1990-01-31

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, leaked reports abound that senior cabinet ministers may resign because they can no longer stomach their government's undermining of Canada's social and economic infrastructure with its cuts to VIA Rail and the unemployment insurance system, its withdrawal of commitment to foreign aid and its mismanagement of the fishing industry, tax reform and the economy in general.
Now the CBC is implementing the government's imposed cuts of $140 million ahead of schedule. The policy of stripping $280 million from the CBC since 1984 is undermining that corporation's ability to promote a distinctively Canadian identity, to foster culture and arts reflective of Canadian values and the various cultural communities that make up those values. It is indicative of this government's misplaced priorities.
The CBC is increasingly less able to promote Canada's two official languages, to promote a mutual appreciation of Canada's multicultural communities, to mitigate the influence of television media from south of the border and to sustain communication services to those living in northern and regional communities.
If the Minister of Communications cannot defend the CBC from his government's distorted priorities, perhaps he should follow the lead of his colleagues on other issues and threaten to take his questionable talents elsewhere.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Toronto City Council for taking a leadership role in developing a blueprint to save the environment.
Yesterday, Toronto City Council endorsed in principle a report prepared by the city's special advisory committee on the environment. The report will lead to an action plan to slow down the greenhouse effect and combat global warming.
Toronto is the first city in the world to take such action. The report has called for a cut in CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005, the encouragement of public transit, alternative fuels and energy conservation, improvement of bicycle paths, extensive tree planting as trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere, a $23 million atmospheric fund and the pursuit of a 10 per cent carbon tax.
Our government, provincial and municipal governments, and governments around the world should applaud Toronto's initiative and look to Toronto as a world leader in the fight against global warming and the greenhouse effect.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, during The Week Starts Here program on CBC Newsworld last Sunday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance stated, in response to a question about ending universal funding for medicare, that if we want to keep social programs in 10 years wealthy people should start to pay for them now. His approach was to suggest that the same clawback approach used for old age security and family benefits be considered for medicare.
As well, a number of business groups have called upon the government to make drastic cuts to social programs. In his statements this week the Prime Minister has willingly agreed to accept the position as chief execution-

January 31, 1990
er of Canada's social programs. As well, the chairman of the finance committee stated that this government has decided to eliminate universality of social programs.
One by one, members of this government, like rats boarding a sinking ship, are voicing their support for this unwarranted and vicious attack on medicare and social programs. Canadians well remember the Prime Minister's promise that social programs were a sacred trust.
Surely this Prime Minister can't expect ordinary Canadians to believe him and his government any longer. This is clearly a matter of trust and Canadians no longer trust this Prime Minister, and rightly so as one election promise is broken after another.

[Translation \


FIREARMS
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, when 14 young women were killed by a man carrying a powerful weapon, there has been a major movement across the country against the use of semi-automatic weapons.
Thousands of Canadians are demanding changes in the existing legislation in order to limit the sale and possession of such weapons in Canada. People across the country, especially in Quebec, urgently request that the Minister of Justice amend the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine there are enough competent people around the Minister of Justice to clarify, in a bill, the difference between weapons used for hunting and combat weapons.
I may remind the House that what is important for a hunter is accuracy, not the number of bullets fired.
Mr. Speaker, our government must act and make appropriate amendments to the present legislation, in the interests of protecting Canadian citizens.


CANADA POST
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the post office is an integral part of community life across rural Canada. In many cases the rural post office is the only federal presence in a community.
Last week a message was published in the local Island newspapers on behalf of a number of municipalities and organizations. It requested that the federal government maintain post offices as a government service and completely stop the closure and privatization of post offices on Prince Edward Island.
Today, representatives of the West Prince Chamber of Commerce and the President of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Municipalities will express their concerns before a standing committee of parliament looking into Canada Post.
I hope that this government will be listening to what Islanders are saying, to what Canadians are saying and that it will protect and maintain rural post offices in Canada.*


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, over the past month and the month before we have been hearing a great deal about the free trade agreement. One of the things we have not been hearing is that 99 per cent of our trade with the United States is now dispute free. I know that this positive trading relationship is a disappointment to our left-wing friends across the floor, but Canadian manufacturing exporters are continuing to take advantage of the free trade agreement.
Just last week Sweeprite Manufacturing, a Regina company, was awarded an $18.5 million dollar contract to supply mechanized sweepers to the United States Department of National Defence. This is the kind of contract which has been made possible by the climate created since the signing of the free trade agreement and the development of the level playing field.

January 31, 1990

The export of manufactured goods from the prairies to the United States is a real indication of the growing diversity of our economy with increased economic stability and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement and the Western Diversification Program are working and I congratulate Sweeprite Manufacturing and its staff on their success.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, for the past six months the people and workers of Trail, B.C., and the surrounding area have been told by Canada Employment and Immigration officials that as of this March 1, most unemployment insurance functions of their Canada Employment office will be terminated and transferred to Nelson, some 80 kilometres away. Ten employees will have to move or quit their jobs and claimants with difficulties will have to travel an extra three hours for service.
This unemployment insurance agency amalgamation is being carried out in the name of a dubious and unsubstantiated claim of "improving services" in Trail. In 1987 this unemployment insurance office received the PEP award as the most productive and efficient UI office in B.C.
A delegation from the city of Trail and the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary will be meeting with the Minister of Employment and Immigration this afternoon on the need for enhanced UI services in the Trail area in the months and years immediately ahead due to a myriad of impending construction projects and major labour force dislocations within the immediate area, including those caused by the recent Sullivan mine closure in Kimberley, which will require improved and expanded UI services in Trail, not less.
I ask the minister to listen carefully to these facts, of which her officials may initially have been unaware, and to seriously review the earlier decision of her department in light of these new facts.
j Translation ]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning, the Canada Post Corporation will introduce an outrageous increase in postal rates for air stage services.
The consequences for northern regions are easy to predict. The cost of living will go up, people's health will be at risk and the gap between rich and poor will become even wider.
Mr. Speaker, I have reason to believe that employees of Canada Post and a number of other government organizations in the north do not have to pay freight costs on food they order from the south, thus enjoying a benefit not available to people who have to buy locally.


RACIAL AND CULTUTAL DIVERSITY
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, information is the key to knowledge.
Information about our ethnic differences is the key to understanding, tolerance and harmony. In Canada, the media are in an excellent position to further this concept.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council has suggested creating a multicultural media institute. Its plan includes a basic strategy, at regional and national levels, to make the media more aware of the importance of being objective in their presentations in order to avoid creating cultural and racial stereotypes in this country.

I urge the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship to reconsider his decision to not assist in financing this program when the funds become available. Sensitization of the media is an important element for promoting harmonious relations among all Canadians.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Tatamagouche Recycling Committee for its fine work in planning and organizing an

January 31, 1990
innovative plan to resolve the waste disposal problem in their community.
This local group headed by Dr. Pippa Moss, with Tina Harriot and Bill Campbell serving on the executive, have raised funds and services from many local individuals and businesses. They then successfully applied to Environment Canada for matching funds through the Environmental Partners Fund. This is not a giant project, but still a very important one and done completely by volunteers interested in reducing pollution and encouraging recycling.
The original survey that determined that 92 per cent of the residents in the area would support the local project clearly indicates how important this issue is to the people of Tatamagouche. They have a beautiful place to live and are fully prepared to put forth a great deal of effort to maintain it.
Clearly, the Environmental Partners Fund is properly named because it is a partnership between the people and the government which will result in a better environment for everyone. Congratulations to the committee for this ambitious endeavour.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians should be concerned about the survival of the Yanomami people in Brazil.
Last week, the Brazilian Government violated a court order and indeed violated the Brazilian constitution in refusing to evict 45,000 gold panners from the State of Roraima, a territory in which the Yanomami people have lived for generations.
Twenty years ago, the Yanomami had only sporadic contact with the outside world. With the arrival of the gold panners has come disease, pollution and violence. The Brazilian government's decision to allow continued mining and colonization means an exacerbation of these problems and poses a real threat to the tropical rain forest so crucial to the global environment.
Hundreds of Yanomami deaths have been related to their new contact with outside peoples. With the persistence and augmentation of this contact, these people face a real threat to their survival as a people.
I call on the Canadian Government to express its disapproval of the Brazilian government's decision and to work through international financial organizations to ensure that a sustainable natural environment takes precedence over reckless development.


LAW OF THE SEA
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what a contrast between the Prime Minister's pledges of support for sustainable development and Canada's inaction. At the United Nations, Canada has not ratified the Law of the Sea, which would help protect and properly manage the oceans of the world. To come into force, 60 nations must sign and ratify it. Only 43 nations have so far ratified the Law of the Sea, but Canada is not among them.
When will the Prime Minister match his rhetoric with action? When will he instruct Ambassador Fortier to ratify the Law of the Sea? When will Canada start advocating at the United Nations the ratification of the Law of the Sea, thus playing a positive role in the implementation of sustainable development in the oceans? The goal is within grasp and yet still elusive because of lack of political will.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
[Stage Direction]
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming) Mr. Speaker, I am most disturbed by recent statements made in the riding of Timiskaming against the Meech Lake Accord.
Liberal leadership hopeful Jean Chretien, who recently came to northeastern Ontario, is speaking out against the Meech Lake Accord. Now he and the local Timiskaming Liberals are barking and clapping like trained seals: "Meech Lake is dead and happily so".
Allow me to respond to Mr. Chretien and his supporters. Canadians who are concerned with the future of our country, who are concerned with national unity and cultural tolerance, find these doomsayers' statements irresponsible and divisive.
There was an agreement among all premiers at Meech Lake in 1987. Canadians are wanting to see the agreement again in 1990. Our Prime Minister should be commended and supported for successfully building our country's strengths and uniting Canadians. Jean
January 31, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Chretien and his Liberals could not do this in 1981, and obviously they cannot do it today.
I say there is no room for those Liberal undertakers of yesterday who are ready to bury Meech Lake and the future of Canada at the same time.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I have now had an opportunity, as several Members of Parliament have, of reviewing some of the technical language in the legislation on the goods and services tax which the minister has produced in this House.
Luckily for the minister, most Canadians are not in a position to have read the legislation. According to pages 312 and 313 of the legislation, the situation is that seven-year-olds who want to set up a Kool-Aid stand on the corner will pay the goods and services tax-


Some hon. Members:: Oh come on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Peterson:: Just keep laughing all the way to defeat in the polls.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of nervous twittering from the government benches.
The kid who wants to set up a Kool-Aid stand will pay 7 per cent goods and services tax on the Kool-Aid that he purchases from the corner store. A multi-millionaire who wants to serve his friends caviar at $311 a pound will not have to pay a cent of tax under this legislation.
Could the minister explain how he could possibly have come up with such stupid legislation? Millionaires will not pay a cent on luxury gourmet foods but kids will have to pay 7 per cent on lemonade.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition could
Oral Questions
not see it, but there is a four-year old up the gallery who was yawning while he was asking the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, he is not in my riding association.
The hon. member has pointed out a difficult area of borderline in the goods and services tax. We have acknowledged this. If the hon. member is suggesting that we tax food, let him say so. That is not the position of the government. It is not the position of this party. If it is a position of the Liberal Party of Canada, then say so.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is a breach of the rules, but if I were sitting in the gallery and had to watch the Minister of Finance, I would be yawning too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Nobody who is watching this House of Commons will be doing anything but laughing when we finish with this goods and services tax.
I do not know whether the minister has read the legislation, but how can he justify that under the goods and services tax a cookie is taxed, pate de foi is not taxed; pretzels are taxed, smoked salmon is not taxed; sherbet is taxed, filet mignon is not taxed; a grilled cheese sandwich is taxed, imported French Brie is not taxed; cold cuts are taxed, oysters are not?
I also want the minister to explain why, according to Schedule VI, Part III, section 1, subsection (m) of his legislation, muffins are taxed but English muffins are not taxed. Why does the minister not admit food is food, tax is tax. Withdraw this stupid legislation and take tax off food altogether.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was reading from the most recent menu at Winston's, but I presume he is going there more frequently now.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition is pointing out what is a difficult area of the tax, the borderline between what is taxable and what is not taxable. We made a fundamental choice that we were not going to tax basic groceries. We said that in December 1987. Because of that, you have to decide what is taxable; processed

January 31, 1990
Oral Questions
foods, things like that, and what is not taxable; basic groceries. Where that borderline comes together is difficult.
We have asked the finance committee to review this. We have asked members of the Restaurant Association and the food industry to provide us with advice on this. The borderline that we have today is the fairest borderline that we have been able to come up with, based on the advice we have been provided.


John Napier Turner: I think that Members of Parliament, and what restaurants we have still open, ought to tax Wilson's cooked goose.
[ Translation]
Let's make this clear, Mr. Speaker. On September 1987, the minister said before the House: "This booklet is very clear. There is no proposal to tax food. That is very clear." Those were the minister's words. If what the minister said is true, our conclusion must be that in his bill, hamburgers are not food, hot dogs are not food, soft drinks, dried fruit, ice cream, salads, fried chicken, pizzas, pies and cheese platters are not food, according to his definition, since the goods and services tax will apply to each of these items. Every week, millions of Canadians buy take out meals or eat in cafeterias. However, according to the Minister, what they are eating isn't food. My question is this: If these items are not food, then what are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I refer the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to my statement in December 1987 where I said that basic groceries-


John Napier Turner: You said food.


Some hon. Members:: You said food.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The statement that I made at that time was that basic groceries were not taxed. I said we are going to have to find the basis of drawing the borderline between what is basic groceries and what is restaurant food.
Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition saying that a meal, which is food, at his favourite restaurant, Winston's, is taxable or not taxable? What is his position on that?


John Napier Turner: You said you weren't going to tax food.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Again, I am getting no answer from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is totally devoid of ideas on this matter. The New Democratic Party, to its credit, has at least put up some suggestions as to alternatives. I disagree with those alternatives but I have yet to hear one idea-


John Napier Turner: That's absolutely pathetic.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says it's pathetic. It's pathetic that the Liberal Party of Canada has not put forward one proposal, one thought, one original idea on the goods and services tax.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is further to questions asked yesterday in this House about the conduct of Mr. Brian Gallery, vice-chairman of CN.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter dated July 5, 1989 from Mr. Brian Gallery, Acting Chairman of CN, to Brant Ducey, vice-president of public affairs and advertising, CN, in which Mr. Gallery, in the words of an editorial in today's Montreal Gazette:
- threatened that if CN did not continue placing the ads in his (Gallery's) magazines, he would intervene to block two lucrative contracts that CN was seeking at the time.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that Mr. Gallery, Acting Chairman of CN on July 5, 1989, appointed by the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and President of the Progressive Conservative 500 Club fund raising organization, acted improperly in putting his private interest ahead of his public responsibility as Acting Chairman of CN?
Will the Prime Minister announce today the resignation of Mr. Gallery as vice-chairman of CN and will he assure this House that a complete and thorough investigation into Mr. Gallery's activities at CN will be conducted by an independent organization and made public?
January 31, 1990


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. The reference was to allegations reported in one of yesterday's papers. The hon. member says he has a letter. They always have letters, and obviously, a decision is not going to be based on those papers. I said yesterday-I asked the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Canadian National to send me information concerning to the question raised by the hon. member, and until such time as I have received that information, Mr. Speaker, I have no further comments to make.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that the quotations in The Globe and Mail yesterday and in The Gazette today are absolutely correct. I have the letter in my hand. I will send a copy to the minister. It bears Mr. Gallery's signature.
Now let's not play games. Mr. Gallery is no stranger to the government opposite. He was appointed by the Prime Minister as acting chairman and appointed by the Prime Minister as the lead fund raiser of the Progressive Conservative Party. He is not a stranger to the government opposite.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Transport: will he take his responsibility and seek the resignation of Mr. Gallery?
Further, will he give this House an assurance that at no time was CN's private dining car used by Mr. Gallery in his efforts as chief fund raiser for the Tory 500-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether that suggestion has surfaced in any of the letters.
The hon. minister has the floor.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again, these are accusations and allegations, no matter how they are qualified, and any information on Mr. Gallery. That I receive from the Chairman of
Oral Questions
the Board of Directors of CN, Mr. Brian Smith, will be considered. But until such time as I receive that information, any assessment will be based on information produced by the Chairman of the board.


FISHERIES
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The real tragedy of the east coast fishery is that the crisis was foreseen. The government knew that the resource was being depleted. The government knew that new resource management measures were needed. The government knew that foreign fisheries were taking far too many fish. Yet this government did not listen. Now we see the enormous human and economic costs to the Atlantic region.
If the long-term survival of the east coast fishery demands further cuts, as it may, to the cod quota, is this government prepared to do that? At the same time, will the government put programs in place to ensure that Atlantic Canadians can survive yet another crisis?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, there is not a member in this House who cannot feel compassion and concern for the families and communities of Atlantic Canada affected by unforeseen developments in regard to northern cod stocks off the coast of Newfoundland.
It is not correct for the Leader of the NDP to suggest that these matters could have been foreseen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: In fact, the projections of abundance on which the quotas were established were made many years ago using inadequate scientific processes in full consultation with all sectors of the industry, provincial governments, under the leadership of a Liberal government of the day and the guidance of Senator Michael Kirby in his capacity as task force commissioner.
Whatever decisions are required in the interest of preserving the resource and ensuring a long-term stable fishery in Atlantic Canada, this government is prepared to take those decisions, to show the human compassion

January 31, 1990
Oral Questions
and to provide the appropriate programs and assistance to those communities which are absolutely necessary and to which this government is fully committed.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Atlantic Canada know that the reports on the fisheries that have taken place year after year are much more concrete than this government's promises about what it is going to do in Atlantic Canada.
Increasingly Canadians on the west coast involved in the fishing industry are wondering if the same kind of neglect we have seen on the east coast is going to take place on the west coast. There are 10,000 British Columbian jobs that depend on fish processing.
Will the minister indicate how the federal government intends to protect those jobs and ensure that the salmon and herring fishery is protected? Can the minister explain to this House how he can exercise effective resource management when his department does not even know now how many fish are being caught and sold directly to the United States?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, with all due regard for the sincerity of the Leader of the NDP in posing the question, the government and the department of fisheries know very accurately how many fish are being caught and processed in British Columbia and in Atlantic Canada.
What is not always known with great certainty is how many fish remain in the water, because over the years there have been improvements and changes to scientific methodology which give us, as a result, the most abundant salmon and herring fisheries that have ever been seen on the Pacific coast in this century.
It is a fact that more fish were imported raw from the United States in 1989 than were exported to the United States. It is a fact that there are more processing jobs in the British Columbia fishery today than there were in 1984.
The hon. member should do her homework because, if she did, she would find those facts to be the absolute truth.


AGRICULTURE
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister is obviously aware that President Bush has just announced an increase to the American export enhancement program and that this increase in subsidies on American grain exports will give Americans a further advance in pursuing traditional Canadian grain markets.
What is the government prepared to do to respond to this new threat? Will he announce concrete and specific measures to help Canadian farmers keep Canadian grain export markets?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the proposal is for the 1991 fiscal year and it is a proposal by the President to Congress asking for $900 million in the export enhancement program.
I would like to draw to her attention that in the year 1990 the President asked for $1 billion and Congress granted $566 million. That is really what we are dealing with today.
What this brings to light in a very dramatic fashion is the need and the urgency for making progress at the MTN negotiations. Quite frankly, it is Canada that has been at the forefront, along with other exporting grain countries like Australia, in dealing with this issue.
I might remind the hon. member that what we are seeing here is a signal by the United States that it is not going to continue to tolerate the trade distorting practices of the European Community which, by the way, has become the second largest exporter in the world. It has displaced Canada as the second largest exporter of grain in the world.
It is the Europeans who are really the culprits in this issue. What we are seeing is the response by the Americans. What we have to do is bring about a gradual reduction of the trade distorting subsidies so that we can have once again a level playing field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who is the administrator of our conflict of interest rules for the government.
January 31, 1990

Order in Council appointee Brian Gallery has sent a letter in reference to his publications from which I would like to quote. I quote from page 2 that refers to actions "which would be a serious blow to the financial success of Gallery Publications.'' That is in reference to a contract that that company had with CN.
Given that Section 116 of the Financial Administration Act states that an officer of a Crown corporation who has an interest in a contract with that Crown corporation must make a disclosure in writing to the corporation, is the Prime Minister now ready to table that document, the document concerning his appointee, Mr. Brian Gallery? Or, will he not admit to the House that five minutes ago the corporate secretary of CN was unable to ascertain that such a document had ever been filed?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell is referring to the same sources as his colleague from Newfoundland, and I will repeat what I told his colleague.


Don Boudria: No!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, he is arguing on the basis of documents, and so forth. Once again, elementary decency demands that the minister responsible to the government for a corporation should ask that corporation to provide, through the chairman of the board, any information on a question of this kind. That is what I have asked the chairman of the board of directors to do. And once again, until such time as I have received this information, I have no further response to give to the House.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that Mr. Don McKinnon, the corporate secretary, was unable to find that information as of five or ten minutes ago.
I want to ask the Prime Minister the following question. This time it is about the conflict of interest code which he himself tabled in the House on September 9, 1985. The code states very clearly under Section 7:
Oral Questions
(d) on appointment to office, and thereafter, public office holders
shall arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real,
potential or apparent conflict of interest-
The code also states that they:
-shall not solicit or accept transfers of economic benefit -
Does the Prime Minister feel that Section 7 of the code has been observed by Mr. Brian Gallery. Is he prepared to say that here and now?


Mr. Benjamin:: One Brian deserves another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, what is so funny?


Don Boudria: Nothing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have been asked a simple question. I agree with my hon. friend, but the NDP seems to think it is a jocular matter. It is not.
I have been asked a question. My hon. friend is seeking information. Surely, he would not want me to express a value judgment of any kind in the absence of all relevant facts.
The Minister of Transport has explained that the chairman of the board of the CNR, Mr. Brian Smith, is in the process of ascertaining all relevant data that will be-


Don Boudria: Under the code the responsibility is with you.


Mr. Speaker:: A question has been asked. The right hon. Prime Minister is attempting to answer it. I would ask for the co-operation of members.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when that data has been assembled by the appropriate officer of the Crown corporation, as indicated yesterday a report will be made to the Minister of Transport. It is very clear.


Don Boudria: You are responsible for the code.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is very clear that irrespective of what those facts might be the Liberals are not seeking justice. They want a lynching. They are not going to get it in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want the Prime Minister to take this matter seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 31, 1990
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: This is a letter. The Minister of Transport has now had over 24 hours to investigate it, and he has not given us an answer.
This letter is dated July 7, 1989 from Brian Gallery who was then the acting vice-chairman of Canadian National Railway, to Grant Ducey, who is vice-president of public affairs and advertising. He complains that Seaports, Mr. Gallery's magazine, has lost a contract from Canadian National.
Here are some of the words he uses to Mr. Ducey who is an employee of the company:
As you are aware, CN is actively asking to recapture Cast's business. Klaus Glusing, the President, is a personal friend of mine and of "Seaports" and has been one of our strongest supporters for many years.
CN is also seeking to obtain the Maersk business. Barry Olsen, the President, is a long-time friend of mine and supporter of "Seaports" as well.
Does the Prime Minister agree with these implied threats directed by a senior member of the board of CN, appointed by the Prime Minister, to an employee of the railway suggesting that he had better restore that advertising or else?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated yesterday that the chairman of the board of the CNR is in the process of assembling all the relevant data in an objective and, I suppose, on a very fair-minded basis.
Surely nothing untoward will happen between now and the time that Mr. Smith reports.
This is not a matter of life or death. We can wait for the appropriate time for Mr. Smith to assemble the information.
Concerning whatever is in the letter which I have not read, surely my right hon. friend would not want to judge Mr. Gallery or anyone else in a peremptory and unfair manner. The request has gone to the chairman of the board of the CNR. He will assemble the data. He will make a value judgment and make a report to the minister of the Crown.
Surely that is in keeping with the traditions of this House.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am doing nothing but reading from Mr. Gallery's letter. Mr. Gallery was an Order in Council appointee at the direction, presumably, of the Prime
Minister. Mr. Gallery is also involved in political activities for the Conservative Party. That is fine.
I am saying to the Prime Minister that he is responsible for conflict of interest guidelines. He has said on several occasions in this House that he takes personal responsibility for them. He does not need much investigation here. We have already given the government 24 hours notice on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, surely the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is not suggesting that appointment by Order in Council of someone associated with the Liberal Party in the future ought to be precluded from public service.


John Napier Turner: No, I am not saying that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the right hon. gentleman is not saying that, then he should not by implication impugn the integrity of Mr. Gallery without a verdict having been arrived at.
There is nothing unreasonable that has taken place in the procedure. It is an appropriate procedure. The minister, upon being apprised of this, asked the chairman of the board to get the necessary facts and to make a recommendation to the minister.
We too are subject to the conflict of interest guidelines that apply to public servants and to the various Crown corporations. I am not suggesting that anyone is immune from them in the least. Indeed the new legislation before the House will apply to all members of the Opposition as well. I look forward to its implementation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture who has just told my Leader that what the country's farmers need is an international agreement.
That was the same message that was told to farmers several years ago prior to the signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in which Article 701 was supposed to make certain that the U.S. did not subsidize sales into our markets. We made a similar commitment as well. Yet since that signing the U.S. has increased its
January 31, 1990

export enhancement program payments into our markets from below $7 a tonne to past $20 a tonne.
Could the minister explain to us what he thinks signing yet another piece of paper is going to do to correct the U.S. actions?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. member is wrong, because the export enhancement program has been reduced from $770 million in 1989 to $566 million in 1990.
What we have today is a proposal from the administration to increase it to $900 million in fiscal year 1991. I think it clearly demonstrates a signal that is sent to the European Community that if in fact there is not an agreement made to reduce in a very substantive way trade distorting subsidies as it applies to agriculture, the trade war will indeed escalate. This is not aimed at Canada. This is aimed at the European Community.
Lest there be any doubts about the ability of this government and the record of this government in responding to these kinds of situations, I would like to remind the hon. member once again, as well as the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that this government over the past five years has provided some $21.7 billion in direct and indirect assistance to the farmers of Canada. That is a record that has never been exceeded by any government in the history of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, this government has reduced the powers of the Wheat Board, done away with the two-price wheat system, done away with interest-free cash advances, made the Western Grain Stabilization Program inoperative and reduced crop insurance dollars, all in the past year.
What weapons are they giving farmers to stay alive in this trade war? What are they doing to keep Canadian farmers alive?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will tell them what kind of weapons we are giving. We have before a legislative committee right now improvements to the crop insurance program that will see an aggregate increase in support by the federal government for the crop insurance program.
I might remind the hon. member that in this same budget, to which they have attracted a fancy in the United States, the United States has proposed to withdraw its support in subsidizing the crop insurance program in that country.
It also provides for a $1.5 billion reduction in price and income support for agricultural products. We have not done anything of that sort of magnitude.
As a matter of fact, the last fiscal year, 1988-89, saw some $4.8 billion poured into agriculture right across the country by this government. That clearly demonstrates our commitment to the farmers of Canada.


HOUSING
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Housing.
Yesterday, two Montreal city councillors presented a petition to the Minister of State for Housing, asking him to reactivate the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) for rented accommodation.
Since this program was used largely by Quebec, it seems to have been unfairly affected when this program was abolished.
Would the minister be kind enough to say how he intends to deal with this unfortunate situation?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Province of Quebec, especially Montreal, is most affected by the abolition of RRAP for rented accommodation. We have set up a tripartite committee composed of representatives of the federal government, the Quebec government and the cities of Montreal, Verdun and Quebec to find a solution to this difficult problem.

January 31, 1990
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Last month he met with the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Yeutter, in Washington and announced that the United States government would be ratcheting down the export enhancement program which has been so harmful to our Canadian farmers and to the world price of wheat.
Could the minister explain just what happened with that ratcheting down? In fact the budget brought forward this month was to increase the budget of the export enhancement program to $900 million from about $566 million last year, of which only $334 million was spent.
What happened? Did Secretary Yeutter mislead the minister, or was the minister misleading Canadian farmers when he told them in December that the U.S. export enhancement program would be ratcheted down in this coming fiscal year in the United States?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in this fiscal year, 1990, the export enhancement program has been ratcheted down from $770 million to $566 million. That is this year, 1990. What the hon. member is referring to is fiscal 1991. That is next year. That has to be ratified by Congress.
If we get agreement in a comprehensive way on agricultural issues during the MTN negotiating process, Mr. Yeutter has made it very clear that that will be withdrawn.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the 1990 budget has been known for quite a while. Clearly the minister or the Secretary of Agriculture was misleading Canadian farmers back in December.
A month ago the United States provided some $20 per tonne for 500,000 tonnes of wheat to Russia. In March, the government is supporting exports of another 500,000 tonnes of wheat to Russia at almost $19 a tonne.
With this kind of subsidy provided to American grain producers, how does the minister expect Canadian wheat producers to survive fighting against the United States
Treasury, which is in violation of Article 701.4 of the free trade deal?
How does the minister expect our farmers to survive with this kind of competition, this kind of unfair subsidization?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are not supportive of the ongoing massive subsidization by the European Community and by the United States. The price war has affected Canada very directly. This government has responded in assistance to keep our farmers whole during that period of time.
With the drought situation and the progress made at the MTN, we had expected that there would be some relaxation of the subsidies being provided. Unfortunately that is not the case.
We will continue to work very hard at trying to resolve this through the ongoing multilateral negotiations. We are certainly making representations to the European Community and to the United States of America to slow down the pace and to stop the escalation of the price war because it is hurting the total world market.
We will continue to work at the MTN, showing leadership within the Cairns and on a bilateral basis to bring about stability and order to the market-place.
Once again, I repeat, at one time in 1977-1978 the European Community was a major importer of grains and oilseeds. Today, it has become the second largest exporter of grains and oilseeds. It has achieved that market through huge subsidies. The United States has been responding in kind.
If there is not progress during the MTN negotiations, I suspect we can only look forward to an escalation of that price war. That would be disastrous.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
For the purpose of calculating the goods and services tax, universities and colleges will be treated as one sector and a Canadian average will be calculated. These univer-
January 31, 1990

sities and colleges will be dependent on how each compares to the Canadian average and possibly might not receive full compensation for any tax changes.
How can the Minister of Finance justify placing an additional financial burden on educational centres already strapped with limited cash resources?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that we have established an important and a generous principle. We have said that this sector, in aggregate, will not pay any additional tax over what it is now paying through the federal sales tax, the existing manufacturers' sales tax. That is something that we are discussing.
The means of implementing it is currently being discussed with the provinces to see whether there are ways we can simplify it or ways that we can utilize some of the existing relationships among provinces, universities and colleges.
I believe the approach we are taking is a realistic one. It is one designed to reduce complexities.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, every academic administrator right across this country has indicated that the Minister of Finance is wrong.
The response to me would also indicate that the government is not seriously committed to the education of our youth.
Would the minister not agree that to restrict or to hold back GST rebates to our educational institutions will ultimately transfer their cash flow problems on to the backs of the students of this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think hon. member listened to the answer I gave. She wrote that question before I gave the answer.
However, the point I want to make to her is that we are very much committed by the principle that we have established of not adding to the sales tax burden of this particular sector, so that what she is saying right now is incorrect. We are not doing this in a way that will transfer the burden to the students, because the burden will not be increased.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister who has in the past taken an interest in the topic of my question.
On the eve of a very critical session of the South African Parliament, South Africa is once again in turmoil because of a visit of British cricketers. Renewed demonstrations have taken place and the demonstrators have been confronted with violent and brutal activity on the part of the police because of concern about the potential release of Nelson Mandela.
My questions to the Prime Minister are the following. What representations has the Canadian government made with respect to these developments? What action does the government propose to take if there is a failure on the part of President de Klerk to announce specific action, such as the release of Nelson Mandela, and establish the conditions for appropriate negotiations to progress in the ending of apartheid?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the Commonwealth Declaration put forth in October of 1985 was the basis on which the Commonwealth and other nations took actions against apartheid, involving as well a call for the release of Nelson Mandela. That appears now, after some period of time, to be imminent.
Events of the last number of days have been very troubling because they indicate that President de Klerk might have another agenda in mind. The government of Canada has communicated not only directly with the government of South Africa, but with appropriate leaders of the members of the ANC, both in South Africa and outside, including leaders of frontline states, in respect of developments. We have received communications in response and I will be happy to keep my hon. friend apprised as developments unfold.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, is the government prepared to indicate a specific deadline beyond which the Canadian government would impose additional sanctions? For example, would the government be prepared to respond to complaints from the Black United Front of Nova Scotia that the importation of T-shirts from South Africa constitutes an insult to the black community and impose, at least, a ban on the further importation of those T-shirts

January 31, 1990
Routine Proceedings
and other manufactured clothing goods from South Africa?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken just about eveiy conceivable sanction possible in respect of South Africa, but as the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in Langkawi, reflected in the Commonwealth Langkawi Declaration we are, of course, ready to do more.
As my hon. friend will remember, I indicated to the United Nations that we were ready to impose comprehensive sanctions and to break off relations completely. We were persuaded by leaders of friendly nations in Southern Africa that the events had been brought to such a head in the spring, that worth-while developments were anticipated in the autumn and indeed that has, in large measure, come to pass. We are monitoring it extremely carefully.
While in Kuala Lumpur, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I met with the heads of governments of the frontline states together with some leaders of the ANC who visited with us. They are extremely supportive of the action that Canada has taken now over some four or five years, appreciative of the leadership that Canada and the Parliament of Canada has manifested, and encouraged as well by our indication that should there be a relapse in the progress taking place that the Parliament of Canada and the government of Canada stand ready to take further action to bring about justice and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa.


Mr. Speaker:: A final single question from the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.


AIR-INDIA
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
The Air-India bombing took place over four and a half years ago and hundreds of Canadians were victims and suffered losses as a result of that crime. To date, there has been no public resolution of that crime and a delay of
this magnitude constitutes a real affront to the Canadian victims of that crime.
The Solicitor General has to take responsibility for law enforcement delivery mechanisms in this country, and five years is too long. I want to know, and the families of the victims want to know, when will the investigation be completed and when will we have a public commission of inquiry into this matter?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General, I am sure the House is aware that the government takes this to be a very serious matter. That investigation is ongoing, and as soon as we have results which can be made public, they will be made public.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 REPORT ON CONVICTION OF DONALD MARSHALL
Mr. Speaker:: I must bring to the attention of the House that on another occasion I received an application from the hon. member for York Centre under Standing Order 52 asking that I adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter related to the report of the royal commission on the Donald Marshall case. The hon. member has given his statement to the House. I have given it, of course, serious consideration. It is a serious matter but I think it can be dealt with, at least at the moment, in another way and it would not be appropriate to proceed at this time. I thank the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order
January 31, 1990

Routine Proceedings
110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Monteith
Nowlan
Plourde
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Siddon
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Van de Walle
Venne
Vincent
Wenman
Wilbee
Assiniboia)
Winegard
Nicholson
Oberle
Porter
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
St-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
"Rimer (Hatton-Peel)
Vankoughnet
Vien
Weiner
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Worthy-121


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried. Orders of the day.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I was inadvertently delayed, but for the record I want to indicate that had I been here for the vote I certainly would have voted against the

January 31, 1990
Routine Proceedings
government, against anything to do with the imposition of the goods and services tax.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I just wish to note that I was unable to make it into the Chamber for the vote. However, had I been able, absolutely I would have voted against any co-operation with this government and its misguided goods and services tax.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was in the House, I did fulfil my parliamentary responsibility to be here, and I did vote against these measures on the GST.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, regrettably I was unable to be in the House at the time of the previous vote because we were busily engaged in deliberations on how we can continue the fight on the GST.


Mr. McDermid:: You were out standing in the lobby, you phoney.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Had I been in the chamber, I would most unambiguously voted with my colleagues against the motion.
Mr Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was inadvertently delayed in planning a strategy to try and derail this government's GST tax. Unfortunately, I could not be here. But if I had been here I would have voted against this attempt to hijack Parliament which is what the Conservative government is doing.


Ms. Hunter:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was delayed from registering my vote, but I think that our position in this party is unambiguous in opposition to the goods and services tax and I wish to register that my vote would have been against the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the hon. member for making her point but I do not think we should get into debate right now.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was unable to attend at the vote, but had I been able to attend I would have voted solidly against this government and its GST policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have recognized the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca on a point of order. Is that not why you rose? The other member is now relinquishing being recognized. I will now recognize the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to move:
That the hon. member for Kootenay East be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately the motion moved by the hon. member for Kamloops is not receivable.
The member can move a point of order that another member be heard but only while we are in debate. We are not at this time. I refer the hon. member to a decision made by the Speaker on November 7, 1986 when such a motion was refused, as I will have to refuse it right now.


Mr. Hicks:: Madam Speaker, at this time of great co-operation in the House, I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the eleventh report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Obviously there is not unanimous consent for the hon. member to present his report.


Mr. Flis:: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the obstructive tactics of the government and the NDP, I seek unanimous consent to table petitions on the GST.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the hon. member knows that he can file this petition with the clerks at this time.


Mr. Barrett:: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I was late but I welcome this opportunity to inform this House and all Canadians who are interested in this issue that I would have voted against this move by the government to rob the people of Canada of their hard-earned earnings. I say this is an opportunity-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member has made his point.


Mr. Parker:: Madam Speaker, I was advised yesterday that there would be an in camera meeting of the steering committee with regard to the RRSP program. I was delayed for the vote and I want to express my desire that
January 31, 1990

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
had I been here I would have voted against this legislation in the very strongest terms.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to bring up a question of privilege at this time. Yesterday, I got up in this House on a point of order. I was not recognized while all other members were being recognized. Finally the Speaker ruled that that would be all that would be debated on that issue. I feel that I have been neglected and have not been given my opportunity to speak. I would like to know why I am not being recognized in this House.
["It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 24(1)."]
Mr. Rodriguez:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is a very important one. I received back from the legal clerk of the House my private members' bill which I entered to be on the Order Paper and I wanted to enter it today in the House so it could be in the draw which takes place tomorrow.
This government has been using the tactic of moving to Orders of the Day, which does not permit a member to introduce his bill into the House so it can be eligible for the draw. I have two very important bills. One deals with bank service charges, which is extremely important to consumers of Canada, and the other one deals with class actions. If there is ever protection that consumers need, it is certainly through a class action process. Surely, it is part of the privileges of members of Parliament to enter their bills so that they can participate in the democratic process.
What has happened is that this government-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I would like to remind the hon. member that it was the unanimous consent of the House yesterday to postpone drawings of private members' bills. Henceforth, I would imagine that the hon. member will have another opportunity to present his bill. Orders of the Day.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-62, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Ihx Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 7569).
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I would like to-


Mr. Karpoff:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to inform the House that I was delayed in coming in for the vote. I want to inform the House that I certainly would have been expressing my opposition to the motion proposed by the Tory government. It is too bad that so many Tories not here to hear how strongly Canada opposes this-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Ontario.


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, I would like to continue the debate that I was involved in rather extensively yesterday.


Ross Harvey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was most taken with the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay East a little while ago. I would like, therefore, to move that the member for Kootenay East be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In order for this motion to be acceptable, the member for Kootenay East would have had to be rising and seeking the floor, which he was not. As well, it would have had to be moved before the hon. member for Ontario had started to speak, and the hon. member already had the floor. The floor belongs to the hon. member for Ontario.


René John Soetens: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure for me to return to this debate. I was involved in it extensively yesterday. I know that at the end of the

January 31, 1990
Government Orders
sitting yesterday, members of the NDP rose to challenge some of the comments I was making. I guess they did not like to hear all the positive things about the GST. I note today that there was an extensive effort to delay my presentation somewhat, but I am pleased to carry on with it at this point.
Yesterday I spent a considerable amount of time talking about the need for the elimination of the existing federal sales tax. I quoted some very interesting presentations made by witnesses who appeared in front of the finance committee. Some of those people who, of course, are not supporters of the party that I represent, made some excellent presentations as to why the manufacturers' sales tax should be eliminated.
I realize that caused some concern, but the problem I think is the concern existing within one of the parties that the people who supported the elimination of the federal sales tax are their supporters. I note in the finance committee report that did come forward, even the NDP did not want to eliminate totally the manufacturers' sales tax, a tax that has been very detrimental to many of their clientele.
What I would like to do, Madam Speaker, for your information, is carry on with some of the things that did happen during the hearings on the goods and services tax and some of the questions that were asked, so that maybe we can clarify a little further for Canadians just what will happen when the GST is implemented.
The member for Yorkton-Melville repeatedly during the hearings asked questions of witnesses as to what would happen when the manufacturers' sales tax was eliminated. Would those companies in fact reduce their prices?
I would like to quote a very direct question that the member asked of Mr. Snyder, the Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association representative. The member for Yorkton-Melville asked:
Is there a possibility you may keep some of the existing FST? The answer was:
I would doubt it. I think if you look at the history of the appliance business over the past 20 years, our prices in real terms have declined 65 per cent. I think we offer one of the best consumer values around today. So I would say that those competitive pressures will continue. I do not see any change as a result of the tax.
You do not hear it expressed too often by members of the opposition that in fact there will be some savings passed on to consumers.
When he was pressed a little further to comment on that by the same member, he came back with a further comment. He said:
I believe in our industry the competitive nature is such that if there is a cost reduction as a result of the GST it will end up in the consumer's hands. It is as simple as that.
I realize that it is not popular for those who oppose this implementation of the GST to talk about those areas where in fact consumers will benefit, but there are many of them.
On another occasion when we had a witness in front of the finance committee, the same member asked of the representative of the Canadian Federation of Farm Equipment Dealers just what would happen. Mr. Hills who was speaking on behalf of the dealers association replied with this comment:
In a piece of equipment with a 13.5 per cent current federal sales tax rolled in, when that 13.5 is removed, our customer will see a direct benefit by the reduction. If that effects a $10 reduction, we will probably reduce our price by $11 -it is that competitive.
I realize again that is not something that the people in opposition to the tax want to talk about, where in fact there will be savings.
Not only did that group comment that there would be savings in their industry but they also commented in conjunction with the Canadian Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute on the whole concept of the goods and services tax. Mr. Frank Pickersgill, director, on October 23 in front of the finance committee, said:
We do not like the existing tax system. As manufacturers, we find it difficult and we do not like it. Conceptually, a value-added tax like the GST to a manufacturer has some attraction.
The same thing was said by the vice-chairman of the Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association. I quote his comments made on October 23:
The Canadian appliance industry believes that the proposed GST is a positive move towards the establishment of a fairer and more equitable taxation. It is a vast improvement on the current FST, a tax we have opposed.
Of course, it is a tax that both opposition parties in this House would just like to hire a bunch of bureaucrats to do a study on, but we have made some very clear
January 31, 1990

decisions. There are businesses and industries out there that are very supportive of it.
Yesterday we had an interjection during my presentation from a member from northern Ontario who has a considerable representation of people active in the primary industry, particularly the mining industry. I thought he would go back to his riding and discuss with people in the mining industry exactly what they think. Elere is what they said in front of the finance committee.
This is the Mining Association of Canada, and Mr. George Miller, its president, appeared on October 16. I would like to quote what he said:
Our brief mentions that the industry supports the replacement of the present manufacturers' sales tax by the goods and services tax. We have a number of reasons for that which are covered in the brief, but basically they boil down to the fact that we think it is good tax policy. It eliminates a tax which has many faults-The big benefit from the replacement of the present tax is that it will help to make Canadian exporters more competitive and will help us to survive in the bad times-
I would have thought that members who have a lot of mining constituents in their riding would be interested in making sure that jobs were secure. That is what we are doing with the goods and services tax. We are securing jobs for Canadians throughout Canada.
I should point out that I do not have an appliance manufacturer in my riding. I do not have any mines in my riding, nor do I have any agricultural implement manufacturers in my riding. What I am talking about are benefits that are being spread across Canada and that is really what this GST legislation will do. It will help Canada extensively.
We do have some advanced technology groups that will also benefit. I would just like to mention exactly what these people said on October 16 in front of the Standing Committee on Finance hearings. Mr. Roy Woodbridge, president of the association, appeared and made the following statement:
With respect to the goods and services tax, we are philosophically attracted to the concept. It is certainly an improvement over the existing federal sales tax system. It eliminates biases in imports that have harmed Canadian advance technology industries in the past, particularly in the computer field -I think, Mr. Chairman, if I could I would like to respond to that because we have been tracking this goods and services tax since the early days when tax reform was first tabled as a concept. We have run workshops, seminars, we have had individual company visits, we have had questionnaires out to our
Government Orders
membership and I can tell you pretty categorically that if you have got a roomful of our members and ask them how many regard-take the good and bad altogether-how many are in favour of this? You would have about 98 per cent of them raising their hands being in favour.
We do not hear that from those in opposition. We do not hear them saying that there are industries throughout Canada that are very positive and supportive of what we are doing. It is industry that creates jobs. That is what we are talking about.
There is another group, the Canadian Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, and its comment is:
While we are philosophically opposed to increases in taxation, as an institute we recognize that a consumption tax is preferable to the existing federal sales tax.
The list goes on rather extensively of people who have come out publicly in support of this legislation. I find it disturbing that in all of the rhetoric that is used by the opposition, they do not seem to mention that their constituents, the people who employ their constituents, are so tremendously in favour of the goods and services tax.
I have an article that was published in The Windsor Star this past week. Windsor is not known for the number of Tory members that it has sitting in the House of Commons today. I thought this would be a rather interesting article. It is dated January 23 and is rather extensive, dealing with a number of issues. I quote from that article the paragraph dealing with the GST:
On the GST, I find it difficult to understand not only Henderson but CWA leaders like Gary Parent and others fighting the removal of the 13.5 per cent federal sales tax. Why should the workers of our manufacturing industry carry the burden of this tax on their shoulders? Why not lower the tax to seven per cent and let those who make a living off the people who work in manufacturing industries share the burden. Windsor is a manufacturing town and lower prices on manufactured goods will benefit everyone in Windsor-yes, even the restaurants.
I do not represent Windsor. My riding is not anywhere near Windsor, but I can tell you that the same attitude prevails in my riding and I would hazard to say that on the recent occasion when I visited the riding of Oshawa, there were many people saying the same thing: why should the manufacturing sector of Oshawa carry the burden for the rest of Canada? There is absolutely no reason why it should.

January 31, 1990
Government Orders
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in its submission to the finance committee came out with the statement:
We do not favour the maintenance of the current manufacturers' sales tax. Its serious flaws have been well documented and need not be repeated here; and we do support the concept of a value added tax as a vehicle that could serve as a best replacement mechanism.
The reason I mention that is because the Chamber of Commerce, along with other business groups, has really been in favour of the concept of a value-added tax like the goods and services tax. Some of them have been saying, however, broaden the base and get rid of some of the exemptions. I know that there are members in this House who have some sympathy for that. Fortunately, the government in its wisdom has decided that food, basic groceries in grocery stores, should not be taxed.
I support that theory but there are members in this House who do not support that theory. I would like to quote what one of them had to say on May 11, 1989. It is recorded in Hansard and speaking is the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, not a Conservative, I should point out. I quote:
I urge the government to correct the discrepancies by providing a larger tax credit for the poorest people in the community.
He goes on to talk about the reasons for it:
It is easy to identify them, to know how much income they are getting and how much they are spending. It would be much easier to determine the size of the credit they should receive. Exemptions would only make the process much more difficult.
He also said that exemptions will not make it more fair, exemptions will make the tax much more difficult to administer, exemptions will be of greater benefit to those who have more money than to those who have less money.
This is a presentation by an NDP member of this House. Here we have the Chamber of Commerce and the NDP saying there should not be any exemptions and yet the Conservatives showing at least that they have some heart and that they do care for low and moderate-income Canadians, first by not taxing the basic food commodities that they need and second, by providing them with a very enriched tax credit to make sure that they are in fact able to overcome the added cost of the tax in some of those areas where they are affected.
The distribution of the tax, of course, goes to Canadians in need. I have seen some reports dealing extensively with just who does get the benefit of the federal sales tax credits. In fact, 64 per cent of Canadian families will receive the benefit of a sales tax credit commencing in 1991. If they file their returns this year, they will receive their first cheque in December 1990.
It is significant that 64 per cent get the credit. It is even more significant that in those parts of Canada where the assistance is most needed, families will get a sales tax credit. For example, in those parts of Canada where some of the opposition members seems so intent on stirring the opposition they do not mention to the people of Newfoundland that 85 per cent of Newfoundland families will be getting a sales tax credit. They do not mention in Prince Edward Island that 78 per cent of Prince Edward Island families will be getting the sales tax credit. I have not heard them mention in Nova Scotia that 74 per cent will receive the sales tax credit.
As you can see, I could go on with a whole series of issues. At this point, my time is really wrapping up. Very clearly, this is excellent legislation and I think it is time the opposition started telling everyone the facts, rather than what they are saying.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to advise the House that tomorrow will be an allotted day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I was up in my office when the member for Ontario had the unmitigated nerve to mention Windsor in the same breath as the GST, citing in support of his argument The Windsor Star, which criticized the president of the local labour council, Gary Parent, and Gord Henderson, one of the most popular columnists in The Windsor Star, on the basis that that would support the notion that people in Windsor somehow had gone completely crazy and have now switched sides and are supporting the GST.
I have in my office between 8,000 and 9,000 protests against the GST that were gathered within the city within a matter of 10 days in response to an ad in the newspaper placed by a group of people who in other
January 31, 1990

jurisidictions would be stupid enough to be Conservatives. There is a good reason for this.
In the city of Windsor, all one has to do is go up and down Ouellette Avenue, a reminder of the historic French connection of the city of Windsor, and one will see a great many restaurants and stores which are closed because they no longer have the significant American clientele that they previously had, primarily because of the increase in the value of the dollar. But every one of them anticipate that with the introduction of the GST, there will be a further erosion of the attractiveness of Windsor as a place where Americans will shop and entertain themselves.
If one stands at the entrance of the Detroit-Windsor tunnel or if one stands at the entrance to the Ambassador Bridge on the weekend, one will see thousands of Canadians going across the river to make their purchases. Because our dollar is so high in its value in equivalence to the American dollar people can save a great deal of money going across the river. Many Canadians are losing business. Now they have to anticipate the GST.
I would tell the member for Ontario that in Windsor 80 per cent of the population is against this tax because they understand this tax. I myself am involved in a coalition with labour and most of the significant business leaders in Windsor in opposition to this Conservative inequity. To have the member for Ontario stand up in this House and suggest on the basis of an editorial from The Windsor Star that somehow we have seen the light that would have us enter into hell and support this GST is to abuse this House and abuse the truth in a fashion that is beyond toleration.


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, it really is a pleasure to see that there are some members in Windsor who understand that manufacturing is important to them. Unfortunately, it is not the members who have been elected to serve in this House because I have just listened to that rhetoric.
My riding is right beside Oshawa, and Oshawa has a very heavy automotive presence much like Windsor. I can tell you that in my constituency, they understand the benefit that the manufacturers will gain out of the elimination of the federal sales tax. They understand
Government Orders
that the price of automobiles in Canada will come down because of the elimination of the federal sales tax. They understand that when the price of cars comes down in Canada, more jobs are created in Canada.
I find it disturbing that members here in this House do not fully understand that. And because someone in Windsor has seen the light, I guess all I would encourage this member to do is to read the article. It states very clearly:
On the GST-Why should the workers of our manufacturing industry carry the burden of this tax on their shoulders? Why not lower the tax to seven per cent and let those who make a living off the people who work in manufacturing industries share the burden.
I think it is time that you people from Windsor got with it and let the manufacturing sector in this country do what it is supposed to be doing.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Ontario would just go over his argument once again please.
It seems to me that he has just told us that the manufacturing sector in Windsor will be a beneficiary of the sales tax. I cannot understand how that will happen unless it raises its prices.
By the time that new car gets out to my particular part of the country-we have had automobile dealers work out the actual figures, if they take the same mark-up for handling and selling that automobile that they are used to-the price to the consumer stays exactly the same if the manufacturer does not increase his price. So if the manufacturer does not raise his price as the car leaves the factory, how is he going to be better off? If the consumer in my part of Canada has to pay at least as much for the car under GST as under the manufacturers' sales tax, why will there be more customers and where will there be more customers? How can they be better off if the price stays the same and the demand stays virtually the same?


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to answer that. In fact, we had lots of witnesses appear in front of the finance committee representing Canadian automobile dealers and they very clearly talked about the reduction in the price of cars. Those dealers do not represent just dealers in Oshawa or in my constituency of Ontario, they represent dealers across Canada. Simply put, the price of a car leaving the plant will have only a 7

January 31, 1990
Government Orders
per cent tax on it versus 13.5 per cent. In any mathematical system that is a 6.5 per cent improvement.
Of course, that sales tax is an input tax credit so that the dealer does not have to pass it on to his customer. The net result is that that car being sold out of the showroom-I am sorry, but I do not know the member's riding but I think it is in western Canada-will sell for less in western Canada than it does today. When they can sell more cars because the price is lower, they will employ more people in Windsor because they will be producing more cars because the product is cheaper. It is a very simple economic system. Actually first-year university students taking Economics 101 will tell you exactly how it works.


Mr. Fisher:: Madam Speaker, what the member from somewhere in Ontario just said highlights precisely the problem that we have with this tax. He says that if you take the manufacturers' sales tax and put it beside the GST, then it all comes out the same. The fact of the matter is if you put the calculator to it, it does not. To simply do the calculation of the GST, it is not a saving. It comes out precisely, as the member for Mackenzie said previously, to be the same.
I would suggest that the member take that lesson to heart and see the perpetrator of this piece of legislation and point out to him that all these good things he is saying about it are not true.
It is shameful that he should stand up and say what he has about it in an attempt to make the public think that there is somehow a saving by going from this 13.5 per cent down to 7 per cent. The fact of the matter is that it is precisely the same thing and there are no savings.
The member talks about implements. It may be an advantage, and I presume if you work it out with a calculator it comes out precisely the same for the tractor as well, but it will result in the western Canadian farmer always having to beg with the federal government.
While it is true that he gets a rebate from the GST it is also true that he has to apply for it. It has certainly become evident over the last while that the government is not exactly swift in returning the moneys which the government owes him. Those farmers are going to have to sit, not for weeks, but for months while the government returns the rebate on the GST after they had to pay for it up front. This is in spite of the fact that they
have asked that that not be the case, that they not be charged at the time of purchase.


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, I am glad that my children will not have an opportunity to learn math from the hon. member who just spoke. Let me quote just one final comment that I think is very appropriate because The Toronto Star said it and The Toronto Star invariably must be right on this one issue:
The new tax will mean a better allocation of resources, greater
investment and more competitive exports-.The new goods and
services tax should eliminate most inefficiencies caused by these often
arbitrary arrangements-
That is referring to the items in the federal sales tax.
Again, I hope the members have learned something. Now they can go back to their ridings and tell their constituents about all the good things in the GST rather than what they are saying.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-62 I cannot help but recall back when we were travelling with the finance committee in Winnipeg. Perhaps this is a story the finance minister should pay attention to because his sleight-of-hand has been recognized all across Canada for what it is.
When we got on the bus leaving the air force base to go in to hold the hearings in Winnipeg, one of the young officers who was seeing us off the base asked if he could ask the finance committee one question. That one question was this: "Is Mr. Wilson a poker player? Is he giving us 9 per cent and in fact we are going to get 7?"
I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that this has been a plan of this government all along. Threaten to throw the people of Canada to the sharks, but in fact feed them a little bit to the piranhas. One way or the other the people of Canada will be consumed by this dreadful tax that is being proposed by the government.
During our travel across Canada many things became apparent. This goods and service tax was a tax that everybody was against. Nobody who spoke or put a submission in to the finance committee supported the goods and service in the form that it was presented. This included many people, business people, tourism operators, seniors, fishermen, fisherwomen, women, low income earners, the list goes on and on. Nobody likes the goods and services tax. It simply is not a good tax. One thing that became more and more focused as I went across Canada with the finance committee was that the 48 countries which have value-added tax are small,
January 31, 1990

homogeneous countries with very few regional disparities. However, Canada is a large country. Even within each of the provinces there are huge economic disparities.
I would like to talk for a minute about how this tax will affect the territories. In particular we spoke with members of the Conservative Government of the Northwest Territories. They talked about their service sector providing 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the employment. It is the service sector that will be hit hardest by this tax.
They talked about the economic characteristics of the north which indicate a high operating cost for building materials and for labour. This will be shown in a cascading effect in the retail price. Those members said that the GST would have a negative impact on the machinery in the resource industry because it is already now exempt.
I think that is something that has not been taken into consideration by the last member who spoke or many of the other members. The resource industry is exempt, as is the farm industry. This puts in another level.
They also told us that increased profits to the resource sector may be a fact in some way. But they said that the money gained will not remain in the Northwest Territories because all corporations which have mines up there are multinationals with their head offices offshore or out of the country. The money will be channelled elsewhere for other development and not left in the Northwest Territories where it would be of benefit.
They said that in the short run there might be some benefit to the resource sector but that over all it will have a very negative impact on the Northwest Territories. It will hurt the tourism business. It will hurt small business.
They pointed out exactly what I pointed out earlier about the regional inequities. They said that the current manufacturer's sales tax is at least the same across Canada at source from the manufacturer, but the goods and services tax creates an inequity in each of the regions.
Government Orders
They point out that on average the prices are some 44 per cent higher in the Northwest Territories, with some prices going as much as 120 per cent higher. They showed us figures which indicated that in places such as Iqualuit, Baffin Island, those prices were 224 per cent higher. In Pelly Bay in the Arctic Circle those prices were 234 per cent higher.
The people of this country should know that where prices are higher the residents are paying the tax on that higher price. The good that costs $1 in Montreal costs $2.34 in Pelly Bay. One pays 7 per cent tax on $2.34 instead of on $1.
Is that fair? I suggest that it is not. It is totally inequitable. It is hurting those who already have not. It is increasingly ensuring that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is putting the heel on the poor and those who are trying to develop our regions while struggling to make a living. That is one reason that I as a member of the New Democratic Party suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that this goods and services tax will not and cannot work for Canada.
I spoke to three senators from Australia a couple of months ago. They were astounded that Canada would even be looking at a value-added tax system, given the experience that they saw next door in New Zealand and the problems with economic disparities and inequalities within a country the size of Australia. They pointed out, and needed not to say it, that Canada was certainly much larger than Australia.
In the Northwest Territories they also point out that the costs of fuel, electricity and air transportation, which will all be taxed under the goods and services tax, are much higher. The people in the Northwest and Yukon Territories depend upon air transportation to get back and forth between their communities, and now they will be taxed on that. In many cases it is the only method of transportation.
A member of the Chamber of Commerce from Iqualuit appeared before the finance committee in Yellowknife. He had flown in from Iqualuit the day before. It cost him something in the area of $1,500 to fly there and back in order to make his submission. This is a small example of the costs.

January 31, 1990
Government Orders
If we add 7 per cent to that $1,500, we get an idea of some of the regional disparities we are seeing, not just in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory but within each one of our provinces. In some of the Atlantic provinces such as Newfoundland, which are fairly small in comparison to some of the others, there are major regional disparities. All these people will be hit with that 7 per cent tax.
I would like to turn away from the Northwest Territories for a moment and consider the south of Canada. I happen to live in the riding of Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt and in the boundary country, most of which borders on the United States border. Osoyoos, Midway, Grand Forks and Christina Lake all have border crossings. There is a border crossing in Costan. These areas are all open to the American economy. There is a lot of back and forth as a result.
The Economic Development Corporation of Osoyoos and Area made a submission before the finance committee on September 15. I would like to quote from this to show the effect not just on the communities in my riding but, I suggest, on all small communities and larger communities across Canada that are anywhere within 200 miles of the U.S. border. The submission states:
Clearly, then, one of the major concerns EDCOA has regarding the GST is the impact it may have on the purchasing behaviour of consumers in our community. It is this organization's hypothesis that the GST will significantly encourage residents to shop in the United States, therefore, significantly hurting local retail businesses and the economy.
This organization believes that the likely scenario for the Osoyoos area, and more generally the whole Okanagan Valley for at least all of 1991, is a significant and damaging increase in the volume of consumers shopping in the U.S.
The Economic Development Corporation goes on to point out that it believes that in Osoyoos the tourism industry will suffer because of the perception created by the goods and services tax of Canada being too expensive to visit. Even with a rebate plan the tourist will tend to eliminate the destination before even finding out about the rebate provision. Further, the inconvenience of bookkeeping while on vacation may dissuade the tourist from seeking the rebate and engender a negative image of our country. This may decrease the possibility of a return visit and of the tourist communicating positive feelings of our country to others in his home community.
In closing they say that the Economic Development Corporation of Osoyoos and area can report to the standing committee that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the implications of this proposed tax in the Osoyoos area.
The Economic Development Corporation in that small community is working hard to try to get some industry going and some things happening within that community. They look at a future with problems as a result of both the free trade agreement and the goods and services tax in trying to encourage companies and corporations to come in and set up businesses in that small community.
They are not alone in their fears. A constituent in Penticton writes as follows:
Of course, as necessary, but let's have taxes that are fair, not ones that assist the richer element of our society to get even richer at the sole expense of all the rest of us. There is absolutely no justification whatever for the Mulroney tax grab scheme.
I have a letter from Penticton, from a Joyce Armstrong, president of the New Horizon Committee of the B.C. Square Dance Jamboree. She states as follows:
We all agree that the national deficit must be reduced but this is not the way. Why must it always be the middle or average wage earner, pensioner and poor young people who pay? Many of the young people I talked with had some very good ideas and the seniors are not without opinions. Tell Mr. Wilson not to count us out. We're not dead yet and still have a vote.
That is a caution to this government. Pay attention to what the people of Canada want, or you will not be sitting there after the next election.
I have a further letter from the very town I was earlier talking about, Osoyoos. One Norman Arnold writes about the Prime Minister as follows:
He forgets when he hurts the little people that he is hurting about two-thirds of the voting power of Canada, because there are more of them than there are millionaires.
When he hires 4,000 more employees to staff the offices to run the GST for him, does he realize he will have an additional payroll of about 2M per month or more? How much of this foolishness is going to come out of the GST? In one year alone is he going to reduce the national debt, going at it this way?
A resident of Summerland states her opposition and says that a letter to the editor from one Jack Phillips in the Summerland Review expresses some of her feelings on the goods and services tax.
January 31, 1990

This gentleman wrote:
Just raise the income tax rates enough to raise the necessary additional amount. Yes, I can hear the screams of indignant rage already, but raising the extra taxes through income taxes has certain advantages; the income tax system is already in place and will require no additional federal employees since it is largely assessed and remitted by taxpayers themselves. It has already been adjusted to reduce the burden on low income taxpayers and is directly apportioned to one's ability to pay.
That is a suggestion from a person within the riding of Okanagan-Similkame en-Merritt.
We are not without options. The finance committee minority report of the New Democratic Party has put forward some very good options to study a system that would be more suitable and fairer to all Canadians.
The first step would be to establish a royal commission, because for 25 years since the Carter commission we have not looked at the tax system in Canada and how it relates to the international market. That is what we should be looking at, not rushing headlong into some cockamamie idea this government has cooked up that because 48 other countries have it, it must be good and we should be using it. The reason that the government wants this goods and services tax is that it is a cash cow, an easy way to raise money.
The people of Canada know that even if this comes in at 7 per cent in 1991, if an election is held in 1992 and regardless of whether that party or the Liberal Party forms the government at that time, there will be an increase in the goods and services tax.
The only party that offers a proper alternative now or in 1992,1 suggest, is the New Democratic Party. We have alternatives. We have set them out to the people of Canada in this minority report to the finance committee.
One of those alternatives in the short run, until we can get a full report of a royal commission, would be to roll back the manufacturers' sales tax which has apparently caused some hardships to our manufacturers and our exporters to 9 per cent, the 1984 rate that the Conservative government raised to 13.5 per cent.
Another would be to introduce a new refundable sales tax credit to compensate the poor for the burden that regressive consumption taxes have placed on them and to index the credit to the rate of inflation. It should be full indexation, not the partial indexation offered by this government. It is a regressive move. It continues the
Government Orders
regressivity and the oppression of the poverty stricken of this country, which we and the majority of Canadians find unacceptable.
We also suggest that a green tax be imposed to gain money to reward those who use proper and environmentally clean goods and services.
I suggest to the people of Canada that they look at the New Democratic Party's alternatives. The Minister of Finance has recognized that there are alternatives today. Although he said that he does not agree with them, I think he should study them a little more carefully.
Let us be clear about what this House is debating. The government has moved that we agree in principle to a goods and services tax. The Liberals have amended that suggestion and proposed that we do not do it now but do it in six months' time.
In six months there will be a new Liberal leader and that party may have decided what is its policy. My guess is that the corporate backers of the Liberal Party and the corporate bag men of the various candidates will persuade the Liberals to accept the goods and services tax just like they now accept the trade deal.
The New Democrats want to kill the GST. In a few minutes I will move a motion which could do exactly that. I move pursuant to Standing Order 60:
That this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Calgary West.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, on such short notice-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton East.
Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East:) Madam Speaker, I believe that when the hon. member for Okanagan-Si-milkameen-Merritt moved his motion on which we have just now voted, he did so at the conclusion of his 20 minutes of remarks and thus there remains a 10 minute question and comment period on the hon. member's remarks.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member concluded his speech with a motion which was non-debatable and immediately votable which I think took care of the remaining time. In any event, I was recognized for the commencement of debate. I think it is impossible to rescind that decision without unanimous consent of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The point of order put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton East leaves the Chair in quite a quandary.
When the hon. member for Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt concluded his intervention to the House by proposing that the House do now adjourn, the Chair concluded that the hon. member certainly did not wish to continue debating. Henceforth, once the motion was
January 31, 1990

defeated, the Chair recognized another member. I think this is the way we should proceed.


Mr. Murphy:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think it is a matter of whether or not the member has a right to speak any longer. I think it is a matter that the House has the right to ask him questions. It is not that he is being denied any privileges, it is that the members of the Conservative Party, members of the Liberal Party, and New Democrats who may want to ask questions of that member are being prevented.
Since the House has voted not to adjourn, I believe that we have the right to ask those questions and to challenge some of the assertions that that member made during debate.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to show any disrespect for the Chair. I just want to make the point that, as far as the Liberals are concerned, we do not object to having the hon. member in question answer questions. We would be interested in the answers, even though we doubt if they will have any weight or substance.
If the House wishes to agree, we are not going to oppose that. Therefore, my hon. friend is wrong in saying that the Liberals are objecting to the House agreeing to allow the member to be asked questions.


Mr. Malone:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would take that the Chair was offering to this House a ruling that you, as the Chair, were making for the benefit of the House. I think what is taking place at the present time is quite inappropriate because, in effect, it is a debate on your ruling.
Those who are familiar with the rules of the House of Commons would know that it is inappropriate to have any debate or discussion of a ruling once it has once been given by the Chair. I would presume that you should conclude any statement you have with respect to the ruling that you have given, and that the House ought to respect that ruling and we go forward from there.


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, just a question to you of clarification. It is my understanding that in your remarks in response to the point of order raised you used terminology that could be considered as tentative and not definitive. I am asking for clarification because I do
Government Orders
not have Hansard immediately available to me to check the "blues".
Did you, in fact, hand down a ruling on the question, or did you just indicate that you were in a "quandary" that "you think" as opposed to this is the way it is going to be? I respectfully ask that you do clarify that for us.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, it is a fact that a motion to adjourn is always in order. If the motion is lost, the House automatically goes back to the business that preceded the motion. The member by rule loses his or her place in the debate once presenting the motion but the business of the House, after that motion is defeated, must go on as normally laid out. The next order of business is the 10 minutes following that member's speech. That is the way the rules should be.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In answer to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, yes, I did start answering the hon. member by saying I was in a quandary following the hon. member for Edmonton East's request that we should proceed with a 10 minute question and comment period. Yes, I did say at that time that it was my feeling that the hon. member, by putting this motion forward in the House, was at that point expressing to the House his wish that the debate should not proceed any longer today.
At this point in time, I cannot think of a precedent under which I could explain or rationalize this ruling.

Consequently, I think the best thing to do in the circumstances is for the Chair to undertake to make inquiries and subsequently establish a precedent, because we have no precedent at this moment to which we can refer.
Consequently, I shall recognize the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), so that we can resume debate. The hon. member has the floor.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take the floor once again-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Kamloops.

January 31, 1990
Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on a short point of order, I must say that I reflected on an incident that occurred earlier this afternoon. While the vote was being taken I, being late for the vote, walked into the House of Commons during the vote count. I simply want to seek clarification from Madam Chair whether that is parliamentary practice, or whether that is unparliamentary, because nothing we do here would we want to be considered unparliamentary.
I am seeking clarification if the action that I carried out was in fact parliamentary, and whether it is acceptable behaviour.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, you place this House in a difficult situation. You are suggesting by your tentative, non-ruling that you are telling us that you will go and check it out and come back with an answer, but in the meantime the 10 minute question period is lost. I do not think that is adequate from the Chair and I will tell you why. We need a clear-cut ruling based on precedent right now. If it is necessary for the Chair to take a five-minute recess to get a ruling, I suggest that, rather than going on something tentative until we know what we are doing. I ask the Chair to take a recess and check it out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) appears to attribute to the Chair a kind of innate knowledge it does not have.
The Chair felt that it was better not to create a precedent, and after so advising the House, the Chau-decided to recognize the hon. member for Calgary West.
I can give the hon. member the assurance that once the results of our inquiries are known, if the debate is still in process, and those results prove that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt (Mr. Whittaker) should have the benefit of this ten-minute period for questions and comments, he will then be recognized, even if it is later on.
For the time being, I think the matter is closed, and I will again recognize the hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to begin-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have recognized the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I wanted to say to the Speaker that we on this side of the House do not like the GST. We are not always happy nor do we celebrate the rule of the Chair on any given day on any given issue. Frequently we are disappointed. But at the end of the day, having had a fair hearing, we expect that the rule of the Chair, whether we like it, celebrate it, or not, has to be upheld.
I would say to colleagues, whose view of the GST I share, that we have to be cautious in this place, beyond making our point, about challenging the authority of the Chair. I say this because I believe it is important. If members are to challenge the authority of the Chair, beyond making a strong case, then let it be a direct challenge. If not, let us be careful and respect the institution.
I go further, Madam Speaker. It is up to the Speaker to ensure that the integrity of the Chair is protected as well by not allowing silly challenges.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member from Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I believe that your elaboration now in terms of a decision that will be forthcoming and if you find it appropriate, you will then see the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt as having a 10-minute question and comment period is more than reasonable and we accept that, Madam Speaker.
However, I also would remind you of the point that I raised, simply to seek clarification. During the voting I entered the House of Commons, and I am simply requesting information-


Mr. Kempling:: You did it on purpose.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I did it on purpose, Madam Speaker. If it is unparliamentary, then I certainly would be the first to apologize for doing something I ought not to have done.
January 31, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member has been in this House for quite a long period of time. I am sure that he does know that hon. members are not supposed to enter the chamber while a division is being taken. This has been within our rules for a long time.
The hon. member from Kamloops on the same point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I just want to make it very clear. On many occasions over the years members have entered, and at the end of the vote indicated their intentions as to how they would have voted had they been in the chamber.
If, in fact, earlier in the day I entered the House of Commons at an inappropriate moment, and I accept that fact that it is a tradition that we have in this House, I for one want to apologize for doing that.
Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East) Madam Speaker, I am afraid that I cannot let the remarks of the hon. member from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte pass unchallenged at this time.
He said that we were challenging the authority of the Chair. I can assure the Chair that in raising the original point of order, I had no intention, none whatsoever, of challenging the Chair. In fact I do not consider that anything I said at that time could be construed as a challenge to the Chair.
If by chance the hon. member was referring to the remarks of other of my colleagues, I can only say that nothing in any of those remarks could reasonably be construed as a challenge to the authority of the Chair, especially when in the case of the hon. member from Juan de Fuca, he was suggesting that the Chair take the time of the House to-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden was seeking the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, it is against the rules to challenge the Chair. It has been for a number of years. We cannot challenge the Chair. Nobody has.
In light of the fact that my wife is expecting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Government Orders


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -could I have the unanimous consent of the House to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Consent has not been given. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do I have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member was not given unanimous consent to call it six o'clock. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I was not suggesting that the Chair knows everything immediately. What I was suggesting was a recess. Your compromise is perfectly acceptable. But I want to say that I resent the editorial comment that somehow I was challenging the Chair or expecting the Chair to know every answer.
What I said was, take a five minute recess. The suggestion you have made is totally acceptable. But I do not accept the questioning of my motives when I raise a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I had not been questioning the hon. member's motives, and I do thank him very much for finding my suggestion quite acceptable. On debate, the hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it is a very unusual period in the history of the Parliament of-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not want to leave the remarks of the Liberal member unchallenged, because I was one of the people who rose and asked for a clarification of what the Speaker was ruling. The very fact that later on in that process the Speaker felt it necessary to withhold judgment indicates that what we were raising was quite valid. Upon hearing the arguments of members of the New Democratic Party caucus, and hearing other remarks, the Chair felt it necessary to reserve judgment. I know that the Chair also had the opportunity to have a few words with the Clerk and again it was obviously a situation where there was a feeling that the whole issue was in doubt.

January 31, 1990
Government Orders
I personally object to the remarks by the Liberal member who pretends that he also opposes the GST, despite what his candidate for the leadership is doing right now-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think hon. members will agree that the Chair has been quite patient. But we should not change points of orders into debate. The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, with the full knowledge that I, as a genuine and sincere member of Parliament, this afternoon am being manipulated by my colleagues to my left, forced back on to my feet, I want to point out that this member made no reference to any member of the NDP caucus. Now, the fact that five or six felt it necessary, given their performance this afternoon, to get up and protest their innocence is an editorial comment not coming from me but from their own lips.
May I simply say that when I brought to the attention of the House that notwithstanding the strong passions in this place that the Chair and the authority of the Chau-must be respected, and notwithstanding my sincere attempt to improve the atmosphere in this place, it is obvious that my words of wisdom fell on deaf ears of my colleagues opposite. That, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Churchill has a point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I did not have a chance to finish my remarks with regard to the first intervention of the Liberal member. He indicated that it was the Speaker's job to maintain order in the House and to uphold the authority of the Chair. I would argue that it is the responsibility of the entire House to do so. In getting up to speak for whatever particular reason, he is misleading the House. As the Speaker likes to point out to those people in eastern and western Canada who may be watching and listening to this, it is very important that people understand that it is not only the Speaker who has the responsibility for maintaining the authority of the Chair, it is the entire House and all members of the House from all parties must maintain that role of the Chair.
Again, we do not always like the rulings of Speakers from time to time, but we recognize that once a ruling is made that that must be accepted.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A point was raised about ten minutes ago. I ruled on it. As well, I said I would come back to the House should there be any changes after we have conducted some research. I think we have heard many comments on that ruling, on everybody's perception of my ruling. I think this subject should be closed for tonight.
Resuming debate. On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, having spent 15 minutes trying to get this debate started, I was quite prepared to begin speaking when I heard a member of the opposition from the New Democratic Party shouting "point of order". My only defence in this chamber is to shout "point of order" a little louder and perhaps a little faster because I think we really do have a point of order. I think the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte put his finger on it.
The issue, Madam Speaker, that you have been asked to consider by the member is whether or not the Chair is being challenged. Is there a pattern of challenge that exists? As the former whip of the New Democratic Party pointed out, it is up to all of us to uphold the Chair.
I put my seat on the line some two or three days ago after observing tapes of debate in this House where two members of that party did, indeed-and I repeat it, did, indeed-challenge the Chair by voting twice, voting yea and voting nay on the same division which, if there ever was a classic case of putting the Chair in an awkward position, that was it.
I heard a supposedly responsible officer of this House, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, rise on a point of order and ask if his behaviour was appropriate when he walked into the House in the middle of a division. Madam Speaker, after being a House leader for as long as he has been, he knew that it was inappropriate.
The challenge is not to the government, the challenge is to the Chair. There is a pattern. There is a long, well-established tradition in this House that when a party, whether it is the official opposition, the government, any party, intends to make a creative use of the
January 31, 1990

rules, they have a quiet conversation with the Chair to advise the Chair so it is in a position to make a ruling.
The opposition has a desire to stifle debate, to stifle democracy, to keep this chamber silent on the issue of the goods and services tax. They are antithetical to democracy. They do not want debate, but the official opposition does, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has listened to quite a few points of order in the last half an hour, but I have also asked other members to keep it to a point of order and not to get into debate. I think the hon. member for Calgary West was getting well into debate at that time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He was out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member has not been given the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, when the Speaker of the House of Commons has a question of privilege under advisement, it is out of order to get up and speak on it, which he just did.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the hon. member for Kamloops had been seeking the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I must apologize to my hon. friend, the Whip for the government. I thought he was actually launching off in debate. I was going to call for a rule of relevance, but if he is on a point of order, I guess I really have not much to say.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, just on a quick point of order. As Whip of the NDP, I understand that some members are now gathering to smoke at the freight entrance of this building. The bells do not reach down there. I would ask Your Honour to investigate the provision of services to members who still insist in indulging in the bad habit of consuming the weed and to make sure at least they get the notice for any votes.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 1,1990