1987-06-19

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice relating to the extraordinary motion moved by the government House Leader yesterday under Section 57 of the rules of procedure imposing closure on the resolution to support in principle the re-establishment of capital punishment and to provide for the establishment of a committee to examine that question. In moving that motion yesterday-


Mr. Lewis:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I believe a question of privilege has priority.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would just let the Chair hear a bit more and then I will return to the Parliamentary Secretary.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in moving that motion, I submit that my privileges and the privileges of Members of the House of Commons, particularly members of the Opposition as I will argue in a moment, have been violated. They are violated-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) is raising a question of privilege apparently based on something that was done pursuant to one of the Orders of the House. Obviously an experienced Member of the House like the Hon. Member is entitled to be heard, but I do not want to be taken for an overly long time along the lines of an alleged point of privilege which is based on something which has been done according to the rules of the House, if it has been I am having a great difficulty following the Hon. Member. Perhaps the Hon. Member could help me. I think I can anticipate that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary was perhaps wondering the same thing. I am a bit troubled by this.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think I can do so and I can do so by referring to your own ruling of April 14, 1987, in which you indicated, dealing with another rule of the House, that there was a legitimate use of the rules of the House as well as
an illegitimate use of the rules of the House and that it was the function of the Speaker to ensure that there were no illegitimate uses of the rules of the House.
A rule was used yesterday, I grant you, but I submit, and 1 hope that I will have a few minutes to make the case, that the use of the rules made by the Deputy Prime Minister and government House Leader yesterday was an illegitimate use of the rules of the House. That is my submission.
When you established that concept in your ruling of April 14, you did so in the following context, and I refer to your ruling which appears at page 5119 of Hansard:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the majority. They are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They provide the Opposition with a means to delay a decision.
They also provide the majority with a means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to the procedure of a democratic assembly. Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the total frustration of one side or the other, the total stagnation of debate, or the total paralysis of the system.
I want to argue that the use made of the rules yesterday was illegitimate because the rules were used in a way which prevent precisely that which you suggested you had the authority to protect, namely, that there should be a debate of reasonable length and that there should be an opportunity to hear the arguments pro and con.
Further on in your ruling at page 5121 of Hansard you said:
When interpreting the rules of procedure, the Speaker must take account not only of their letter but of their spirit and be guided by the most basic rule of all, that of common sense.
The ruling I have just referred to of April 14, 1987, was used to limit interventions by the Opposition. I want to argue that exactly the same logic used in that ruling should lead you to intervene to prevent the majority from suppressing the minority and give the minority precisely what you said you should interpret the rules to protect, namely, the right to hear arguments pro and con.
I want to make a second argument-


Philip Derek Lewis: I hope it is better than the first one.

June 19, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -that you should have regard to British precedent. Our rules of procedure provide under Standing Order 1:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
The use of closure is almost unprecedented in Canada.


Philip Derek Lewis: You have brought it in.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is not entirely unprecedented and its use may be legitimate. It is used quite commonly in Great Britain so I want to suggest that we should be guided by British precedent, where the experience is greater, in the use of closure motions.
I would like to draw your attention to page 452 of Erskine May which covers the question of closure and indicates there is a role for the Speaker. The intervention of the Chair regarding closure is restricted to occasions when the motion is made in abuse of the rules of the House or infringes the rights of the minority. In deciding whether, given the importance of the subject, the amount of time already occupied by the debate is adequate, the Chair is guided by certain considerations. The considerations are set out there.
I want to put before you the considerations I urge you to apply in deciding on the illegitimacy or premature use of closure, and I want to refer to statements made by the Government House Leader and the Parliamentary Secretary on the subject on which closure is being imposed, that being the reinstatement of capital punishment.
When the subject was introduced on February 13, 1987, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said at page 3413 of Hansard:
The intent behind the motion is to permit a full parliamentary debate to be concluded by a free vote on the capital punishment issue.
That is the characterization the Government gave with respect to the motion relating to capital punishment. The Government House Leader went on to say he wanted an open debate:
This issue is a matter of national importance and one that a majority of Canadians want Parliament to consider. It should be debated openly and voted upon in a free manner without impeding the independence of Members of Parliament.
On February 2, 1987, at page 3000 of Hansard, the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary said:
-I submit that in any debate about capital punishment the process by which the debate proceeds is vital to a full and fair resolution of the issue.
At the same time he said:
Every Member of the House, no matter what is his or her position on the issue, owes it to society to debate the issue on as high a level as possible.
What have we had from the Government in the way of debate?


Mr. Lawrence:: Opposition delays.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We have had delays, the Member opposite says. We have had four days of debate, and the last day was interrupted. We have had only 20 speakers. I would like to recall for you that in 1976, when the abolition of capital punishment was debated, it went on for 30 days with 120 speakers.


Philip Derek Lewis: And 20 hours on second reading.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: On second reading we debated for 21 -


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. Along with some other Hon. Members, I was here not only for that debate but for an earlier one. The Hon. Member refers to British practice. I think there were two debates on capital punishment in the British House of Commons in recent years and I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell me how many days those debates lasted? If one is to borrow willy-nilly from other practices, I am not so sure that that particular argument helps the Hon. Member.
The difficulty the Chair is in is this. The Hon. Member referred to a ruling I made on April 14. The circumstances were that there had been the use of procedural tactics for an extended period of time which the Chair felt, for much of that protracted period of time, were by and large justified given the importance that some Hon. Members placed on that particular matter. However, that ruling was to try and find a way through the unenviable position in which the Chair found itself, not having any clear direction from the House with respect to the Standing Orders.
I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member Standing Order 57. I do not rise to remind the Hon. Member of this because 1 am in disagreement with what he has been saying as to the number of days needed for a debate on this vital matter. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Hon. Member has raised a question of privilege and says one side has no right under these circumstances at this time to move a motion according to a rule which is clearly and succinctly set out. It says this:
Immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in Committee of the Whole, any Minister of the Crown who, standing in his or her place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his or her intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned-
I understand that notice has been given. What will flow from that notice I do not yet know. However, the Hon. Member is objecting to the fact that notice has been given under the Orders. It is very difficult for the Chair, no matter how sympathetic it may be to the argument the Hon. Member is putting forward, to be able to entertain extensive argument on the thesis that somehow or other an Hon. Member's privileges have been breached by the implementation of a Standing Order by another Hon. Member or, in this case, the Government.
The Chair is not altogether ingenuous in this matter and understands fully the point the Hon. Member is making. I am
June 19, 1987

troubled because it would seem to me that it is very much a question of legitimate debate, I am having a very great deal of difficulty being able to accept it as a question of privilege.
The difficulty I am in is that while the Hon. Member has a view, which he has put forward very well if I may compliment him for that, other Hon. Members have a different view and the Hon. Member will probably soon be interrupted by other Hon. Members who will tell me that there is a clear order, that there is no question or doubt about what the rules are, and that when the rules are followed in this place it is hardly up to one Member or another to say that that is a question of privilege. That, specifically, is the problem I have to face.
I ask the Hon. Member to put aside completely the merits of his case, which 1 think he has put forward very adequately in terms of debate. How is the Chair to continue a long debate on a question of privilege which the Chair is having a very great deal of difficulty accepting as a question of privilege, even though I realize I have not heard all of the very persuasive argument of the Hon. Member?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, you have asked me, and I agree, not to dwell on the merits, but I cannot refrain from observing, in just a sentence or two, that from my recollection of the British experience on that subject closure was not imposed but the debate was limited. The Government itself has said that it wants every Member to be able to participate in this debate on as high a level as possible.
I want to respond to you, Mr. Speaker. You have indicated that you see a clear rule and you feel you have no alternative but to apply it. I remind you that in the order you made on April 14 there were also clear rules on which you intervened. There are clear rules giving opposition Members of the House the opportunity to participate by raising the points which they were raising. Your intervention quite reasonably, I will concede, limited the clear rights they had under the rules on which they were relying for their interventions.
At this point the Government is asking you to rely on a rule and I am making a similar argument that, although the rule is there, just as this ruling authorized you to intervene and suppress rights set out in the rules of procedure for the benefit of private Members and opposition Members, you have the authority which you have given to yourself through your ruling of April 14 to intervene there.
You made the point that some Members are in favour of this debate continuing and some Members are against it. I agree. However, I think you will find that those who are in favour of closing the debate down tend to be members of the majority and those who would like to see the debate continue tend to be members of the minority. Therefore, we come back to the very issue which you yourself raised on April 14-the balance between the rights of the majority and rights of the minority.
You have a right to ensure that there is a reasonable debate on this subject. Erskine May makes it clear that in Great Britain, where closure is frequently used, the Speaker has to
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan
ensure that it is not used unreasonably or prematurely or, to use your expression, Mr. Speaker, that it is not used illegitimately. If there ever was such a case, this is it.
You can look back upon how the subject has been dealt with before by the Canadian Parliament. There were hundreds of hours of debate during which over one hundred Members spoke. In this case, in which closure is being applied prematurely and illegitimately, in my submission, there have been less than 20 speakers and less than four days of debate. The Government itself adjourned the debate on the fourth day so there have only been three and one-half days of debate.
If closure is going to be part of the arsenal of this oppressive Government, the Speaker has a clear duty and a well-precedented responsibility to step in and ensure that there is a reasonable debate. Just as the rights of the minority can sometimes be denied in the House on the basis of common sense, as you said yourself, in this case common sense surely demands that the Opposition be given what the Government said it would be given, a full opportunity for debate, an opportunity for all Members to discuss this subject on the highest level.
I am not asking you, Mr. Speaker, to invent a proper length of debate out of whole cloth. I am asking you to look at the precedent in Canada, which is the debate of 1976, to look at the promises of the Government, and to do the fair thing now as you did on April 14 to the disadvantage of the rights of the minority.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assist the Chair and perhaps my hon. friend.


Mr. Penner:: What arrogance.


Mr. Murphy:: You're resigning?


Philip Derek Lewis: If my hon. friend cares to look at Standing Order 57 he will see that it says that notice must be given before a motion is moved. There is an essential difference between notice and a motion. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) gave the House notice. That is the essential difference. Surely no one's rights can be breached by notice.
If I may say so, my friend is premature. We have called the previous motion on capital punishment for debate. It was our intention that the first 27 minutes of today would be occupied by a legitimate debate on the issue. We have continually made the point that we are prepared to negotiate shorter speeches on our side, if one wishes to distinguish between our side and their side. We are prepared to extend the hours. However, the Opposition refuses to negotiate.
Allow me to put the mind of the Opposition at rest and state very clearly the intentions of the Government for today and Monday. It is the intention of the Government to have debate on the issue.

June 19, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan


Mr. Riis:: You adjourned the debate yesterday.


Philip Derek Lewis: I am telling my hon. friend the intention for today. If my hon. friend, who implored me last night for information, wishes to hear the information now, he will let me tell him.
We intend to call the motion for debate today. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Government to move the motion under Standing Order 57 today or Monday. There is absolutely no intention on the part of any member of the Government to extend hours today or Monday. We intend to have a normal day's debate which would have included from ten o'clock until 11 o'clock and from 12.15 until two o'clock, Private Members' Hour beginning at two o'clock. We intend to call the motion for debate after routine proceedings on Monday and continuing until 10 o'clock at night with the exception of the normal Question Period and normal Private Members' Hour.
It is up to the Opposition to decide whether it wants delay or debate.


An Hon. Member:: We want our right to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: I am, of course, intrigued by the words of the Parliamentary Secretary. Since the Chair has the obligation to ensure that the rules of this place are followed, I point out to Hon. Members that although the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's words were of interest I am not at all sure that they went to the heart of the matter which is raised by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). However, they do indicate that at least for today there seems to be a firm commitment by the Government that debate will continue.
The Hon. Member for York Centre wishes to rise again, perhaps to comment on some of the statements of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. It may be helpful if the Chair indicated its disposition at this time, in view of what the Government has just said. It would be to just adjourn this matter, let debate proceed, and suggest that Hon. Members discuss this matter among themselves. I will then hear further argument on the matter at any moment at which the Hon. Member for York Centre feels it appropriate to raise the matter further. In other words, I will not cut this off. However, the Hon. Member for York Centre has a comment.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the remedy which I was proposing to urge on you was that you not receive the notice. I feel that I need to say another few words in order to explain, but if the adjournment now is without prejudice to an argument which might convince you not to receive the notice, then I would be sympathetic to adjournment.
However, I want to indicate why a notice, pure and simple, can be a violation of rights of Members. The reason is that this is not a notice like other notices. Other notices provide for a debate, and for a vote. A notice under Standing Order 57
precludes the possibility of debate. Since there is no debate on it, if the matter is taken at face value, merely receiving the notice, settles the issue of how long the debate will take on the substantive matter being closed and when it will be finished.
It is the notice that I submit is the violation of the rights of the Opposition and not the matters that follow subsequent to it.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made an offer. I want to make a counter offer in the interests of trying to resolve this matter. It is that he withdraw the notice. He can always bring it back.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the Hon. Member for York Centre is a very respected Member of this place and a respected Member of the same fraternity from which I came. He is skillful and always persuasive. However, I think that at this moment it is in the better interests of this place that I adjourn this application on the part of the Hon. Member.
I am inviting Hon. Members to discuss the matter among themselves because this is clearly now becoming a negotiating session across the aisle and, while it certainly would not be the first time it has happened, I suggest to all Hon. Members that it is not appropriate at this moment.
I am asking the Hon. Member for York Centre that he accept my suggestion that this matter be adjourned for now. I invite Hon. Members to have a discussion about the matter and, of course, I will hear the Hon. Member if he feels it is necessary to carry on this discussion at another time.
I am prepared to meet with Hon. Members from both sides if there is anything the Chair can do to assist in this matter. I would ask Hon. Members to accept the Chair's view that at the moment this has gone far enough, given the clear undertaking of the Parliamentary Secretary, at least for today.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: And Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: At least for today, and I will hear Hon. Members further if Hon. Members feel it is necessary. I urge Hon. Members to have a discussion on this issue.
I want to make it very clear to Hon. Members, and the public listening to this, that in taking this position the Chair is mindful that the Chair's obligation is to administer and interpret the rules as they are. It is not for me at the moment to say whether this rule is a good rule or a bad rule. However, it is pretty clear.
Having said that, there is nothing in what I say that is intended or in any way should be taken as diminishing the substantive argument that the Hon. Member has put forward with respect to the vital issue that is before the House. The Hon. Member makes very legitimate arguments, and other Hon. Members may make equally legitimate arguments the other way, as to the importance of the debate and the length of the debate.
June 19, 1987

I want it clearly understood that in closing this off at this time I am not in any way taking away from the substantive points the Hon. Member for York Centre has made. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), I hope on a different matter.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, certainly in view of the suggestion that has been made, that the debate on this question of privilege is merely being adjourned and Your Honour is not in any way ruling with respect to the merits of the question of privilege, I do not intend to make the argument which myself and colleagues, including our House Leader and Whip, wish to make as well. We certainly feel very strongly that the precedents in Erskine May and elsewhere with respect to the use of this Draconian device of closure are very real.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby is also a very skilled and persuasive Member of this place. The Hon. Member for Burnaby will have every chance to argue this matter further, if it is in fact necessary. But I would ask Hon. Members to co-operate with the Chair.
At the moment, in view of what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary says, I think it is in the interests of this place that the very debate Members are asking for be allowed to take place.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. It is also a very fundamental question on which I seek some assistance from the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not intend in any way to pursue the question of privilege.
In view of the fact that the Government has given notice on this matter, another difficulty arises. Having given notice on this question, the Government can in fact introduce this motion at any time and then that same sitting, after a full debate, there will be a vote at one o'clock in the morning according to Standing Order 57.
In view of the extraordinary gravity of the issue, which is literally a question of life and death, and in view of the importance that all Members be in a position to be in the House for a vote on this very important question, I seek the assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that now that notice of closure has been given under Standing Order 57 that Members of the House on all sides be given adequate notice, at least a day's notice ahead of time, should the Government decide that it wishes to pursue this matter, in order that all Members can at least be present for the vote on this very important question.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Burnaby for accepting my suggestion to move away from the question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Burnaby is clearly now on a point of order which goes directly to the heart of what are the Government's intentions in this debate. Of course, the Government is under no obligation to respond, but
Point of Order-Mr. Nickerson
under the circumstances I would certainly hear the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary may want to say that that is a matter for private discussion.
However, I accept what the Hon. Member for Burnaby has said as a point of order on an important matter.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to say that we have consistently suggested that there would be a free vote on this matter. That is government policy.
I am prepared to say that along with the free vote goes adequate notice of the time of a free vote. I would give my undertaking to that extent. I hope that in return, my hon. friend would undertake not to delay the taking of that free vote once adequate notice is given.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not for the Chair to comment as to whether or not the exchange that has just taken place is satisfactory to both parties. But it is probably sensible for the Chair to suggest that both Parties might discuss the matter a little further, although there seems to be some disposition to co-operate in this matter.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very different point of order which deals with the technicalities of the way in which Bill S-10 has been placed on the Order Paper. Bill S-10 is a Private Member's private Bill originating in the Senate. It is an Act to Revive Yellowknife Electric Ltd. and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
With the substance of the Bill I am in complete agreement. However, I have some queries as to how it finds itself as an item having precedence No. 11 on the table on page 31 of today's Order Paper dealing with the order of precedence of Private Members' business.
You will know, Sir, that precedence is established pursuant to Standing Order 31 which deals with the draw and items which do not have to go through the draw process are dealt with under Standing Order 41. If I might be permitted to read into the record Standing Order 41(1) which states as follows:
The order for the first consideration of any subsequent stages of a Bill already considered during Private Members' Business, of second reading of a Private Bill-
And here we come to the operative part.
-and of second reading of a private Member's public Bill originating in the
Senate shall be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence.
Therefore, Sir, had Bill S-10 been a private Member's public Bill, it would, in my opinion, quite properly appear

June 19, 1987
Capital Punishment
where it does today. However, because this is a private Member's private Bill, I would submit that this might have been improperly done and might require unanimous consent of the House to have it where it presently finds itself in the order of precedence.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add to what the Hon. Member has said, that we on this side of the House would be ready to try to help the people of the North which we believe have been so often neglected by the Government. We are happy to see that someone on the Government side is putting something forward which will be constructive and, in that sense, we would be agreeable.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit, we too agree to this proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the Hon. Member for Western Arctic would allow the Table Officers to consider the matter and then I will come back to the House with what resolution we can. However, I just want to put on the record that there is unanimous consent of the House to the suggestion of the Hon. Member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 18, consideration of the Motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what
circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of
death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as a committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendations on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business"; and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members for any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House by filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".
And on the amendment of Mr. Nystrom, (P.7307).
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I enter into this debate with a concern my colleague has just expressed, why it is there seems to be such an inordinate and unacceptable ambition on the part of so many Members of the Government to limit debate on this issue. One of the most crucial decisions every one of us will be taking in this House at some time is on the matter of the restoration of capital punishment. It has been initiated by Members of the Government Party. The onus is on them to prove their case.
All we can assume is that those Hon. Members believe they are losing their case and, therefore, want the debate to come to an end. Therefore, this House, in part, is debating this motion under a cloud. There is a gun being put to our head. If we do not behave ourselves and limit our remarks, the Government at some point will bring in closure.
We certainly appreciate the decision you have made this morning, Mr. Speaker, that at the point in time at which there is an intention on the part of the Government to bring in closure, we will be able to resume our argument and be able to once again show that any attempt to limit the rights and freedoms of Members of Parliament to speak on behalf of their constituents on this crucial issue should not be permitted. If it gets in the way of the Government's timetable or its agenda or its fear of public reaction, then at least we can show that Parliament itself will not be victimized by those crass kinds of motivations.
It is interesting to note that this attempt to limit, restrain and circumscribe debate takes place at a time when I think Canadians want more debate. Over the last two months, I have been invited to countless numbers of schools, churches and organizations at which people wanted to hear the arguments for and against.
June 19, 1987

It is also interesting that at virtually all of those meetings where Conservative Members of Parliament were invited to share the platform, they refused to come. They did not show up on the platform in my province. They did not want to debate the issue in a public forum. It was a matter of some great regret that we were always debating with an empty chair, but that fits the same kind of attitude we have seen prevail, yesterday and today.
Those Hon. Members are afraid to debate. They have their own minds already made up and are afraid to face the kind of dynamic process which should take place in Parliament and across the country where free men and women are allowed to present arguments and then allowed to decide. I wonder sometimes if Government Members are learning their parliamentary tactics from South Korea rather than from the British tradition, because that is the kind of attitude which prevails day in and day out in this House.
Members of the Government are not trying to expand freedoms in the way they use Parliament, but are trying to restrict and circumscribe. They are afraid of debate and that is the first tell-tale sign of an authoritarian mind. They are afraid to put their own ideas and commitments out for public view and a free exchange of deliberate debate. They do not want to hear the other side of the case, and once we allow that to happen we are well on the road to a very different kind of Government, one which none of us would want to see exist in this country.
In part, we are engaged in the wrong kind of debate. If the Government was trying to read the public mood, it misread it. I participated in those forums and discussions everywhere from a grade 7 classroom in my constituency to the church forums. It is true that people are concerned about the increase in violence. It is true they are concerned about the problems in the penal and judicial systems and the fact that sometimes people are out on the streets who should not be there. In my own City of Winnipeg, there has been a substantial increase in violent crimes. Only the simple-minded would regard capital punishment as the panacea. Instead of debating capital punishment, we should be debating the root causes behind the increase in violent crimes. There is a fear and uncertainty in the minds of Canadians in respect of the increase in crime, and we should be trying to determine the cause for that increase, thus enabling us to come up with the right solutions.
That is the type of debate that Canadians would like to see this Parliament engage in. Canadians want to know how to deal with the issues that have led to the present situation. But, we are not being allowed to do that. The Government has said that it is capital punishment that is the answer; that it is the death penalty that will solve the problem. And it does so in total contradiction to all of the available evidence. The advocates of capital punishment have not been able to prove a cause-and-effect relationship between the absence of capital
Capital Punishment
punishment and the increase in violent crimes, the increase in the murder rate and in heinous crimes generally.
During the course of the debate thus far, Mr. Speaker, all kinds of statistics have been paraded out on the floor of the House. The advocates of capital punishment cite the increased crime figures in certain cities of the country. Of course, we on the other side of the question can just as easily say that in jurisdictions where there is capital punishment the murder rate has increased exponentially, geometrically.
What we have to look at are the differences in such cities as Miami and Detroit, where there has been an explosion of violence, and places like South Dakota, where there is no such explosion. It may be that it has more to do with the stability of a given society than anything else. It may be that it has more to do with the fairness of the system in place. It may be that it has more to do with the way in which a particular community deals with the strains and stresses of every-day living.
Taking the City of Winnipeg as an example, one of the fundamental sources for the increase in the incidence of violent crime in that city is the tremendous increase in the stresses and strains of every-day living in the inner city. People are living in poverty, without the kind of educational and housing support they require. That situation is the reason for the increase in the incidence of violent crimes, not the absence of the death penalty as a punishment.
But, the Government's motion does not permit us to debate the root cause. It seems to me that the resolution should be for the establishment of a committee of the House to study the serious problems that exist in the inner cities across this country, the fact that the native and aboriginal people of western Canada are mistreated and discriminated against and do not have a fair chance, the fact that there is tremendous turmoil and turbulence in our urban areas. It is that situation which should be debated and studied, with a view to changing society to eliminate those stresses and strains.
Such a debate would be a valuable contribution to the public interest of Canada; such a debate would make good sense. That is the kind of debate, the kind of examination that Canadians would like to see their Members of Parliament engage in.
The role of Parliament on this issue should be one of the educator, one of the examiner. Parliament should be holding these problems and issues up for public examination. Parliament should not be responding to prejudice and emotion; rather, it should fulfil its responsibility to provide a forum for the full articulation of the issues facing society. In that way, the people of the country will know what are the choices and the options. Such a course would provide Parliament with a noble role to play in society, which is something that the resolution now under debate does not permit.
It is important to underline why this debate has taken such a perverse turn. At this point in time in our society, I think Canadians were ready for something better. 1 think they

June 19, 1987
wanted a different kind of examination of the issue of violent crime. It is not my impression that Canadians wanted to retreat to the dark ages, to the kind of primeval instincts that are being fanned by so many of the advocates of capital punishment. Canadians wanted something different from that, and hopefully it will be achieved.
To the great credit of many citizens of this country, members of the bar, members of the church organizations, the contrary arguments are being put forward. It is those who are responding to the claims being put forward by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and others who favour capital punishment, and they are winning that debate in the various forums.
In order to ensure that the advocates of a more civilized, a more enlightened point of view are given the opportunity to win the debate on this issue, Parliament itself must be permitted to continue the debate. What is at stake, and what Parliament must fight for, is the right to continue the debate in that fashion. If the debate is allowed to continue, we will ultimately be able to secure the right choice in this House when we rise in our places to vote.
As the American experience shows, the reintroduction of capital punishment would lead to inequity and unfairness. When it comes to capital punishment, the law is not evenly applied. People do not have equal access to the better lawyers. Very often one's social standing, one's economic standing comes into play. The probability of a convicted murderer being executed is much higher where the murderer comes from a certain social, economic or ethnic group.
Is that what Canadians are prepared to accept in 1987? Are we prepared to build into the most irrevocable decision the state can make an implicit unfairness? Are we prepared to allow that to happen? Are we prepared to allow our legal system to become completely immobilized because the decision-makers will not want to take the ultimate step of invoking capital punishment?
One needs only to look at the situation in the United States, where we have thousands of people being kept on death row because no one wants to make the final decision. Yet, there these people sit, with this great uncertainty hanging over their heads.
We know from past experience in this country the amount of anguish that was expressed in the Cabinet room when it came to making a decision to invoke capital punishment or not. And how many sentences were plea-bargained down, or evaded? Consider how distorted the legal system becomes when capital punishment is available.
That is one of the clear results that we would bring about were we to pass this motion. Not only would we be doing the wrong thing, but we would be committing our legal system to an incredible degree of distortion and immobilization, to say nothing of the element of unfairness that would be built in.
These arguments have not been refuted, Mr. Speaker. All we seem to get is capital punishment for the sake of capital punishment-for the sake of capital punishment.
In that respect, it is interesting to note that virtually every religious organization and spokesperson across Canada has come out against this resolution. Those organizations speak with a unified voice on this issue. In terms of the fundamental moral beliefs, if it is the motive of the proponents of capital punishment to wreak vengeance, I remind them of the fundamental Biblical invocation, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord". Only God has the right to make the ultimate decision. It is not for us, being as fallible as we are, to be making that kind of choice.
We entered into this debate, Mr. Speaker, with the belief that we would be given the time and opportunity to make our case. Once again, that faith is about to be broken. The threat of execution on the House and on further debate is the problem we face. It is double jeopardy, double capital punishment in both ways.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as I say to Members opposite, if they really believe in what they are doing, then let the debate continue. Let every Canadian have the right to be heard because, in the end, right will prevail. Not only that, but justice and goodness will prevail if we are given the chance and time to do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 11 o'clock, the House will now proceed with Members' statements, pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, again yesterday people were misled by this Government.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, in its last three Budgets the Government chose to raise taxes to the tune of $20 a week for every Canadian. Yesterday the Minister came back and said: Well, I made a mistake, I am giving you $6 back. However, as of next year I will take $2 from you, but that is not all because, beginning in 1989, I intend to recuperate the other $4 I gave you.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Budget is a shameful trick played on people. It is a shame because there are four million poor
June 19, 1987

Canadians and most senior citizens did not benefit at all from this Budget. People will remember this during the next election campaign.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 2, I had the honour to participate in a topping-off ceremony for Canada Place in Edmonton. Canada Place is the location of the new federal government offices which will do much to consolidate many of the federal offices in Edmonton.
A topping-off ceremony is a traditional ceremony signifying that a building has structurally reached its full height. It is a tribute to the Trizec Corporation, Ellis-Don Management Services, and the hundreds of workers who have erected Canada Place in only 18 months.
The building of Canada Place has added much to the economy of Edmonton. The $190 million structure is being built by some 365 workers who have put in 676,000 man-hours of work. That represents a lot of money. All but six of the workers are Edmontonians. Also, 35 of the 38 sub-contractors are from Edmonton.
This beautiful building for the federal Government will not only enhance downtown Edmonton but will provide impetus for greater growth in our fair city.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, last night the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) gave the House notice that he intends to gag Parliament on a fundamental question of life and death on the issue of capital punishment. The last time this Draconian sledge-hammer abuse of the rules took place was on October 23, 1980. At that time I was in the House. I remember that Conservative Members of Parliament stormed the Chair. They stormed the Chair in protest and outrage over the use of closure under the Standing Orders.
The same Party which now forms the Government transforms this issue now, an issue which is supposed to be a question of conscience, a question affecting each and every Member of the House, a Private Member's initiative. The Government has now taken the initiative to the extent that the
Tory Chairperson of the Justice Committee has said: "It seems to me it detracts from what it's supposed to be-a free vote".
Yes, it detracts all right from what it is supposed to be. What we now have is a betrayal of the promise of the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader who said: "We are not committed to managing the debate with a heavy hand or forcing a vote by a certain date".
The Government has betrayed that promise. It is trying to shut down Parliament on an issue that goes to the very heart of what this nation is all about.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I demand the immediate resignation of the Deputy Minister and President of the Employment and Immigration Commission, or his transfer to the Privy Council until such time as an impartial inquiry has been made into allegations that Mr. Gaetan Lussier committed perjury before the Federal Court of Canada Chief Justice.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that a bureaucrat would lie before a court and, until an inquiry by the Standing Committee of Labour sheds light on this matter, I simply cannot accept this incident.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I table a copy and request the dismissal of Mr. Lussier.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very sorry, but later perhaps it might be possible for the Hon. Member to discuss the subject of his remarks with the Chair.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, recently, the New Brunswick daily Le Matin announced some very bad news, namely that Atlantic Distillers at Richibouctou was closing its plant.
This plant closing means that forty workers will be laid off in one of the few industries that employ people year round. It will have a severe impact on the region, the community and especially on the families concerned.
The industry has been severely affected by tax increases, and more particularly by increases in the excise tax which

June 19, 1987
were among the causes of diminishing sales. The problem was brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on several occasions.
Many of my constituents sent me letters which I then transmitted to the Minister of Finance. In their letters, they mentioned the number of jobs that had already been lost, and wondered whether they would be next. Well, now it has happened. Those jobs are lost.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the new Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be able to provide some kind of solution to deal with the loss of these jobs in the town of Richibouctou.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, today begins the twenty-ninth annual celebration of the International Freedom Festival in Windsor. It will culminate in the joint observation of the Freedom Days, July 1 and July 4, as approved by resolution in this House. No Canadian city has such an intimate relationship with its American cousins, and that may frequently be taken literally, than does the City of Windsor.
We are as likely to cheer the Detroit Red Wings and the Tigers as the Maple Leafs or the Blue Jays. Yet there are no people so jealous of our Canadianism, so sharply aware of this country's unique democratic values, or who share a deeper understanding of America than we.
It is as equals that we join in celebration of a special relationship, a special relationship that is often tested and taken too much for granted by our neighbours, and perhaps even by ourselves.
This largest of international festivals in the words welcomes you, Mr. Speaker. Come and see the brilliant lights of freedom light up the sky of Detroit and Windsor, and hear the mighty roar of two free and separate peoples as they pledge their friendship.



TAX REFORM


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, we have all recognized that tax reform is essential to bring fairness and equity into the tax system and to devise a system which will
provide a greater sense of opportunity and encourage competitiveness. But of particular concern to many of us is the financial situation of our senior citizens-Canadians who have contributed so much to our community and who deserve a sense of financial peace and security in their retirement years.
So among the many areas that I would select for compliments in the tax reform package, it is the positive impact on our seniors that I particularly applaud. As a result of tax reform nine out of ten Canadians 65 years of age and over will pay less federal tax in 1988. A typical elderly married couple with $25,000 in income will pay about $650 less.
By converting exemptions into tax credits and by lowering the tax levels this change will mean that the vast majority of Canadians will pay less income tax. Indeed, 250,000 more senior citizens will no longer pay any federal income tax.
That is fairness. That is equity. That is what the actions of this Government mean for the senior citizens of Canada.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the very problem with this budget and the very problem with this Government as stated by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is that they talk about a "typical" elderly couple earning $25,000 a year. Well, I do not know how many typical elderly couples in Capilano are earning $25,000 per year, but it is certainly not the typical picture of an elderly couple in Hamilton. I cannot believe that the Government would introduce such a budget.
However, I wanted to speak today on the issue of the postal strike, in particular the fact that the Minister responsible for superboxes suggested last week that if there were any violation of a collective agreement, it should be brought immediately to his attention.
I should like to bring to his attention a violation of the collective agreement in Hamilton where the Post Office is bringing in Kelly girls to replace inside workers and telling those inside workers that, if they do not like it, they can file a grievance or they can walk out.
It is direct provocation. It is an attempt by the Government, through the corporation, actually to create a situation which is going to lead to increased violence.
I ask the Minister to investigate this violation of the collective agreement of inside workers in the city of Hamilton.
June 19, 1987



FINANCE


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada's new tax reform, the flow-through shares system has been retained, which is very important for Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Quebec.
On December 16, 1986, Members of the New Democratic Party and their leader (Mr. Broadbent) tabled motions in this House to do away with flow-through shares in this country. However, the Government of Canada listened to representations made by President Regis Labeaume and members of the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec and by all intervenors from the mining sector, mayors, the CRDAT and federal Members for Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
1 am proud of the decision made by the Minister of Finance of Canada (Mr. Wilson) and the work done by the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines) (Mr. Merrithew). I have been defending the flow-through shares system for many months, and this is a victory we have all won together, and I am particularly thankful to those who were willing to find a solution.
The New Democratic Party moved a motion aimed at doing away with the concept of flow-through shares, a vital one for the mining industry in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, and if the Government of Canada had listened to the New Democratic Party, this would have caused considerable harm to the mining industry.
I want to tell the Members of the NDP that they have lost and that Abitibi-Temiscamingue is ready for them this year, because they haven't been seen since 1984.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a statement to make, and I am glad to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) in the House.
In Halifax yesterday, Canada Post suspended 70 workers for refusing to do the work normally done by letter carriers. In addition, over 10 employees in Toronto were suspended for refusing to do the work normally done by letter carriers.
Let us consider Section 184(3)(c) of the Canada Labour Code, which reads as follows:
No employer and no person acting on behalf of an employer shall suspend, discharge or impose any financial or other penalty on an employee or take any other disciplinary action against an employee by reason of his refusal to perform
all or some of the duties and responsibilities of another employee who is participating in a strike or subjected to a lock-out.
1 call upon the Minister of Labour to investigate the situation immediately and to make sure that Canada Post is living up to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.



TAX REFORM

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Mulroney Government has revealed its genius by tabling its White Paper on Tax Reform.
Canadians are impressed by this dynamic initiative. Social interest groups are speechless before the courage and sense of equity of the Conservatives. We have paid particular attention to the most destitute in our society. Henceforth, 850,000 people will no longer pay income taxes. Where did the money come from? Quite simple: the rich will pay their fair share, profit-making corporations will now pay taxes, and tax havens have been eliminated.
You know what we did with the money, Mr. Speaker? No need to look very far. Nine out of ten elderly Canadians over 65 will pay fewer taxes and, on average, eight out of ten households with an income ranging from $30,000 to $50,000 will pay $470 less. This has to be a black day for Opposition Parties. The Liberals were unable to get Quebec to join the rest of Canada, the socialists wanted to destroy our country's economy.
This Government has created 840,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Prime Minister's leadership, this figure will soon reach 1,000,000.
This is extraordinary news for my constituents of Argenteuil-Papineau because a good many of them are elderly and destitute.
I sincerely believe we have lived up to the challenge.




Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in his Budget the Minister of Finance told us he intends to levy a 10 per cent tax on communications, excluding basic service. This tax on long distance calls strikes unfairly at all Canadians residing in rural areas, be they from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,	Argenteuil-Papineau	or
elsewhere.

June 19, 1987
Telephone subscribers in urban areas can get in touch with hundreds of thousands of other people without paying long distance charges. But in such rural areas as mine, that of Argenteuil-Papineau and others, even calling neighbours generally entails long distance charges.
This morning I was talking to constituents of mine, Claudette and Gerald Laplante of Sarsfield, who told me their monthly phone bill amounts to $80, $5 for basic service plus $75 in additional charges.
Residents of rural areas were held up to ridicule by the Minister of Finance yesterday, and they are not about to forget it. The people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Argenteuil-Papineau do not like these measures, Mr. Speaker, and they will say so to the Minister of Finance.




Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting last night to watch opposition Members and other government critics try to turn good news into bad.
Tax reform means fairness in the taxation system for Canadians, and western Canadians in particular.
A quarter million western Canadians will be relieved of federal income tax and over three million western Canadian taxpayers will enjoy an income tax reduction. As well, the forestry and fisheries and agriculture sectors will have the lowest average tax rates in the Canadian economy under our tax reform package.
How dare the NDP and the Liberals attack a plan that brings fairness to our taxation system! After spending the last 20 years spending more than they took in and clogging up our economy, they have decided to blame the roto-rooter man.
The fact of the matter is that interest rates are down, the deficit is down, inflation is down, and now taxes are going down. The Canadian economy is booming.
As a matter of fact, last night one British Columbian I spoke with suggested that we have a new national bird-not the Canada Goose the Liberals were flying across our television screens, not the left-wing loon, but the crane, as in construction crane, to show what good government does for the Canadian economy.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in El Salvador the death squads have openly and brazenly re-emerged. They have written to 14 professors and students of the National University, threatening to kill them if they do not leave the country at once.
The Duarte Government has, throughout its term of office, completely failed to prosecute any of the murders or disappearances conducted by the death squads with military participation.
Although the Canadian Government has claimed that human rights are being restored in El Salvador, the increasing attacks on trade unionists, academics, and human rights spokespersons prove that the Canadian Government is mistaken in this regard.
Now that the death squads have re-emerged with open, brazen threats, I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to denounce this open breach of human rights, to denounce the failure of the Duarte Government to correct it, and to withdraw Canada's support from the Duarte Government.



TAX REFORM


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's tax reform is a comprehensive package with all parts working together. It comes in two stages. Personal and corporate reform takes effect in 1988. Sales taxes will proceed after consultation with the provinces and Canadians.
It means lower rates for individuals and businesses, as well as a simplified rate structure, and it is a fairer system.
Tax deductions are converted to tax credits; 850,000 more Canadians will pay no federal tax, and some will receive refunds; 8 out of 10 households will pay less tax, on an average of $475 less; and 9 out of 10 senior citizens will pay less tax. Corporate and sales tax changes will help to fund these changes. The agriculture, logging, and fishing sectors, after tax reform, will have the lowest tax rates.
All in all, it is a good package for all Canadians by a good Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
June 19, 1987



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he did not have to fire the Minister of Finance because the leaked information on tax reform was only in a White Paper. To use his exact words, he said that tax reform "is not a budget in the sense that it does not, per se, take effect the very same day pursuant to a Ways and Means motion".
Those were the Prime Minister's words. I have in my hand, of course, the Ways and Means motion which the Prime Minister said did not exist. I say to the Prime Minister that he misled the House of Commons and that he misled the people of Canada. According to the official documents produced by the Minister of Finance last night, tax changes did take effect immediately. Referring to the Ways and Means motion, I count up to 13 tax changes that took effect immediately on the presentation of the budget and two prior to the presentation of the budget.
Why is it that the Prime Minister chose to mislead the House yesterday? Now that the facts are known by the House, will he now fire the Minister of Finance for leaking information to 31 privileged tax accountants and lawyers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made the point that because there are some elements of a Ways and Means motion that this is a budget. Let me ask him to cast his mind back to something which occurred after he left the House, so he may not be totally clear on this. On October 20, 1977, Jean Chretien, then Minister of Finance, had a notice of Ways and Means containing 95 different elements as part of an economic and fiscal statement which was not a budget.
Let me draw the Right Hon. Leader's attention to what was contained therein. Capital losses were increased from $1,000 to $2,000. The employment expense deduction was increased to $250. Advertising expenses were changed. Guaranteed capital gains were identified.


TAX SPECIALISTS' ACCESS TO INFORMATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not facing the issue. The Prime Minister said that there would not be a Ways and Means motion and said that there would be no tax changes. Those were the words of the Prime Minister. If I did not have the deepest and greatest of respect for this institution, I know what I would call the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Thirty-one citizens, so-called experts in taxation, were given a privileged 24-hour head start on the budget. They were given the budget in advance. What could have happened in those 24 hours we will never know. These people were co-opted to sell the message on behalf of the Minister of Finance across the country and the payoff was a 24-hour head start on a budget.
Because we are dealing with the Prime Minister's words spoken in the House yesterday, I ask the Prime Minister why he does not now fire the Minister of Finance. Where are the ethics of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, because I do have a profound respect for this House,
I shall say what I have considered about the Leader of the Opposition in light of what he has been saying: weak and confused and unprincipled. What he has been saying is a sham and a fraud.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The position set forward by-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: There is clearly a profound difference of views between the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Both have expressed their high regard for this place and I know that both are trying very hard to maintain that. I would ask that the Right Hon. Prime Minister complete his answer and I would ask that other Hon. Members give him the courtesy of allowing him to complete that answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Finance was perfectly consistent with the conventions of this House and the proprieties of matters of this nature. The Minister of Finance has given another illustration of that this morning. Nothing that was said or done by the Minister of Finance was at variance with any of the fundamental requirements of the preparation of documents in this regard.
The result was a White Paper which dealt with the concept of fairness and equalization of opportunity, a White Paper which was designed to strengthen and render more fair the tax system. That is the thrust of the White Paper that was set forward by the Minister of Finance.
It is not unusual, nor did I say anything at variance with this yesterday or at any other time, for tax measures, however modest in number, to accompany a statement. There is a total segregation, as the Minister has indicated. The proprieties were observed at all times. I know that my right hon. friend, who is concerned with tax policy and who leads a Party that is apparently interested in tax reform, will now want to deal with the substance rather than the personalities because Canadians

June 19, 1987
Oral Questions
want to know where the Liberal Party stands on this fundamental issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEWSPAPERS' FORECASTS OF WHITE PAPER CONTENTS- REQUEST FOR MINISTER S RESIGNATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not my words that are at issue before the House of Commons, it is the Prime Minister's words to this House. That is the issue. 1 will say to the Prime Minister that the truth and the Prime Minister are not on easy terms.
Yesterday morning's Globe and Mail contained a front-page story entitled "What to Expect in Tax Reform". On the vast majority of items, the article was right. It was right, right down to the last nickel. The Ottawa Citizen carried the same story and it was right almost to the last nickel. How could they have known so accurately? What kind of games are being played here? What kind of advance notice has been given to try to sell the message of the Minister? Who has been co-opted and who is benefiting? That is the question we want to put.
If the Prime Minister does not want to mislead the House, then on the facts as we know them, which are that we had a budget, we had tax changes and we had a Ways and Means motion, he should fire the Minister of Finance. I have respect for that Minister. Under the circumstances as have now been revealed to the House, will he have the dignity to resign his office in view of what happened last night?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is pointing out that a number of the media and a number of individuals from the private sector who have been involved in the consultation process have understood the directions that we are going in tax reform and the objectives that we had in tax reform so that they have been able to anticipate some but not all of the things. That is exactly what we are trying to do. That is exactly why, at my breakfast meeting this morning, members of the private sector who have been involved in this consultation process were very complimentary. They asked me to please make sure that I keep this consultation process as open and productive as it has been because it has made for a better product. That is why we have been able to get eight out of 10 people off the tax rolls.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is exactly why we have been able to identify those tax preferences of upper-income Canadians that should be reduced. That is why we have been able to identify those ways that profitable corporations which are not paying taxes should have the situation changed. That is why we have been able to get 850,000 taxpayers off the rolls. These are the objectives of tax reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFORMATION GIVEN BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the same suject and direct my question to the Prime Minister, since he failed to answer the question put by the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday in the House, in responding to a question by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, he informed Hon. Members that what was about to be tabled was not a Budget but a White Paper, and I will quote his own words in this respect: He said it was not a budget in the sense it did not per se take effect the very same day pursuant to a Ways and Means Motion.
Mr. Speaker, it was this Ways and Means Motion that was used by the Minister of Finance to lay certain tax changes on the Table of the House and inform all elected representatives of the Canadian people of these changes and the date on which they became effective. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House, a Ways and Means Motion was tabled containing no less than thirteen tax changes. What we have here is a case of false information given by the Prime Minister to the House, and I would like to ask him why he failed to tell Hon. Members the truth yesterday during Oral Question Period.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows perfectly well that the statement I made in the House and the statements made the Minister of Finance are entirely in line, not only with our tradition and custom-after all, since he is a former Minister of Finance-but with the tradition of parliamentary democracy which is the system by which we are governed, and also entirely in line with the facts that were published subsequently. We are talking about a White Paper that was tabled in circumstances that were perfectly acceptable on the basis of our custom and tradition. There have been many examples, and I know the Hon. Member will end up agreeing with me on that.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I did not intend to say what I am going to say. However, the Minister lied in the House yesterday. Since the Prime Minister lied yesterday in the House, since according to his remarks . . .


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member understands the rules of this place. I ask him to indicate that he recognizes he went too far, and put the question in a more appropriate way.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not making things very easy for us. Out of respect for the Chair I will withdraw my remarks, but the fact remains that the Prime Minister informed us yesterday in the House that no Motion of
June 19, 1987

Ways and Means would be tabled last night, announcing tax changes becoming effective that day. Nevertheless, a motion was tabled. Someone is not telling the truth, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to know why.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting spectacle. Here we have a tax reform proposal of vital interest to every Canadian and because the Liberal Party is unable to get its act together and, understand its position on this White Paper, all it can do is attack the process and personalities. The respect of Canadians for that Party is slipping very fast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WHITE PAPER'S EFFECT ON RICH TAXPAYERS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with the issue raised by the Official Opposition, but fundamentally the people of Canada are interested right now in the document presented last night.
In 1984 in the Leaders' debate the Prime Minister promised the people of Canada that if they voted Conservative there would be tax fairness. Last night on television the Minister of Finance admitted that after three years of Conservative Government, and after this paper is implemented, a majority of Canadians will pay more in taxes than when the Conservatives were elected. According to the document itself, Canadians earning $100,000 or more, 175,000 rich families, will actually pay $4,365 less. Is this the Conservative concept of justice? After three years of Conservative Government only the rich pay less?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me draw to the attention of the Leader of the NDP that we have to look at what has happened in total since 1984. Some
840,000	jobs have been created. Interest rates are at their lowest level in about 10 years.


John Edward Broadbent: I am talking about tax reform.


Miss MacDonald:: Income has something to do with taxes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The unemployment rate dropped from 11.7 per cent to 9.1 per cent. Job creation over the last 12 months has helped all regions. We have a boom in housing starts which we have not seen for about 10 years. Those are the things that have happened since September 4, 1984, when this Government came into office with this Prime Minister leading the "way to a better Canada. That is what we stand for.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister left out one salient fact. There is only one category of Canadian that is richer after three years of Tory Government and it is that group of 175,000 rich families who get a tax break. The rich get richer, that is what happens with the Tories.
Oral Questions FAIRNESS OF TAX MEASURES


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Prime Minister because it is his reliability on the record here. He promised in 1984 a fairer tax system. I ask him the question and will he answer it? Does he think it is fair that after three years of Tory Government the average Canadian should be paying much more, and rich Canadians alone should be paying less? Is that Tory justice?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will give my hon. friend full marks. He has been consistent in his claims in this regard for many years. He has been asking for a greater degree of tax fairness. This has come up in debates in the House over a number of years. This document reduces taxes for eight out of 10 Canadians. Some 90 per cent of Canadians over 65 will pay less taxes. Some
850,000	Canadians will be removed from the federal tax rolls completely. This is an instrument of very considerable fairness for ordinary Canadians.
I ask my hon. friend, if he is disinclined to accept the larger picture of economic growth, to consider the various tax fairness measures introduced on various budget nights by the Minister of Finance, including a minimum tax, tax fairness for the disabled, and so on. I think my hon. friend will agree that this is a continuation of an historic initiative towards tax fairness and equality of opportunity for Canadians. I think it is generally accepted that the prime beneficiaries of these initiatives have been those low-income Canadians who need tax relief most.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister just said 850,000 Canadians were taken off the tax rolls. What he forgot to admit is that during the past three years, because of his Minister's tax policies, 850,000 Canadians were put on the tax rolls.


Finlay MacDonald: Those people were unemployed.


John Edward Broadbent: The Government is making up only partially for the injustice it has created. At the same time the truth holds, and it has not yet been denied by the Minister of Finance that the only Canadians paying less taxes after three years of Tory Government are the richest 175,000 families.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE MINIMUM TAX FOR CORPORATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been preaching about corporate tax reform for a year and a half now. He has sounded like, if I may use the term, a veritable socialist. Since we have 60,000 corporations, according to the Minister's own documents, that will continue to make profits and not pay taxes, why did he not at least do what Ronald Reagan did-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 19, 1987
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: -which was to bring in a minimum tax on corporations-


Finlay MacDonald: Stand up and cheer!


Mr. Speaker:: The Elon. Member for Oshawa has the floor.


John Edward Broadbent: Even Ronald Reagan, a conservative man in the United States, brought in corporate tax which included within its ambit all companies making profits. Why did the Tory Government, which promised corporate tax reform, not at least have the decency to copy that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was afraid that I would not be able to get up and answer this question because God might have struck me dead on the spot, twice. The New Democratic Leader said I was talking like a veritable socialist and then started talking about Ronald Reagan's policies. I do not know what is happening to this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Work on it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Figure it out.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am sure that the Leader of the New Democratic Party, whom I compliment on talking far more about policy than have his friends to the right, is going to be very complimentary of the directions we are following on changing exemptions to tax credits which will lead to a greater degree of fairness and a greater degree of progressivity in the tax system. He will also compliment me on the fact that we have taken 850,000 people off the tax rolls.


John Edward Broadbent: Come off it. You put them on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I appreciate the point he has made. He said that we put these people on the tax rolls. He is quite right. They got a job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Now answer the question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance whose budget last night made it clear that for middle-income Canadians so-called tax reform means no relief from the tax grabs of his previous Budgets.
Since taking office three years ago the Conservative Government has raised personal taxes by $22 billion. The Minister claims he will reduce personal taxes by half that amount, $11 billion, over the next five years. However, in his presentation he did not say that that $11 billion would be eroded to $5 billion because of new sales tax grabs.
Can the Minister honestly say he is being frank with Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that I am being frank with Canadians when I say that 840,000 jobs have been created since we came into office.
I will draw the Hon. Member's attention to an article which was in The Ottawa Citizen only five days ago which says that the after tax incomes of Canadians were up in 1985. That tells me that there is more economic activity in the country as a result of the policies of the Government which is easily offsetting any of the negative factors about which she speaks. We are making progress.


PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS-REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, last night's performance was a budget in everything but name. There were more tax proposals than in the so-called Budget presented in February of this year. There was a Ways and Means motion and a blatant breach of convention and propriety on the part of the Minister in deliberately revealing its contents ahead of the scheduled release time.
Does the Minister not consider that this abuse of parliamentary process requires his resignation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is six questions out of seven on process while millions of Canadians are concerned about the impact on their taxes of this tax reform paper. When is the Liberal Party going to get up out of the mire and understand what is important to Canadians?


Lloyd Axworthy: Parliament is important.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Honesty is what is important.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would challenge that Hon. Member to honesty any time.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. BOUALEM BESSAIH, MINISTER OF CULTURE AND TOURISM OF THE DEMOCRATIC AND POPULAR REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA
Mr. Speaker:: Order! I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Member to the presence in our galery of Mr. Boualem Bessaih, Minister of Culture and Tourism of the Democratic People's Republic of Algeria.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 19, 1987


TAX REFORM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated that he appreciated questions of substance. We would like to request some answers of substance at this time.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We waited for three years for tax reform. There has been a great deal of consultation and a great deal of talk about fairness.
Today 60,000 corporate presidents are dancing in the street because they found out that in spite of the Minister's repeated assurance that there would be fairness, his own documents tell us that 60,000 profitable corporations in Canada will not pay any federal or provincial income tax as a result of his tax reform.
Is it his idea of fairness to have 60,000 corporations not paying any income tax in spite of their profits? Why did he not bring in a minimum corporate tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will find that the small business community, to mention only one group, has been pretty pleased with the direction in which we are going.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Deal with the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Those are the companies which create jobs.
The Hon. Member asked a specific question and I will give him a specific answer. A corporate minimum tax would lead to a tremendous amount of complexity in the tax system. In place of that we have removed or cut back on a number of the preferences which have led to those corporations not paying tax. We have also introduced some very strong anti-avoidance measures to stop companies from bending the rules to allow them to avoid paying taxes.
This is the direction in which we are going which I believe makes much more sense than imposing an arbitrary, complex, and administratively very difficult tax to deal with. That is the way we have chosen to deal with this and it will be far fairer than a corporate minimum tax.


EFFECT ON WEALTHIEST TAXPAYERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister who, as I said, has indicated an interest in questions of substance. I would appreciate an answer of substance.
Will the Prime Minister explain whether it is his notion of fairness that after three years of Progressive Conservative government the only people in Canada who will actually see a decrease in their taxes are those whose incomes are in excess of $100,000? Is this his idea of fairness? Why, as a result of his
Oral Questions
Government's tax policies, will only the wealthiest in Canada see their taxes decline?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker,
2.315.000	Canadians earning under $15,000 will see their taxes go down. Of those Canadians earning between $15,000 and $30,000, 2,910,000 will see their taxes go down. Of those earning $30,000 to $50,000, 2,090,000 Canadians will see their taxes go down. Of those earning $50,000 to $100,000,
1.360.000	Canadians will see their taxes go down. Of those earning over $100,000, 175,000 will see their taxes go down. That adds up to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


WAYS AND MEANS MOTION-PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last night the Minister of Finance made budgetary changes through a Ways and Means motion through such things as lease expenses, restrictions on various automobile expenses, and 11 other budgetary matters.
Will the Prime Minister explain how he can justify keeping the Minister of Finance in Cabinet when the Prime Minister said yesterday:
-it is not a Budget in the sense that it does not, per se, take effect the very same day pursuant to a Ways and Means Motion.
Is that not untruthful? Is that not a Ways and Means motion? Is that not a breach of what the Prime Minister said yesterday? Will he now remove the Minister of Finance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not have to watch this performance later on when they rerun Question Period on television. This is pathetic. Seven out of eight questions have been on procedural matters.
I do not know whether the Hon. Members have read this paper. There is some very good information, some of which I know the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides would agree with.


Raymond Garneau: We will when we get a new Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all Hon. Members will want to read the material. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I tell him that it may take even more questions to get to the truth, but we will get to the truth with regard to the

June 19, 1987
Oral Questions
contradictions made by the Minister of Finance about the tabling of a budget last night.
Is the Prime Minister now denying his words of yesterday that there are no Ways and Means motions tabled in the Minister's budget yesterday? On behalf of all Canadians, will the Prime Minister please be truthful for a change?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is eight out of nine. What was tabled yesterday was a White Paper on Tax Reform 1987 which sets out the fact that
850,000	Canadians are off the tax rolls, that eight out of ten Canadians will be paying less tax, that nine out of ten Canadians over age 65 will be paying less tax.
We have removed a number of tax preferences of which only those people in upper-income brackets have been able to take advantage. There are a number of preferences that corporations have been able to use to reduce their taxes payable. Those are the things we have changed as a result of tax reform and that is what Canadians are interested in.


David Charles Dingwall: You didn't answer the question.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT GIVES REDUCTIONS TO RICHEST TAXPAYERS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my question is to defend the average Canadian, and my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Average Canadians are wondering why the Minister has given tax reductions to 175,000 of our richest taxpayers, reductions averaging $4,365 annually. They are also wondering why the Minister refuses to levy a minimum tax on 60,000 corporations that, although profitable, will not be paying any taxes at all.
Furthermore, could the Minister confirm that both taxes would have resulted in $3 billion in revenues for the federal Government and inform the House why he is refusing to collect this revenue and at the same time is threatening to impose a tax on life's necessities, including the food purchased by average Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should draw attention to the fact that the Hon. Member is taking things somewhat out of context, which is not unusual for that Hon. Member. Sixty-five thousand households with an income of $100,000 and over will pay an increase in tax of $6,140. That is not an insignificant amount of money.
I think I have answered the Hon. Member's question with regard to corporate minimum tax. His Party has always been in favour of a greater degree of simplicity in the tax system. We have tried to deal with that problem in a way that is not arbitrary and temporary, but does it once and for all by fully taking out a number of those tax preferences which have resulted in Canadian companies not paying tax, and to make
the changes on an ongoing basis rather than in an arbitrary way through a minimum tax. That is the permanent solution to the problem he has addressed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister of Finance is talking about simplicity in the tax system for the rich while ordinary Canadians pay tax in the same old way.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Why will three out of four wealthy Canadians see this big tax reduction? Why will
60,000	corporations that are profitable not pay any tax at all? Why has the Minister forgone $3 billion worth of revenue which could have been used to keep ordinary Canadians from having to pay a sales tax on food?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would take the time to read this document he would see that we have been introducing through it a great degree of fairness into the tax system. Eight hundred and fifty thousand Canadians will no longer pay tax, according to this document.
The reason is that we have moved from exemptions to tax credits, which I know that the Hon. Member will agree in his heart is the right way to proceed. That is particularly fairer for those people in low-income brackets. That is why the tax system would be more progressive after tax reform than it is today before tax reform.


IMPACT ON ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism).
Yesterday, this Government sent an excellent and very significant message to the dynamic entrepreneurs in this country by making risk and business ventures more attractive. He sent this message to the people with whom we created 70 per cent of 840, 000 new jobs. However, considering the confusing statements made by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides and his socialist colleague from Ottawa Centre, 1 think the Minister should inform Canadians today about the positive impact this Budget will have on job creation and business development, by letting entrepreneurs keep a little more of their profits.
L'hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)): Mr. Speaker, the tax reform proposals tabled yesterday by the Minister of Finance are a clear and accurate example of this Government's desire to promote entrepreneurship in this country. Out of 840,000 jobs created, 70 per cent were created by small business, and we all know that yesterday, neither the Leader of the socialist party nor the Liberal Party mentioned the small business people across Canada who will benefit from this Budget. There will be more investment and more risk-taking, and in return, more
June 19, 1987

revenue will flow to the Government's treasury. More jobs will be created, and that is what counts.


FUTURE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Elon. the Prime Minister and it relates directly to the statement just made by the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism), namely that indeed the Minister announced a Budget.
I should remind the Prime Minister that 4.9 million Canadians did not pay a cent in taxes in 1984. Unfortunately, in 1987, as a result of the three famous Budgets of this Conservative Government, one million poor have been forced to pay taxes, yet last night the Government tried to make people believe that in future 850,000 people would no longer pay taxes.
I should like to know from the Prime Minister, after misleading the elderly, after misleading families about family allowances, after misleading sick people with the tax on drugs,
I should like to know how much longer he will let his Minister of Finance mislead Canadians generally and the House, considering what he did last night in his Budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member cleared the question with his Leader. It is the second question out of ten that deals with substance and I congratulate him for it.
Clearly there is an increased degree of fairness in the tax system as a result of the changes from tax exemptions and deductions to tax credits. There is also increased fairness in the system because we are taxing corporations $5 billion more as a result of tax reform. That $5 billion will be used directly in reducing the taxes of Canadians, particularly Canadians in low-income brackets.
1 know the Hon. Member has always shown a great deal of concern for senior citizens. Nine out of ten senior citizens will see their taxes reduced. I think that is the positive way to proceed and I am sure the Hon. Member will congratulate me for it.


OLD AGE EXEMPTION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, again the Minister is trying to mislead elderly people. The tax credit is not refundable and he knows full well that
1,400,000	elderly Canadians do not pay taxes and will not get any increase at all. I would like the Minister to tell us why he did not replace the old age tax exemption by a refundable tax credit to make sure that all elderly Canadians are entitled to this tax credit, instead of again favouring the wealthy?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to that question in two ways. First, we have increased the refundable sales tax credit. That is clearly in the White Paper itself. The second point I would make is that in the second stage of tax reform we want to expand in a major way on the principle of a refundable sales tax credit by paying it not only in advance but paying it regularly, so that people who are in low-income brackets will have the benefit of this tax credit on a refundable basis, on an ongoing basis, and that is a very major increase in the fairness of the tax system.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF MINIMUM CORPORATE TAX
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance, or as he is now known, "The Houdini of the Hill", the master of smoke and mirrors. Last night the Minister spoke often of fairness, of restoring equity to Canada's tax system, but the woeful tax package of the Minister of Finance leaves low and middle-income Canadians holding the tax bag again, while 60,000 profitable Canadian corporations get off scot-free and wealthy Canadians enjoy a $1 billion tax holiday.
Why does the Minister not say yes to a minimum corporate tax? Why does he not say yes to a minimum tax which would generate around $2 billion extra in revenue and lessen the tax burden on low and middle-income Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have to spell this out a little more clearly for the Hon. Member. We have taken a different approach and I make no excuses for that. The approach we have taken is to solve the problem, not put a band-aid over it.
What we are doing by this tax White Paper is to reduce preferences, depletion, capital cost allowances, revenue reductions for financial institutions, a wide range of provisions which are already in the tax system, which have resulted in a number of corporations not paying tax. We have decided it is wrong to introduce a major degree of complexity and arbitrariness into the tax system.
We have also said that we recognize clearly that there has been a good degree of tax avoidance in the system which should not be there. We are taking important measures to reduce that tax avoidance by giving my colleagues, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Justice, the ability to attack these attempts head on and solve the problem in a real way, not with a typical NDP band-aid solution.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I do not think Canadians are going to be impressed by the way the Government will be handling the problem of stopping the tax abuse by large corporations when they realize that, after all the smoke and mirrors, there will still be 60,000 corporations not paying a cent of tax. Canadians are not going to be impressed by the method the Government has chosen to stop tax abuse.

June 19, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)


EFFECT OF WHITE PAPER ON RICH TAXPAYERS AND CORPORATIONS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Given the fact that
175,000	high-income Canadians will be getting a tax break of over $4,000 a year, and given the fact that there are 60,000 profitable corporations which will not be paying one cent of tax because of the measures introduced last night, how in heaven's name can the Minister face the Canadian people and claim that this is fairness and equity?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are treating this on a broad basis, being fair to everyone. What we are saying is that there are clear reasons why companies are profitable but not paying tax after tax reform. These are companies which have incurred losses, hard dollar cash losses. The provisions under the Tax Act now are that they can carry these forward for a few years. That will not be changed.
The other basis for companies not paying tax, again as part of long-standing tax policy, is that if a company here makes money, pays a dividend to another corporation which pays a dividend to a third corporation, we should not tax that same income two or three times along the chain. A number of those corporations are still not going to be paying tax. That is the right way to do it. If the Hon. Member disagrees with that, I would like to hear the reasons why.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: I have notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Saint Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


PRIVILEGE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege today arising from the misleading and inaccurate information given at Question Period yesterday by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of this country. It regards the nature and circumstances surrounding the budgetary announcements which were made last night.

While the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is leaving, I would like to point out that the privileges of all the Members of this House have been diminished and abused by spurious statements made in this very House by these two Ministers.
Mr. Speaker, when issues as important as taxation are involved, Members of this House have a duty to represent their constituents, especially as, under our old traditions, there
should not be any taxation without representation. The Members of this House were unable to prepare adequately for what was coming as they were given false information about what the Minister would announce yesterday evening.
Members of this House who had prepared papers and assembled groups to advise them on probable taxation measures and options open to the Minister, made incorrect assumptions. Canadians are now faced with measures of which several have already been implemented and which cannot be discussed, but can only be accepted.

It is perfectly clear today that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Finance gave the House misleading information in response to questions in the House on Wednesday of this week, and yesterday. Such misleading assertions are grounds for a question of privilege. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance asserted unequivocally that the tax reform provisions announced last night were not a budget, but a White Paper. The evidence is now perfectly clear that the announcement of the provisions was in exactly the same form as a budget, with immediate consequences taking effect at midnight last night.
I have never heard of a White Paper having important measures taking effect immediately with a Ways and Means motion annexed. The White Paper, as all Members are well aware, is a document supposedly containing a series of policy proposals to be discussed by Members of the House of Commons, by its committees and eventually by the people at large who are being called upon to give the Government their advice on various policy options. Is this what we received last night? I say no. There are in the kind of budget that was handed down last night several provisions to take effect immediately. So these are not policy proposals to be discussed but policy directives already decided. They are not open to scrutiny or debate but are there to be understood and accepted by the Canadian public.

The Ways and Means Motion tabled yesterday evening by the Minister, which I have here, contains many tax measures which have even now been implemented. I have identified 13 in the little time I have had at my disposal. Let me give you some examples. First, there will be a-
-revised definition for qualified farm property acquired after-
-and the date is quite clear-
-June 17, 1987-
This means that this proposal is in effect at this very moment.
-for the purposes of the special $500,000 capital gains exemption.
There will be:
-restriction of deductible capital cost allowances, lease expenses and carrying
costs for passenger automobiles-
-and so on-
June 19, 1987

-after June 17, 1987-
There will be:
-rules relating to dividends on preferred shares paid-
-which will be amended-
-after June 18, 1987.
This means that these rules apply immediately. Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a patient man, for which I thank you, and I do not intend to read each of the 13 measures which are in effect at this very moment.
Mr. Speaker, the worst of the matter is that we were told the exact opposite yesterday. There is no need to repeat the words of the Prime Minister as recorded in Hansard when he clearly stated that there would be no Ways and Means Motion accompanying yesterday evening's documents. Yet, such a motion was tabled, contrary to what he said in reply to a question asked by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) also added:
The White Paper is not a budget. It is something entirely different from a budget, as White Papers have traditionally been since this country was founded, brev'
The Minister of Finance said in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner):
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw one single fact to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. This is not a Budget. It is a White Paper. It is a proposal on tax reform.
I would now like to cite another answer that the Minister gave, and this one is very funny. He said:
-so they can understand the technical impact of these proposals to make sure that when the proposals are brought in in the form of either a White Paper or a Budget-
So at this particular point in time the Minister is not sure anymore. He says "either a White Paper or a Budget".
I submit that all of the Members of the House were mislead by declarations made yesterday, including yourself, Mr. Speaker. You were called upon at one time to make a ruling on a question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the gang of 20 which we now know was a gang of 31 who had privileged information. One of the items upon which Your Honour based his judgment was that you yourself, as I will quote, thought that we were dealing with a White Paper. Your Honour even quoted the Minister to buttress his judgment. You said:
The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made the point that the White Paper was not a Budget-
I think that Your Honour was right in saying that because that is what we all thought after what we were told.
Your Honour then rendered a ruling which only goes to prove that the Chair also was co-opted, just as all the rest of us in the House were co-opted, as was everyone in Canada who
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
thought that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister were true when they said that there would be no Ways and Means motion, that this was not a budget but simply a White Paper.
It is not possible for Members of the House of Commons, who have a duty to perform to represent their people back home, to operate under false premises, to get ready for very important events, very important announcements and not to know exactly what is going to happen-as a matter of fact, to be fed information that is completely contrary to what later proved to be the case.
In that sense I would say that this is one of the most blatant examples of the rights and privileges of each and every Member of the House being trampled upon.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I am asking you to examine this question and to make a ruling. If, as I believe, you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I shall be ready to move the necessary motion to refer this whole matter to an appropriate committee of this House.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the privileges of Members have been seriously compromised. As a tax practitioner for many years and as a Member of this House since 1978 I can say standing here in my place that we have been subjected to a budgetary process in all but name.
Going back to the time of James I we know the significance that is attached to budgetary measures which are the privilege of the House of Commons. One of those privileges is that we have a debate on a Budget. The question I raise, Your Honour, is this. Are we now in a position in the governing of this country where our Government is entitled to bootleg a budget in as a White Paper and remove the very significant privilege of a full six-day debate in the House?
In terms of Your Honour addressing this question of a violation of Members' privileges, I would like to add an additional point which I think is very significant. Drawing upon some of my own expertise, and I know of your own, Mr. Speaker, when I look at this paper, when I look at the Notice of Ways and Means, I see the changes in capital cost allowance and I see the imposition of sales tax. 1 see the changes that are taking place both under the regulations and through additional impositions of tax. I say that this has all the constituent elements of a budget. Not only does it have all the constituent elements of a budget legally, but the whole ambiance which we witnessed yesterday, the procedure with respect to a lock-up and the entire proceeding, has been that of a budget in all but name.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the privileges of Hon. Members here in the House are very seriously compromised if we accept

June 19, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
this procedure, if we accept that a Government might present a real Budget and say simply that it is a white paper.
I, for one, Mr. Speaker, find this procedure totally unacceptable, and I should like to add the comment that if you should concede here that we do have a Budget, then we have the right, and I emphasize this point, we have the right to debate this Budget for six days here in the House.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the question that has been raised is extremely serious. As to whether it does constitute a serious question of privilege, there are three points that need to be stressed. The first point, of course, is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in yesterday's Question Period, said with respect to last night's presentation that it "sets forth the general thrust of government thinking". He also said that "it does not, per se, take effect the very same day pursuant to a Ways and Means Motion". The words uttered were very clear and specific. Despite that, it is quite clear that very specific Ways and Means motions were in fact put before the House, some to take effect starting yesterday and others to take effect if the legislation is passed.
1 think that, in itself, is a very clear indication that what we had was at least a falsehood stated by the Prime Minister yesterday. I think also it demonstrates to us that what was presented to the House was something quite different from what had been suggested to us, as a Chamber, by way of an excuse in respect of whether or not this was a group of 31 individuals or otherwise that had the chance to have that privileged access, and to justify that before the House.
There are two further points, Mr. Speaker, that have to be kept very much in mind in assessing this suggested question of privilege. The first is that with the package handed down last night came an "Economic and Fiscal Outlook". An economic and fiscal outlook document traditionally forms a part of a budget package. I have found that to be the case with every budget I have examined, both as an economic historian and as a Member of Parliament. It is not something that is part of a statement of general philosophy, as the Prime Minister has suggested this was. That is an important ingredient in the package that needs to be examined.
For me, Mr. Speaker, the thing which is most crucial, the fact which, frankly, bites most strongly at the integrity of this Government, is that the Ways and Means motions which took effect yesterday had a profound and direct effect on the economy of this country. There were certain tax changes which came into effect, certain changes which affected some sectors and which didn't affect others. And despite that reality, there were certain private individuals, individuals who were not part of the government bureaucracy of this country, individuals who were not part of the lock-up procedure, who were given the chance to have access to that information-information
about tax changes and about changes which had to do with how different sectors would be treated-before that information was given either to the House or to the public.


Philip Derek Lewis: That was dealt with yesterday. You should have been here yesterday.


Steven W. Langdon: The fact that such a step was taken is totally unprecedented, totally unacceptable. It is the type of thing that has led, as far as I have seen, to resignation. If a Minister of Finance gets into a position whereby he has let that kind of information out-


Philip Derek Lewis: Name one.


Steven W. Langdon: That has happened in Great Britain, where only a single reporter saw the Budget documentation in advance. We have here a situation where a significant number of individuals across this country had information which no one else in this country had, private individuals, and as a result of having that information they had the chance to make adjustments in their portfolios of stocks and shares-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has been addressing the point of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), and I am indebted to the Hon. Member for his contribution. However, for the last minute or two, the Hon. Member has been dealing with another matter. While that other matter has obviously attracted the attention of many Members of the Chamber and is in itself important, it is not the matter that the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques has raised.
The point of the question of privilege now raised relates to whether statements made by representatives of the Government in this Chamber were misleading; and if they were, did that impinge on the privileges of Hon. Members. That is the issue.
As to the question of some people outside of this place, albeit under oath, having information which other Canadians and Hon. Members did not have, I have of course already ruled.
The Hon. Member may have something to add, though I think 1 do have the gist of his remarks now. If he wishes to add something in closing, I shall be more than pleased to hear him.


Steven W. Langdon: Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I was, of course, aware of your earlier ruling. What I suggested that made a difference is that we are now in a position where we can see that, contrary to statements which were made in the House yesterday, this clearly was a document which brought forth immediate Ways and Means motions which came into effect right away and which also will come into effect through legislation over a longer period of time.
The final point that I make, Mr. Speaker, is simply that this issue is, I think, a very serious question of privilege because of
June 19, 1987

the very clear statements which had been made by the Prime Minister, as recorded in yesterday's Hansard. I would very much hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be prepared to rule favourably in respect of this issue.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the question of privilege drew attention to the things which you outlined. Elowever, the Elon. Member for Saint-Elenri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) also pointed out that this is a matter which also impinges upon our ability to debate what really turned out to be a budget.
There is a great distinction between what is supposed to be a White Paper and a budget. It has such an impact that the difference can mean whether or not we will be able, on behalf of our constituents, to deal with something as fundamental as taxation in a budget debate or whether we are simply looking at a White Paper and having a discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Member that I am listening carefully to his representations. I am also observing, with some interest, a ruling which I made.
Since I have risen, I just might remind Hon. Members, so that they need not labour the point-and perhaps the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) will be assisted in this-that I am very aware of what I said in my ruling yesterday, which is this:
The Hon. Minister of Finance made the point that the White Paper was not a budget, that it is nothing more than a proposal and that it does not even represent budgetary policy. While 1 appreciate the distinction, 1 feel that the White Paper nevertheless has very important budgetary implications.
I think that pretty well sums up the substance of the complaint of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques. I just draw it to the attention of Hon. Members because the Chair is very aware of it.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the Hon. Member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Valcourt) in Question Period today-and Your Honour can check the "blues"-who referred to it as a budget in answer to a question.
In any case, what I would like to bring to Your Honour's attention is that when the issue came up yesterday about whether or not our privileges were being violated by the 31 people having access, it was not merely a question of them being able to know, as Your Honour will recall, something ahead of time while they were under oath, it was also that they were being acquainted with facts, and this was an advantage, something apart from whether or not they were going to discuss it outside the lock-up. They were able to have advance knowledge about this budget, and this knowledge gave them a head start on their colleagues because they were given a chance ahead of time-
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)


Mr. Speaker:: I understand very well the point which the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence is making. It was of course argued extensively the other day. As Hon. Members know, I had to consider that and brought down a ruling yesterday in which I said that, while I was not commenting at all, one way or other, about the propriety of what was done, it was not a question of privilege.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques has raised a specific question of privilege, and I know the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence would want to address that specific point.


Roland de Corneille: I quite understand that. I am not imputing anything in terms of these people saying something outside their oath. I am simply pointing out, Your Honour, that it is a case that these 31 people had more time to study it. Thus, when the deadline ended and the time was freed, they has then had access-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I have heard argument on that exact point. I have already rendered a ruling in which I have said, whether they did or whether they did not, it is not a question of privilege. As I said in that ruling, whether it was appropriate that they did or did not is another question entirely.
However, the question of privilege raised here is whether or not statements were made by the Government yesterday which were not correct and, as a consequence, have created a situation in which the privilege of Hon. Members has been breached. Of course we know that privilege has been breached if something is done in this place that diminishes the capacity of other Hon. Members to do their duty. I would ask the Hon. Member to stay right on the point.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I would like simply to clarify the point I was making, that is, that Your Honour made a decision on that question of privilege yesterday based upon this information, namely, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had said: "it is not a Budget in the sense that it does not, per se, take effect the very same day pursuant to a Ways and Means Motion."
I was simply trying to observe that I think that particular subject was decided upon on the basis of Your Honour being convinced that this was not a budget. Even if this in effect is acceptable to you, it indeed has all the signs of a budget, not only legally in terms of the present House of Commons but also in terms of the fact that the entire situation was covered by the media as if it were a budget; it was covered by them in a major way. This means that I will not have the opportunity as a Member of Parliament, as I ought to if it is a budget, to debate this budget with my colleagues, to hear from my constituents what are their reactions to this situation, and to try to persuade the Government to withdraw this motion. That is my position.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 thank the Hon. Member.

June 19, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity-and it will be reasonably brief- to address the question of privilege of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). The essence of his argument was that this is a budget and therefore his privileges have been breached. I would like to deal with this briefly, because I know my colleagues on the other side want to get on with the capital punishment debate. They do not want to see it delayed any further.
The question is this. Was it a White Paper or was it a budget? A budget is an annual financial statement. It is a one-year accounting of expenses and revenues. That was presented in February of this year. The White Paper does not bring any fundamental change to this year's budgetary policy as presented in the House in February. It does not seek any new borrowing authority. It does not reflect any new Supplementary Estimates.
Many times in the past-and for my friend's elucidation I will give him chapter and verse-Liberal Governments, of which my friend from Saint-Jacques was a member, have delivered major economic statements, some of which were accompanied by major Ways and Means motions. However, it was never in doubt that there was a difference between a budget and a financial statement.
We have examined the House rules, we have examined the parliamentary commentaries, and there is no question about it. A budget presentation is not a condition precedent to the introduction of a Ways and Means motion.
Citation 515 at page 174 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition reads as follows:
There is no necessity to have a budget presentation before the introduction of Ways and Means legislation.
Because of the change to the Standing Orders, I may not have the up-to-date numbers. However, there are Standing Orders which allow the Minister of Finance to table a Ways and Means motion at any time without going through the normal budget process, in particular a budget debate.
For my friend's elucidation, I refer him to examples during recent Liberal administrations where Ways and Means motions were tabled which were not founded on a budget. I refer him specifically to the 95-paragraph Ways and Means motion tabled by Jean Chretien on October 20, 1977 that followed his economic and fiscal statement.
I also refer him to the motions tabled by the Hon. Marc Lalonde following his October 27, 1982 economic statement which related to tax dividend, tax treatment of professionals, and in working progress.
It is evident that statements relating to the economy as well as statements containing proposals relating to the taxation system can be made in Parliament outside the formal budget
presentation. In the last two decades, there have been six major presentations made in the House of Commons on economic or financial matters by Ministers of Finance. None of them, as in the case of the presentation last evening, constituted the budgetary policy of the then Government for the year in question.
We then must ask ourselves, what is a budget? I refer the Chair to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, Nineteenth Edition, at page 786 where Budget is defined:
This statement, familiarly known as, "the Budget," is made when the Minister has completed his estimate of the probable income and expenditure for the financial year. In it the Chancellor of the Exchequer develops his views of the resources of the country, communicates his calculations of probable income and expenditure, and declares whether the burdens upon the people are to be increased or diminished.
Hence, Supplementary Estimates and Borrowing Authority. It goes on:
The economic aspect of the Budget is important and taxes are imposed for their economic effects as well as for raising revenue to meet the expenditure for the year. The annual Financial Statement and Budget Report is made available immediately at the conclusion of the Budget Speech, as are the terms of the budget resolutions.
The elements of a Budget are as follows: views as to the resources of the country, calculations of probable income and expenditure and declarations as to whether or not the burdens upon the people are to be increased or decreased.
The House will know that during the time of this Government, there has been considerable study of the budgetary process. My hon. friend from Saint-Jacques will know that the first Budget presented by this Government was presented in June of 1985. The second Budget came after the review of the budgetary process wherein the committee encouraged the Government to present Budgets on a regular basis after consultation and to meld if possible the Estimates process with the budget process. That Budget came in February of 1986. The second time that happened was in February, 1987. I warrant that if my friend from Saint-Jacques is patient, the next time he sees a true Budget will be in February, 1988.
The principle is annuality. Each year, the Government says: "Here are our expenses, here are our revenues, do we need to borrow or not?"
1 refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the 1977 statement of the Hon. Jean Chretien. It contained expenditure measures as well as taxation measures. Indeed, the Notice of Ways and Means motion had 95 paragraphs containing some very significant taxation proposals. Nevertheless, the budgetary process for that year had already been established. Therefore, it was not called a Budget.
We were all here on October 27, 1982, when the Hon. Marc Lalonde brought down the economic outlook and financial position of the Government of Canada. At that point, he was not ready to present a Budget for the period and he did not present it as a Budget but merely as an economic statement of certain measures. At that time, I did not hear the cry from the
June 19, 1987

Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques for a budget debate. At that time, it suited his purposes not to do so.
In conclusion, I say to the House that my hon. friend's point of privilege is based on the theory that last night's speech was a Budget. It is very clear that we have already had the Budget for the financial year of April 1, 1987, to March 31, 1988. We have had a budget debate. We are in the process of finalizing the legislation. I believe that there is no prima facie case of privilege, there is no actual case of privilege and I would ask that you rule accordingly.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I know that you have been very patient to listen to most of the Members who made interventions, but I should like to make a very brief remark. When I put my case earlier there was a document I did not have with me but which I have now and from which I would like to quote. The quotation is not very long, four lines. At the same time it will show that the Parliamentary Secretary on the Government side does not seem to have understood the point I want to raise.
I do not want to discuss whether this is a Budget or not, although it is an interesting question. What is written in the notice I sent you is that I submit that there were misleading statements made in the House which affect the privileges of Hon. Members. And the most significant statement-there were a few which I pointed out earlier-appears at the bottom of page 7318 of yesterday's Hansard, right-hand column. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was answering a question put to him by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I just want to read the last four lines because they are the most important part and what I would ask the Chair to consider. The Prime Minister described the exercise that was to take place last night as follows:
It sets forth the general thrust of government thinking, but it is not a Budget in a sense that it does not, per se, take effect the very same day pursuant to a Way and Means Motion.
That is the whole problem. The Prime Minister told us that "it does not, per se, take effect the very same day," and he told us there would be no Ways and Means Motion. And that is what I would like the Chair to consider.
I shall refrain from using unparliamentary langage, but I must say, however politely, that this statement is certainly at variance with what actually happened later, at about 8 p.m., when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) rose in the House and made his statement-a Budget to some, a White Paper to others. In any event, there is certainly a problem when we compare the facts with the remarks made by the Prime Minister, which I just quoted.
My point is, that considering these obvious differences between the real situation and what was said by the Prime Minister, the Members of this House were misled and, as a result, were not adequately prepared to perform their role of responding to the measures tabled by the Minister of Finance.
Committee Reports
That is the main point of my argument, and I see no relevance in the reply given by the Parliamentary House Leader who is trying to establish that various kinds of economic statements have, on occasion, included the tabling of Ways and Means Motions. That I agree, but that is not the point I am trying to make. My point is that the Prime Minister failed to inform the House accurately. In fact, the information he gave was the direct opposite of what actually happened a few hours later.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with great care to the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and others. I think that Hon. Members would approve if I reserved my decision because I want to look very carefully at the text, both in French and in English.
As I indicated in reading a short excerpt from my ruling of yesterday, the Chair may indeed have had some difficulty with the facts, if I can put it that way, whatever they were. Again I thank all Hon. Members and I shall return to the Chamber with a ruling as soon as I can.
I might also say that due to some pressing matters I would ask that you excuse me from the Chamber, and that is no disrespect to Members on a Friday afternoon. The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) has a matter to raise in a few minutes and the Deputy Speaker will deal with that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-2110 and 332-2426.



FISHERIES AND OCEANS


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, as vice-chairman of the committee I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in both official languages. This report deals with the Small Craft Harbours Program and urges the Government to fund that program more properly.

June 19, 1987
Introduction of Government Bills
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to this report.



RESEARCH, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's global response to the second report of the Standing committee on Research, Science and Technology.
That report was submitted on February 20, 1987 and was entitled: "Major Surveys".



HOLIDAYS ACT


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-260, and Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce an amendment to the Holidays Act that would declare a national holiday on the second Monday in February entitled Sir John A. Macdonald Day. Canada's first Prime Minister, more than any other single individual, is responsible for the creation of the Canadian Confederation and a day set aside to honour him is long overdue. A holiday in February would be welcomed, I believe, by Canadians coming as it would between New Year's Day and Easter. 1 call on all Members, indeed all Canadians, who believe we should honour Sir John A. Macdonald, to support this Bill.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a large number of residents of Elora and Fergus, Ontario, who believe that to kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong is morally indefensible. They share the belief that returning evil for evil contributes to the disintegration of the moral integrity
and social well-being of the society in which it is introduced. They suggest that as a member in good standing of the United Nations Canada should be supporting the UN in its efforts to eradicate the death penalty in all nations of the world. They call upon Parliament to defeat the motion introduced in this House on February 13 supporting in principle the restoration of the death penalty.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of citizens of Calgary East and Canadians from all across our country the signatures of 1,991 people calling upon this Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment. These signatures, now totalling 14,000, represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this important issue.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to present on behalf of the citizens of my province and my riding, and Canadians from all across the country, a petition bearing 1,958 signatures calling upon this Parliament to pass the motion favouring the return of capital punishment.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians from my riding of Grey-Simcoe and across our country, I am pleased to present a petition containing a further 2,018 signatures calling upon Parliament to pass the motion favouring the return of capital punishment for certain acts of planned and deliberate murder, and for the killing of police officers and prison guards. I do believe this is a continued reflection of the will of the Canadian people.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition to present to the House on capital punishment. Citizens in British Columbia, particularly in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin, indeed from across the country, 2,022 signatures in all, call upon this Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment. That brings the total to in excess of 18,000 signature on petitions presented to this House on this subject.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the honour to present some 2,028 signatures on petitions sent to Parliament asking us to restore capital punishment. This brings the total to some 20,250.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of the City of Toronto concerned over NATO flight training at Goose Bay, disruption of the life of the people there, and the provocative and aggressive war-fighting action which it constitutes. They ask Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister ends all low-level flight training at Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.
June 19, 1987


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I also have a petition from a number of residents in Toronto concerned about the situation of refugees approaching Canada for protection. They say we need a system that will better protect them. They point out that such a system was proposed by the standing committee with support from all Parties as well as from the churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and many other groups and individuals.
They call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have yet another petition to present with respect to the Auto Pact and the safeguards which are such a crucial part of that trade agreement with the United States. This petition is signed by workers from Windsor, Amherstburg, Woodslee, Essex, Oldcastle, Kingsville, Stoney Point, Cottam, Belle River, McGregor, and Tilbury. They call upon Parliament to make certain that in any free trade negotiations with the United States the safeguards in the Auto Pact are protected because they see this as crucial to thousands of jobs in the Essex- Windsor area.
This brings the total of petitioners on the subject from my constituency to nearly 8,000.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 127 will be answered today.


Mr. Attewell: In 1985 and 1986, did the Public Service Commission employ any persons hired on a short-term basis under six months and, if so, by year (a) how many (6) what was the total cost?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: The distribution of term employees, subject to PSSRA 1-1, hired for a duration of six months or less and the salary cost are as follows:
Motion to Adjourn under S. O. 29
Total Equivalent Annual Salary
Fiscal Year	Number of Hirings	Cost at Time of Hiring1985- 86	49,151	$462,660,674*1986- 87	47,996	$480,413,357*
Equivalent annual salary is defined as the employee's rate of pay expressed as an annual amount. In other words, it is the amount an employee would receive over a month period.
*This amount represents the cost based on the assumption that employees are employed for the maximum six months.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose, pursuant to Standing Order 29, a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the abuse of the parliamentary process by the Government in misleading the House with regard to the nature of and circumstances surrounding its tax reform announcement yesterday which amounted to a Budget in every sense except in the recognition of the proprieties, both in the House and in the preparation.
If this had been presented, as it should have been, as a Budget, Members would have been entitled to a six-day debate. The method of presentation has deprived Members of a careful and public examination of these tax measures which were, however, carefully explained to 31 individuals who were not elected representatives of the people.
My proposal is that in view of the importance of the matter it deserves a full debate in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for her representations. The Chair has indeed received a notice pursuant to Standing Order 29. However, the Chair believes that the matter does not meet the requirements necessary for the Chair to approve a debate under Standing Order 29. Therefore, the Chair rejects the motion.

June 19, 1987
7402____________________________________________
Capital Punishment