister to think about the fact that we are not talking here only about what is legal; we are talking here about what is right. The Prime Minister has had a reputation of good faith about the reform of Parliament, and I want to ask him, for the sake of Parliament, will he do the honourable thing and at least refer it to the committee as the Hon. Member before me just requested, or even better than that, ask the Deputy Prime Minister to step down until this whole thing can be looked into. It is not a question of allegations, it is a question of a confession.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there has been no charge made. There is no allegation of illegality, or even impropriety, on the part of the Minister action 25 years ago, or thereabouts. Apart from the innuendo-


Ian Deans: Why did you try to hide it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Apart from the innuendo, which I think is unfair, and the spurious allegations, which I think are unworthy, if a charge is to be made I invite my honourable friend to make a charge, with the appropriate consequences.


INQUIRY OF THE PRIME MINISTER
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Government cannot have it both ways saying the charges have been denied but at the same time they are not serious. It is a question of the respect that we all have for Parliament. I want to ask the Prime Minister does he not think that on the second Wednesday of the "every" Wednesdays that the Deputy Prime Minister was stepping out of line and casting the very shadow across Parliament that we now need to get rid of.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. I think the Hon. Member knows that that question is out of order.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: My question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I regret to say the Minister is creating the false impression that the proposed Environmental Contaminants Act will clean up the situation in the St. Clair River. Therefore I have to ask him whether he could explain to the House how this proposed Environmental Contaminants Act will clean up the existing toxic chemicals in the water, in the sewer outfalls, in the leachings from the
dump sites and other existing and ongoing sources of pollution in the St. Clair River, or for that matter in any body of water for which we have an international responsibility.


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of a new Environmental Contaminants Act will mesh with parallel plans already announced by the Hon. Jim Bradley, the Minister of the Environment in Ontario. Together our Act and their actions will cover every aspect of the toxic chemicals question, from production through to use, through to disposal. For example, in the case of the Ontario plan, limits will be placed on the amount of chemicals that will be allowed to be discharged into the river. Ambient quality standards will be set for water. In concert with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the federal Government, for its part, will be setting vigorous drinking water standards. Together the total package will do everything that is required to hit the problem head on.


PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: I would ask the Minister of the Environment to focus on the situation that we are facing today in the St. Clair River and the clean up of existing daily contaminations. Will he explain how his proposed Environmental Contaminants Act will tackle that problem?


Thomas Michael McMillan: never said the new Environmental Contaminants Act was designed to clean up existing pollutants in the river. We are doing that through other mechanisms, for example by working hand in glove with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The Environmental Contaminants Act is designed instead to prevent this kind of situation from happening in the future. We take the existing situation very seriously and we are taking actions to deal with it.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the information that is available in the transcript about what the Deputy Prime Minister said at that time, can the Prime Minister expect the people of Canada to have faith-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order, order, order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -to have faith in the integrity and judgment of the Deputy Prime Minister to use the enormous powers that he has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, order. Forms and versions of this question have been asked all day. Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: We have got to get some answers, Mr. Speaker.
January 30, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: I do not doubt that I am going to hear more about this at three o'clock. But may I remind the Hon. Member for Churchill and others that the purpose of questions is to ask questions that are about matters that are under ministerial responsibility and accountability, not, on either side, in answers or questions, to cast aspersions.


POWERS OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Rodney Edward Murphy: The Prime Minister knows that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence has enormous powers. In light of his previous lack of judgment, how can any Canadian trust him now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the scurrilous aspects of that question except to say that the people of Canada, when they needed Erik Nielsen in peace and in war, found a man of courage and honour.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister has received many representations from senior citizens about how they convert their Registered Retirement Savings Plans after the age of 71. Some of them are concerned about the very restricted manner in which the present law requires that to be done. I was wondering if the Minister could advise this House whether he could make some changes in the Income Tax Act that would help seniors handle their money on retirement, perhaps in the Budget?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of the interest the Hon. Member has taken in this issue. It is an issue that has been of some interest to me as well. I have read a number of letters regarding the debate that has been going on in some of the financial papers. I believe it is possible to go some way toward meeting the requirements of the senior citizens who express this point of view and it is something at which we are looking very closely. I am not now in a position to make a statement but I hope to be able to deal with this matter in due course.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would be good enough to tell us when he learned of this practice of eavesdropping on the Liberal caucus, and perhaps the NDP caucus, and second,
Oral Questions
whether he has verified that the practice has been discontinued and that the Government is no longer eavesdropping on either Parties-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first two parts of the question are in order but the third part is not.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the first I heard of any kind of allegation in this regard was in 1976 when I read the book.


INTERCEPTION OF CONVERSATIONS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that it is an offence contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada to intercept conversations? In view of the fact that that activity is criminal, is the Prime Minister prepared to instruct the RCMP to investigate the conduct of the Deputy Prime Minister to determine whether or not there was a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Justice and Solicitor General let me just say that it is highly improper for the Hon. Member to make any kind of suggestion without stepping outside the House and laying a specific charge. Perhaps while he is in the process of considering this matter, he might ask his colleagues in the Liberal Party where they were when Marc Lalonde was putting out an all-points bulletin within the Department of Finance to read the present Prime Minister's mail. Where was he when the Liberal party was abusing its power in office?


AIR SAFETY
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
I had the pleasure of going to Washington, as part of an interparliamentary exchange, to examine the impact of air transport deregulation with the U.S. parties concerned. They were unanimous in saying that it had been a very positive experience, except where safety was concerned.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: Could the Minister inform the House whether safety will be a special concern when this sector is deregulated in Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the document entitled Freedom to Move clearly points out that safety is the number one priority of the Transport Department. Second, the paper proposes that in the process of regulatory reform the Government will not permit

January 30, 1986
Oral Questions
or propose any diminution of safety as a result. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
As a fall-out from the Dubin Inquiry, steps have been taken to beef up the safety standards by passage of the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Shipping Act, another piece of legislation that will enhance safety in the marine sector. Further, the promulgation of the transportation of dangerous goods provisions last July was a further manifestation of the high priority the Government places on safety. Finally, the federal Government and the provinces have agreed to work toward developing a national safety code for the trucking industry, so I think that that is clear evidence.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Earlier today the Deputy Prime Minister said that what had happened was an accidental crossing of wires. I have a copy of the transcript in question in my hand so would the Prime Minister not agree that the words used were:
There was a method by which we knew every Wednesday what was said in the Liberal caucus word for bloody word.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that there has been enough doubt raised by what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier and what the transcript indicates to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to step aside until the Prime Minister investigates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I already indicated that questions that had been put on this matter would not be allowed to be repeated.


Neil Young: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Come on!


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


INQUIRY OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given the already high degree of public cynicism that exists with respect to politicians, does the Prime Minister not recognize that his failure to take any action on this absolute and total abuse of parliamentary privilege by his own Deputy Prime Minister and the man who was supposed to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. The Hon. Member knows that she cannot say those things without being in violation of the orders of the House regarding casting aspersions on the character of another Member. Therefore, I will recognize the next Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're in step with the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now the Hon. Member is casting aspersions on the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 do not propose to do anything about it because I understand that tempers are high today, but Hon. Members must understand that the reason there are rules with regard to privilege and the casting of aspersions is to protect everyone in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Therefore, I think the Hon. Member, if she-


Mr. Prud'homme:: He set the standard in 1963 and 1964.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis will please come to order. The Hon. Member for York East had the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I had a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have given the floor to the Hon. Member for York East.


PRICE OF OIL-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO LEADER OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I understand that today the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, stated in Calgary that Canada needs a regulated price for oil to ensure that the industry gets enough revenue to allow development while assuring fair prices at the same time. Will the Minister advise the House if she agrees with this comment which appears to call for higher energy prices?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering why members of the NDP were so silent on the issue of gas pricing today. It shows what hypocrites they are, when in the House they talk about lower prices for consumers and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think, given today's context, I must ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw that.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I accede to your demand and I withdraw the word "hypocrite". I would ask if "two-faced" is acceptable.

January 30, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The answer is no.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. The integrity of the Government and Parliament is under a shadow. Would the Prime Minister concede that the Deputy Prime Minister should be tried by his own peers in front of the Committee on Privileges and Elections?


John Horton McDermid: Lay a charge!


Sergio Marchi: Will the Prime Minister concede to Parliament, in the spirit of civility and parliamentary reform, that the admissions of guilt be investigated by his peers in this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. First, that question has been asked. Second, the Hon. Member knows that there is a route through which he may request the consent of the House with regard to a matter going to the committee.


Sergio Marchi: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question on a different matter, or a different question on this matter?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask the Prime Minister if he has the courage to rise in his place and send this matter to a committee of Parliament so that parliamentarians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sergio Marchi: Well, Mr. Speaker, what the hell are we here
for?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: What's wrong with that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. First, it is the same question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's a different question!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Second, the Hon. Member knows that questions of privilege are not the responsibility of the Government; they are the responsibility of the House. A question with regard to that matter is not a matter of ministerial accountability and is therefore out of order.
Presenting Reports from Standing-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Double-talk from the Speaker's Chair!
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) will withdraw that comment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I withdraw.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, January 29, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).



POINT OF ORDER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Like many people in the House, 1 would like to raise a point-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. I will wait until the House quietens and clears. Those who wish to leave, please do. There will be a few minutes, I suspect, on this matter.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I occupy the position of Whip in my Party. There are others in other Parties who do the same thing. One of the basic obligations 1 have as Whip is to ensure that our deliberations, the workings of this caucus, are restricted to this caucus. I want an assurance from you, Mr. Speaker-because I cannot ask the Government the question-that our deliberations as a caucus in this parliamentary precinct are indeed not being interferred with, intervened in, or, for that matter, listened to by anybody else but the ones to whom they are directed, that is, members of my caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member raises an important matter, one which I think all three Parties have taken seriously. Whenever a Party has asked the Speaker to have offices or caucus rooms checked, or swept, we have, of course, done so immediately. I received that type of request this morning from the Chairman of the Liberal Caucus. My instructions to the Sergeant-at-Arms were that that request be acceded to immediately, and steps have been taken to make sure that that was done. The Chair is happy to do that for any caucus at any time.
May I say to the Hon. Member this. Nobody can give the Hon. Member the assurance that somebody standing outside this building in some way, with electronic eavesdropping

January 30, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
equipment, cannot do that. What I can assure the Hon. Member is that whenever the Chair or the Sergeant-at-Arms receives a complaint, or a concern, it is acted on as quickly as in humanly possible.


John V. Nunziata: On a quesiton of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Pat Carney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: On a question of privilege, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


Pat Carney: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Albert Proud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will deal with them in the order in which 1 have received them. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston is claiming privilege. Is the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rising on the point of order which has already been raised?


George Albert Proud: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us conclude this point of order I will then hear the question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, in order that we can try to have an intelligent debate in the days, I am sure, and maybe even the weeks to come, on this matter, would Your Honour consider it the duty of a Member-any Member-to inform the Chair immediately upon knowing, or upon receiving information to the fact, that rooms of caucus-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a different question. The Hon. Member indicated that he was rising on the same question. He is asking the Chair to give an opinion as to what the Chair believes is someone's duty. Clearly, the Chair cannot do that, and the Hon. Member knows that.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on a question of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the same issue, if you wish to deal with them all at once.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order that was raised with me was with regard to checking the caucus rooms. Is the Hon. Member rising on the same point of order?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am rising on this point of order is because some months ago I requested-in fact of the Speaker's Chair-that a sweep of my offices be done. I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, the inadequacy of this procedure in that the night before my office was swept I received a telephone call advising me that the sweeping would take place the next evening. It would seem to me that if the House is truly intent on having a proper sweeping procedure, the Speaker, or the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, would not
advise by telephone that they were going to be doing a sweep of those telephones. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in that regard that you consider the possibility of looking at this question in a more general way because I do not feel we are being protected.


Mr. Speaker:: I welcome the Hon. Member's recommendations on our procedures. I will be happy to take them and discuss them with the Sergeant-at-Arms. She may, in fact, have a very valid point. At first reading, she may have.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that he had access to certain conversations which took place in a caucus meeting, or caucus meetings, of the Liberal caucus some time ago. He has admitted to the fact that he had access to and made use of-


Charles Joseph Clark: What privilege is being claimed?


John V. Nunziata: -information that was illegally obtained.
I submit that the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then a Member of Parliament, had a duty. His duty was to report to the police, and to those in authority, including-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. He knows our practices. Could he please tell me what point of privilege he is raising, as opposed to making the case, I presume he wants to make, should there be a question of privilege found and put before the House? Could he therefore tell me what the privilege is, please?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would ask, in view of the importance of this particular matter, that Your Honour conduct an investigation. I am suggesting that my privilege as an elected Member of Parliament has been affected by the revelation and the admission of the Deputy Prime Minister that conversations in a private meeting of caucus were intercepted.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order! That is wrong and you know it.


John V. Nunziata: As a Member of Parliament, I am-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I am in a dilemma. Hon. Members know that the Chair requires one hour's notice of an application for a question of privilege, except those arising directly out of Question Period, in the sense of what goes on in Question Period.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You wouldn't let us deal with the question.
January 30, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have been free at any time to submit to me one hour's notice of an intent to raise this matter as a question of privilege. I understand the dilemma the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is in. I am not entirely sure that it is really a matter arising out of the Question Period itself. That is my procedural problem.
Let me indicate to the Hon. Member that I will hear his question of privilege. I think the Hon. Member for York South-Weston has finished his presentation as to whether or not there is a prima facie case. Does anyone else wish to speak on the matter?
Before we hear from anyone else, may 1 interrupt for one minute? The Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) wishes to seek the floor on a point of order, I believe.


POINT OF ORDER
Pat Carney: Yes, I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to show disrespect for the House. Therefore, I will withdraw any phrasing which the Chair finds unacceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston has made a presentation claiming privilege arising out of the Question Period and the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister. Is there anything further on the matter? The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the matter into perspective.


Mr. Benjamin:: Whose perspective?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There have been references made to a transcript of statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Remember Favreau.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There has been a statement made on the floor of the House by the Deputy Prime Minister in which he denies the least suggestion of impropriety. I think that the parliamentary tradition-and we are looking at this matter from the parliamentary tradition-is to accept the words of an Hon. Member. Accordingly, quite apart from the fact that a Member's question of privilege has to do with the ability of that Member to carry on his or her responsibilities, which are
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata
somehow impeded by activities which restrict his or her ability to carry out those responsibilities, 1 can think of nothing that would be less relevant to that whole situation than allegations of a general nature with respect to what transpired a quarter of a century ago.
On the basis of whether or not there is a prima facie case with respect to a question of privilege, I suggest, with all due respect, that the Hon. Member has not put forward one scintilla of evidence, or one point in his submission, which would indicate that he in any way is being pervented from carrying on his responsibilities, in terms of the Question Period, or in terms of debate on the floor of the House of Commons.


John V. Nunziata: I would like to move the appropriate motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will understand there are some other matters to be dealt with.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to speak in support of the Chair finding this a prima facie case of breach of privilege in light of the fact that parliamentary tradition, which dates back to before the history of this Confederation and this Parliament, states that Members of each respective Party must have the opportunity to get together in a caucus forum and debate issues of importance not only to their own caucus and to their Party but also to the country.
I feel that if I cannot be guaranteed the privacy of those deliberations, and if I cannot be guaranteed, through some action on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), that in fact the insidious intercepting of the caucuses' private deliberations is not happening-we do not know, it happened in 1964 and in 1965 and it could be happening now-it will directly affect the contribution I make in my caucus and subsequently in parliamentary debate. So I feel it is-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) will know full well that to argue that something could be happening today is not to raise a question of privilege.
Let me take one minute, if I may, and explain that I have not heard, arising out of the comments which have been made in Question Period, a prima facie question of privilege which was attempted to be made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). That does not prevent, as a matter of form, someone who believes there is a matter of privilege arising from some other event or article-if that is the case they wish to make-from giving me notice of that matter. But out of what has been presented to me, and coming from Question Period, I see no question of privilege.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have not been given the opportunity to present my case.

January 30, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member presented his case. He has already presented the case the wished the Speaker to consider, I take it.


John V. Nunziata: I want to plead my case, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I asked the Hon. Member if he had completed his case and he said, yes. That is why I went to the next Hon. Member, with respect.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask now, with all respect, that you possibly give us some time? 1 had to absent myself from the House for a few minutes and I came back because I heard you were going to rule on this question of privilege.
I find it a very important point when I ask you if you could assure me, and members of my caucus, that no one else but those to whom the words spoken in my caucus are directed are hearing those words. I accept the fact that you say that that is physically impossible for you to guarantee and, in your view, you have done the utmost to avoid that. But the question at hand is that there is now a sort of veil-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -an uncertainty in my-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Come on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand exactly the point the Hon. Member is going to make. I think he knows that.


Ian Deans: How do you know it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let him say it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to be very careful about where it is these things are being directed. May I say, for example, I have yet to receive from anyone a request that I look into the matter, other than the Hon. Member's request now that I look into the question of-I can say to the Hon. Member that I have done some checking this morning as to the existing systems. However, does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) wish to make further representations?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You acknowledged that to me a few moments ago when you said that indeed you had received a request from the chairman of my caucus. I made that request earlier of the Sergeant-at-Arms. But I am asking you as Speaker of the House, as a person elected by us and responsible for certain things, to look into this matter. I take it that one of the things you are responsible for is the integrity of the work we do here and in caucus. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to look into this matter, get a copy of this paper and see if you can tell me, and Hon. Members of the House, that at this time you do not know of any existing case where such a thing would happen.


Mr. Speaker:: What I tried to indicate to the Hon. Member earlier is that I have already undertaken some of those investigations and 1 am satisfied. I have reviewed our procedures. I
did this some months ago. I am satisfied that everything that can be humanly done to prevent any such leak of information coming out of any caucus room is being done.
I am also satisfied, as 1 indicated before, that the systems which were in place 20, 25, 30 and even 15 years ago were not adequate to enable one to make that claim. The Hon. Member knows that. 1 have said that many times.
1 am prepared to go back and look again to make sure that our systems are adequate, but I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that both the Speakers before me met regularly with the Sergeant-at-Arms as does this Speaker. We have developed plans to try to cope with these situations, and anything that can humanly be done that we know of, we are doing.
Therefore, I can only say to the Hon. Member that there is no way in the world that I can imagine, or that 1 know of, that we have not tried to ensure that these things do not leak.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I make one last point?


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the same point of order. 1 understand what you are telling me, and I understand exactly where you stand in this matter of modernizing the system. I know it has been done in this building, but I also know that there is a lot of work still to be done in the other buildings. And you know that, Mr. Speaker. So 1 am asking you to give me the assurance that indeed that work will continue to be done so that we can avoid having situations which existed in prior years. That is what 1 am asking you.


Mr. Speaker:: I undertake to give the Hon. Member absolutely the assurance he seeks.


Roland de Corneille: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Are these different points of order, not on this matter? The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) rose first, I believe.


POINTS OF ORDER
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, my concern arises out of the Question Period. It concerns my privileges and, for that matter, the privileges of all Hon. Members of the House of Commons. It arises out the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself. The Prime Minister did not agree to the question as to whether it is proper for Hon. Members of this House of Commons to have access to or listen to what is being said in a caucus. In view of his lack of concern in this matter, I feel-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Smarten up, eh?
January 30, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will know that he is in fact disputing an opinion of another Hon. Member. It would be very difficult for the opinion of another Hon. Member of this House to constitute the basis of a Question of Privilege.


REASON FOR DENIAL BY MR. SPEAKER OF SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, as in all situations, 1 certainly will abide by your rulings, whatever they may be and however one may feel at the end of the day. But 1 guess I rise to ask you-and I ask this sincerely-as the Speaker elected by all Hon. Members of Parliament, if you would, for me and for my caucus colleagues, explain why you ruled out of order questions I had posed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) regarding the conduct and behaviour of a certain Minister within the Government, which we believe reflects, rightly or wrongly-allow me to conclude-on the integrity and the ability of that particular Minister to carry on his responsibilities-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


David Charles Dingwall: -in view of the guidelines which have been set down by the Prime Minister-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


David Charles Dingwall: -in view of the comments and statements made by the Prime Minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


David Charles Dingwall: Could you comment on that?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is in fact making a speech.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is verging on making a speech. He knows that is why I was trying to get him to be brief. In order to be as clear as I possibly can, perhaps 1 will just quote Standing Order 40:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House,-
In other words, the Hon. Member may wish to ask the question which was asked with regard to the confidence of the Prime Minister in another Minister. That question was asked by Hon. Members. But in asking that question, no aspersions may be cast upon the character of the Minister involved. If the Hon. Member believes he wishes to do something further along that line, I think he knows our historical practices with regard to the tabling of motions.
The Hon. Member sought clarification, and that is all I can give him.


David Charles Dingwall: I understand your desire, Mr. Speaker, and the expediency with which you want to deal with all these
Point of Order-Mr. de Corneille matters of points of order and questions of privilege, but 1 ask you, respectfully, after reading that particular rule-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


David Charles Dingwall: -that you have just read, would you be prepared to review my question and indicate to me the offensive language which was used, specifically, in accordance with that particular rule? 1 wonder if you would be kind enough to do that because, as you have now stated it, 1 find your ruling to be more confusing than the first.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Lewis:: Reflection on the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows he is making a reflection on the Chair and I am sure he will want to withdraw it. However, I am not going to pursue that right now.
I would be happy to check the "blues". As the Hon. Member will know, I do not have written questions in front of me, I only have what I hear. What I heard was the Hon. Member making an assertion that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) had at one point bugged the Liberal caucus. That is precisely what I heard in his preamble. I take that as an aspersion on character. Therefore I asked the Hon. Member to withdraw.
Order, please. Let me make it as clear as I can because 1 have a feeling we are going to go through this again. If the Hon. Member wants to make an accusation regarding the character of another Member, it is improper to do that through a preamble to a question. In our practices it is only proper to do that through a specific charge in a substantive motion laid on the Table.


Roland de Corneille: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Anyone who wishes to make further representations with regard to these matters knows the proper route is to do it in Chambers or outside the House.
Order, please. I have yet to hear a point of order. Is the Hon. Member rising on a different point of order? Then the Hon. Member will resume his seat, please. He will not keep getting up on the same point of order.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF CAUCUS MEETINGS-ASSURANCES SOUGHT FROM MR. SPEAKER
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to kindly tell us whether you will, in light of these rather disturbing threats to the environment of this House of Commons-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order. What disturbances to the environment of this House?


Roland de Corneille: -indicate what you can do and intend to do to bring some kind of assurance to us as to-

January 30, 1986
Point of Order-Ms. Copps


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought I had already answered that question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Exactly right. Three times.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot say more than that we do everything humanly possible to make sure that no such events could occur again.


REPORTED REVELATIONS BY DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning what took place today. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that whatever took place 22 or 23 years ago, it was important today, just as it was then-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't put words in his mouth.


John R. Rodriguez: If what is alleged took place, it was as wrong then as it is today. I suggest that there is prima facie evidence in the actual recorded statements of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) that the conversations in the Liberal caucus-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is not making a case arising out of Question Period. He is making a case out of the entire subject. I am not going to rule one way or another right now but I am going to remind him of his obligation to give me that case in writing. That is not to prejudge his case.


Roland de Corneille: That was the subject of the whole Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: The subject of Question Period was ministerial accountability.


Roland de Corneille: Right, that is what he is talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: No, he is talking about a different matter. That is the point I am trying to make.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We would like them to account for all of this.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


REASON FOR DENIAL BY MR. SPEAKER OF MOTION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, according to Standing Order 56:
Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
During Question Period there was a motion to have this whole issue moved to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). That motion was denied. Can the Speaker cite the appropriate Standing Order under which he acted?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The procedural expert who does not know what a motion is.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me say it one more time, and this is the last time I will say this. A question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with regard to whether the Government is prepared to consider a motion may be a House Business question but it is not a matter of ministerial accountability. The Hon. Member knows as well that a motion cannot be put during Question Period. I did not rule out her question on the basis that she was attempting to put a motion-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I was asking about the question of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There was no motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) asked a question. If I remember, it was the first time a question with regard to that matter was raised. Someone answered it. I allowed the answer because it was the first time that that specific question had been put. I do not know what point-


Sergio Marchi: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No. Presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees.


Sergio Marchi: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sergio Marchi: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) will please resume his seat.


Sergio Marchi: I haven't made a point of order yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York West will please resume his seat.


Sergio Marchi: Will you allow me to state my point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West will please resume his seat.


Sergio Marchi: If you are going to allow the-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will please resume his seat.


Sergio Marchi: Well, give me a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Jacques Guilbault: Stop that joke and recognize him!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that Members feel strongly about this question of making representations but they are not raising points of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Then hear his point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. They are making representations.
January 30, 1986


John R. Rodriguez: You have not heard him.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member's point of order, briefly?


DENIAL BY MR. SPEAKER OF TWO QUESTIONS
Sergio Marchi: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that Question Period is a session for ministerial accountability. I wish to know why my two questions were refused of a prime ministerial accountability-


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. If the Hon. Member wants to come and talk to me about it, please come and do so. It is not a point of order.


Sergio Marchi: Why do I have to talk to you in your office if I can't talk to you now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Because it is not a point of order.


Sergio Marchi: You won't even-


Mr. Towers:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rules stipulate that the Speaker is entirely in charge of what can be put and what- order, please. Will the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) please come to order?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, for God's sake allow me to finish the point of order and then declare it out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member for York West please resume his seat?


Sergio Marchi: When can we ask the question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about the integrity of his Government?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Hon. Member knows full well that the questions which can be put in Question Period are entirely within the discretion of the Chair.


Sergio Marchi: You are not allowing answers, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber today, absolutely.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member asked my opinion and 1 am prepared to give it to him. If he checks the rules he will find that the question of what is in order and what is not in order in Question Period is entirely at the discretion of the Chair.


Sergio Marchi: Would you allow me to finish, though?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Therefore, no question of order can be raised on whether a question is put or not. That is the point.


Sergio Marchi: But we have got to listen to you-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Petitions


Sergio Marchi: You can't even have the decency to allow a Member to finish his point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees. Tabling of documents. Statements by Ministers. Petitions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today it is again my duty to table in the House a petition from people in the Moncton area and in my riding, who are still very concerned about the uncertain fate of the CN shops in Moncton.
No assurances have been received from the Minister that jobs will be protected, and they are asking this House to use its influence to obtain guarantees from the Government regarding the jobs at the CN shops.


Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of 101 pensioners, former employees of Abitibi Price in Iroquois Falls, and 253 of their fellow employees in the plant. The petition deals with changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act as it affects pensioners. They ask that all changes affecting the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits be grandfathered. They ask that, in cases where a pension renders pensioners ineligible for benefits, they be relieved from paying premiums. As well, they ask the Government to set aside a special fund to entice people to take early retirement to make way for younger people.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents of Calgary North who request that funding for therapeutic abortions be stopped and procurement of a miscarriage be a criminal offence.


Mr. Speaker:: Prior to proceeding to Questions on the Order Paper, I should inform the House for the record that the Chair

January 30, 1986
Order Paper Questions
was in receipt of an application under Standing Order 31 which has, however, been withdrawn.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 500 will be answered today.


Mr. Young: Did the office of the Minister of National Revenue receive letters dated (a) March 28, 1985 (b) September 16, 1985, with respect to a complaint made by Mr. Albert Aulsebrook to the office of the Hon. Member for Beaches and is it the intention of the Minister's office to respond to the letters and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: The records of this Department indicate that the office of the Minister did not receive the referenced letters.
Copies of this correspondence, provided by the Hon. Member's office, show that the issue relates to the Canada Post Corporation, which comes within the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-80, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 19 (Mr. de Jong) (p. 10322).
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, until such time as an investigation is held into the bugging of the Liberal caucus, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., the proceedings on the motion before the House have lapsed and pursuant to Standing Order 9(1) the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, January 31, 1986