1990-04-04

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages submitted his annual report to us. To everyone's surprise and great disappointment, he does not mention the city of Sault Ste. Marie, which nevertheless attracted a lot of attention earlier this year, and which I have denounced publicly.
I would point out to him that since 1987, about fifty Ontario municipalities have openly proclaimed themselves unilingual English. This is horrible! However, he does not mention that in his report.
Although the Commissioner is not a prophet, he could certainly have felt, like many French Canadians, this great linguistic malaise that exists in Canada and is rampant in some towns and cities, but he did not even see fit to mention it in his preliminary remarks.
A city or town like Sault Ste. Marie which declares itself to be unilingual English needlessly humiliates its French minority. Groups like APEC, the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, a reactionary association that feeds on the fears and prejudices of past centuries, now seem to be spreading across Canada. There is also the COR (Confederation of Regions) Party, which like all the others propagates racist, anti-French ideas that are dangerous for our democracy.
We will probably have to wait until next year, Mr. Speaker, to know the extent of this concern. All I hope is that it will not be too late.

4-H NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP SEMINAR


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, this week Ottawa is playing host to Canada's 4-H delegates during their National Citizenship Seminar.
These young people from across our country will be discussing Canadian government systems, their rights and responsibilities as citizens, and they will be learning about each other.
All members should be proud of these young adults who were selected as delegates for their outstanding achievements in their local and provincial 4-H activities. I am proud that several of these exceptional young Canadians are from Prince Edward Island.
Head, heart, hands and health is the 4-H motto. This great national organization provides young people with the opportunity to develop both leadership and life skills and, in doing so, contribute to the well-being of our communities.
On behalf of all members of the House, I commend these young people for their accomplishments to date and wish them every success in their future endeavours.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, very soon members of this House will be voting on the goods and services tax. Close to 80 per cent of Canadians oppose the tax, but the government has chosen not to listen.
Only 21 of the 167 Conservative MPs need to vote with the combined opposition parties to defeat the tax, so we are urging Canadians across the country to phone their Conservative members of Parliament and tell them to vote against the GST.
In Atlantic Canada, Canadians can phone the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants at 542-5737; the member for South Shore at 543-5141; the member for Halifax West at 865-9194; the member for Fredericton-York- Sunbury at 458-8046; the member for St. John's East at

April 4, 1990
739-0802; the member for Fundy-Royal at 433-4040; or the member for Carleton-Charlotte at 466-3670.


LE GALA DES GRANDS QUEBECOIS
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, this evening, the second Gala des Grands Quebecois will take place in Quebec City, organized by the Chambre de commerce et de lindustrie du Quebec metropolitan.
On behalf of my colleagues from the Quebec City region, I wish to pay tribute to three famous people who will receive the title of Grand Quebecois this evening: painter Jean-Paul Lemieux, businessman Jacques Moris-set and Senator Renaude Lapointe, who in their respective careers have always been an honour to Quebec City and the general area.
Mr. Speaker, they will join Senator Jean-Marie Poi-tras, author Roger Lemelin and Father Georges-Henri Levesque, who last year became the first members of the Academie des Grands Quebecois.
Speaking on behalf of the residents of the Quebec City region and especially those of Montmorency-Orleans, I want to thank these three laureates for their outstanding contribution to the economic, social, cultural life of our beautiful region.


YUKON LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, last week the government announced it had approved the agreement in principle for the largest comprehensive aboriginal claim in Canada. This is the claim of the 17,000 Inuit of the central and eastern Arctic.
The elements of this deal were arrived at by the negotiating parties last December. In February, the agreement in principle was approved by the Inuit negotiators. Last week's approval by the federal cabinet is another major step toward a final agreement.
The Inuit negotiators who persevered over the past 14 years of negotiations deserve our thanks and congratulations.
A formal signing ceremony is planned for late April or early May, in Igloolik, to which the Prime Minister has been invited. I urge the Prime Minister to accept this invitation.
I also encourage the government to keep the door open for the Dene and Metis in the western Arctic. Justice requires a continued commitment to the fair settlement of both the Inuit and the Dene-Metis claims.


REFUGEE RIGHTS DAY
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, April 4 is Refugee Rights Day when Canadians from coast to coast celebrate the Supreme Court of Canada's decision five years ago today that every person in Canada who claims to be a refugee has the right to an oral hearing.
Ever since that day this government has tried to get around that decision, the UN Convention on Refugee Status and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It refused the quick and fair method for deciding refugee status asked for by Rabbi Plaut, all Canadian churches, Canadian labour, the parliamentary committee on labour, employment and immigration and every independent witness who testified on Bill C-55.
Instead, the government created a tangled, slow and unfair system that has built up a backlog of 21,000 claimants since January 1989 whose cases have not yet been decided.
Now, desperate because 1,900 of this year's claimants are waiting in Newfoundland for decisions, this government imposes still more transit visa restrictions on international travellers through Gander and Mirabel.
On behalf of all Canadians who help real refugees, I call on this government to stop stalling and enact the quick and fair system Canadians asked for.
April 4, 1990


PARLIAMENTARY FORUM ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Forum on Global Climate Change will begin here on Monday, April 23. This is a unique effort of eight standing committees of this House. For the first time committees have joined together to organize a group of expert witnesses who can give a rounded view on a problem of common interest. The forum will form part of a study of the environmental aspects of each committee's field of interest.
The eight organizing committees are delighted that you, Mr. Speaker, with your well-known interest in the environment, will be the opening speaker of the plenary session to begin at 10.30 on Monday, April 23.
As this forum progresses with joint meetings of the participating committees, which will each have chosen a major speaker, I believe parliamentarians and the public will become much better informed with a balanced view on climate change.
Our special proceedings will undoubtedly become excellent reference material on this topic.
I want to thank the many people on all sides of this House who have worked to make this Parliamentary Forum on Global Climate Change a reality.


LITHUANIA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have hundreds of letters here from my constituents urging the Government of Canada to demonstrate support for the Lithuanian people by recognizing the newly-elected government of the Republic of Lithuania. I will ask a page to deliver these to the Secretary of State for External Affairs directly.
Tonight, the Baltic Federation in Canada in conjunction with a committee of parliamentarians is holding its eighteenth annual Baltic evening. This event is a very special event as, historically, the Baltic peoples have held a very special place in the hearts of Canadians.
Tonight's Baltic evening, however, will be unprecedented in its historic significance since, among the guests, we will have the honour of hosting the first
democratically elected Vice-President of the Republic of Lithuania in fifty years, Professor Bronius Kuzmickas.
On behalf of all Canadians to whom democracy is fundamental and human rights are non-negotiable, I say to Mr. Kuzmickas whom I had the pleasure of meeting in Lithuania: Welcome to Canada. We are very proud to have you on Canadian soil.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the U.S. Senate witnessed an historic vote when the vast majority of its members passed a new clean air bill.
The bill concentrates on three specific areas: urban pollution, toxic emissions and acid rain. More specifically, I may say that an annual reduction of ten million tons in sulphur dioxide emissions meets the expectations of and is a response to pressure by the Canadian government on U.S. authorities. All Canadians have reason to rejoice, now that our U.S. neighbours have taken this giant step to protect the environment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the major contribution made by Senator George Mitchell, who has always been Canada's staunchest ally in our fight against acid rain. The door is now wide open for negotiations on a bilateral agreement on acid rain, a plan dear to the heart of the Prime Minister of Canada.


CLEAN AIR ACT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, today I am sure all members of the House will want to join me in congratulating the United States Senate in passing the Clean Air Act last evening by a vote of 89 to 11.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I would like to commend Senator George Mitchell, the U.S. senate majority House leader, for guiding through the legislation and for fulfilling his

April 4, 1990
Oral Questions
commitment to get the bill passed. This bill will provide significant reductions in acid rain crossing into Canada.
I might say that I had the privilege of extending my congratulations by telephone this morning to Senator Mitchell.
We are now hoping that the Elouse of Representatives will introduce and pass this important legislation in order that it can become law this year and we can all breathe a little easier on both sides of the 49th parallel with cleaner air.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday after Question Period the Minister of the Environment said outside the House that Canada's energy ministers were being "too timid" about slashing carbon dioxide emissions. The environment minister went on to say: "We must be bolder".
Does the minister of energy agree with his colleague the Minister of the Environment? If so, will he today stop being timid and take bold steps to set targets to reduce air pollution in Canada?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member talks about being too timid. If that accusation is valid for me, I imagine it is valid for some other people in this House, too.
I want to get directly to the question that the hon. member asked since it is a serious and important question.
After the Toronto conference energy ministers over the two-year period since 1988 looked clearly at what a 20 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions, plus all growth, either industrial or through the use of private motor fuels, would mean in terms of the ability of Canadians to meet the target presented at the Toronto conference for the years between 1988 and 2005.
The first point that has to be made is that that would be a reduction of between 44 per cent and 50 per cent. That is the base line from which we would have to start.
The task force that we commissioned as ministers of energy released a report publicly which states in part: "It is believed that achievement of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005 could cause significant economic dislocation and would likely require significant changes in lifestyle."


Some hon. members:: Table it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It has been made public. I can send hon. members a copy any time they want one.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could proceed to the second question and the minister could continue.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, on March 10, 1989, over a year ago, the Prime Minister and 23 other heads of government signed the Declaration of The Hague which states:
Today, the very conditions of life on our planet are threatened by
severe attacks to which the earth's atmosphere is subjected.
If the Minister of the Environment said yesterday that energy ministers, including his own colleague, were being "too timid" about slashing carbon dioxide emissions and that "we must be bolder", what is he going to do to protect his own credibility to get his colleague to act in this matter? Or, does he disagree both with him and with his Prime Minister?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I never said the word "timid"; never, never in my life.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Lucien Bouchard: We all know that not one of my colleagues is timid. They are all bold and courageous.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: At least they are not timid with me.
What I said is that I hope Canada will be at the forefront of the fight against pollution and CO2 emissions.
April 4, 1990

We will have a very good opportunity during the next month to test to what extent Canadians are willing to accept the radical changes that are needed to reach the targets we would like to set.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the journalists who reported his comments will be happy to release their transcripts of what they heard him say.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, according to the newspapers, the minister said that the statement by the Energy ministers had some positive aspects, including the need for continuing the fight against emissions, but, he said, we must do more. If that is his position, what specific recommendations does he have today for his government? And if he doesn't want to give us his recommendations, how can we take him seriously on a subject that is so important to the future of this country?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think that this government will be the first in the history of Canada to set targets in terms of CO2 reduction.
The decisions we have to make will have to be taken by 1992, at least, when the other countries of the world, led for the most part by Canada, will enter into an international convention to deal with climate change. If it is possible, we should do it earlier. I say "if possible" because we are dealing with possibilities here.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister.
For months we on this side of the House have been telling the government that it is not doing enough to promote the Official Languages Act and that that failure is a direct cause of much of the language tension in this country.
More specifically, we have demanded that the regulations relating to the Official Languages Act, passed 21 months ago in this House, be tabled. Still we have no regulations and no action.
Oral Questions
This morning in an interview on radio station CHEZ-106 the Commissioner of Official Languages, D'Iberville Fortier, also criticized the government's slowness in acting. In fact the commissioner has threatened to resign in order to protest the absolute lack of action by this government.
Will the Prime Minister or the acting Prime Minister tell this House that he finally accepts the fact that the government has failed in this dossier and that it is a part of a major problem in this country that has to be addressed and resolved soon?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the situation with respect to official languages in this country. I had a chance to consult with the commissioner just a few days ago, before he released his report. We had a frank chat about it.
As I mentioned yesterday in answer to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, Bill C-72 imposes a rather complex and rather special process for consultation. This process has been gone through, after the first project of regulations was prepared. Obviously, if you are going to have consultations, the net presumption is that you are going to listen to the people you consult with.
Thus a second project was prepared. The next round of consultations will be getting under way veiy shortly with the major players, including the Commissioner of Official Languages.
This is very important. It is the first reform in 19 years. We want it to be meaningful. We want it to be well accepted, fair and equitable for all Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we phoned all the agencies today. Consultations have taken place and have now been completed, but I will get back to that later.
I would like to say to the minister that the Prime Minister of this country said the Commissioner of Official Languages was an impartial, sensitive and objective observer of language questions in this country. The Commissioner said on radio, yesterday or this morning, that it was as if the government were afraid to implement its own legislation which received practically unanimous support in the House two years ago. Considering these statements, does the minister responsible intend to table the regulations today or at least issue a statement

April 4, 1990
Oral Questions
with an action plan setting forth the Conservative Government's commitment to promoting official languages in this country?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the action plan was already included in Bill C-72. The action plan is being implemented. The government's commitment is firm, and at the appropriate time, after full consultation with the parties concerned, we shall table the regulations in the House, in such a way that they are fair and equitable for all Canadians and are accepted by all linguistic communities in this country.


LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Innu are once again before the courts. They are asking for an injunction to stop low-level flights.
The minister is aware that these flights are considered to be hazardous to the people of Labrador and to the environment. Will the minister finally demonstrate he is truly convinced that it is imporant to protect the environment and will he intervene to put a stop to these low-level flights?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to that question. Obviously I cannot comment on a case that is before the courts.
As the hon. member knows, with respect to the proposed NATO flight training centre, we have indicated that no plans would proceed until there has been a full environmental review and that we would abide by the decisions of that review.
With respect to the existing low-level flights which are going on at Goose Bay, that comes about as a result of agreements which have been signed with our allies going back a number of years. We have agreed to introduce mitigative measures, to introduce monitoring to ensure that we avoid areas with wildlife or with people and to ensure that that activity is carried out in a very responsible manner.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Will the minister co-operate with his colleagues, since environmental issues require joint action from different ministries? If the minister is serious about the environment then he should undertake to do this.
I want to raise another matter with the minister. In his discussion paper tabled last week there are several paragraphs on the Arctic.
We know from many other studies that have occurred before that the Arctic has been largely ignored and that, for example, two-thirds of the children on Broughton Island are suffering from unsafe levels of PCBs in their blood. We need action on the environment now, and we need action in the north.
For example, Inco has offered to assist the Soviet Union to reduce pollution. PCBs are a serious source of pollution in the Arctic. Since we have an international agreement with 17 countries, I am asking the minister if he will move now to discuss with these western countries changing the agreement on transferring technology to the Soviet Union so that we can deal with these serious Arctic problems?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party can see this consultation document is quite complete and sweeping in its scope. The Arctic has been dealt with in the consultation document.
The consultation process will allow us to put different options before Canadians concerning a comprehensive Arctic policy. As we know, the Prime Minister signed agreements with the Soviet Union during his last visit to that country, so we are heading in the right direction concerning the Arctic.
I admit we have much more to do. I hope we will have the support of Canadians to do it at the end of the consultation process.
April 4, 1990


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the minister will certainly have the support of Arctic Canadians, but there have been many recommendations on which he should act now.
I would raise an issue on CO2 emissions and the lack of action by this government. Yesterday, we saw the Senate in the United States at least taking some direct action on SO2 emissions, and in fact the member of Parliament for Parry Sound congratulating the Senate on doing that.
The minister knows full well that global warming will have extreme consequences in the Arctic. When will the minister take some leadership for Canada on the CO2 emissions and in setting those targets by 2005?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I wish the leader of the New Democratic Party would recognize the tremendous role that Canada has played in bringing the United States to this vote.
We all know that the acid rain issue was never raised in any meeting between the President of the United States and the former Prime Minister. Prime Minister Mulro-ney made it happen, and we should be proud of that as a country. As Canadians, this should be the day we enjoy it and be proud of it.
As far as CO2 emissions are concerned, we all know that Canada is at the forefront of countries fighting this pollution problem. We have made commitments on this. The consultation process will give Canadians the opportunity to tell us what they will be ready to pay for and what they will be ready to accept in terms of radical changes. I trust that it will be a joint enterprise.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. At a time when language tensions are escalating in this country, the government has done nothing to implement Bill C-72, which was passed by this House 20 months ago to promote bilingualism and to deal with such issues.
Oral Questions
In August, 1989 the President of the Treasury Board told this House that regulations relating to the Official Languages Act would be tabled before the end of last year. This morning, the media reported that the minister now has said that they would be tabled some time after June 23. When after June 23? What year?
I want to ask the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister, will he give us a date when these regulations will be tabled and we can deal with these issues in this country?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to answer my hon. colleague's allegation that I mentioned June 23 as any kind of a date relating to the regulations. Never, never.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You said that and we have you on tape.


Robert René de Cotret: I would like to have a copy, because I never said that.
The regulations will be tabled in this House as soon as the process set out and agreed to by all members of the House who voted for Bill C-72 is fully completed. They are well on the way. We have worked assiduously to complete the regulations, to go through the consultation process, to revise the regulations as a result of the consultations and to finalize those consultations as of now.
As soon as those are finalized, we will be tabling the regulations in this House.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if the government is doing such a great job, why is the Commissioner of Official Languages threatening to quit his job?
We have contacted the different language associations in this country, and they have stated that they have already consulted with the government.
The Commissioner of Official Languages said that 80 per cent of federal institutions are not applying the 1988 Official Languages Act. He said: "Who is to blame when you are listening to a symphony and it is poorly played? You can say that the conductor has an important role in this."
Once again I want to ask the minister when will he table the regulations? Can he give us an exact date when

April 4, 1990
Oral Questions
he will table these regulations, considering that the consultations have already taken place? What is holding him up? Who is he afraid of?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, certainly not the opposition.
It is very simple, the regulations will be completed as soon as the process set out in Bill C-72 is fully completed.


William Warren Allmand: It is already 20 months.


Robert René de Cotret: We have wasted no efforts to complete that process. That process is still on-going. We are following the law, which may be a strange concept to some people opposite. We are following Bill C-72 and we will table the regulations as soon as the process is completed.


TAXATION
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance told Canadians that they were not legally required to repay old age pension funds and family allowance funds because the clawback scheme that the government has put forward has still not been passed by Parliament.
Subsequently, the Department of National Revenue has stated that it will calculate what would be due and withhold refunds.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance today who has it right? Are those people obliged to pay those amounts now or is the Department of National Revenue going to get its way and withhold the funds?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as with any budgetary provisions, obviously the taxpayer has the right to file a notice of objection at which time the payment would be assessed. When and if the provision becomes law and receives Royal Assent, then there has to be a re-assessment and the tax-back provision would come into effect.
The taxpayer has a choice. But as I stated yesterday, we urge Canadians to comply with the provisions that are stated in the Ways and Means motion in order to prevent the ensuing confusion that may take place at a later date. As of today and before Royal Assent is given, the taxpayer has the option to file a notice of objection or comply with the Ways and Means motion which is currently on the books.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. A number of people in Alberta, people generally, the premier, the treasurer of that province all oppose the goods and services tax because they are very much aware of what kind of havoc the GST will bring to Alberta. The Government of Alberta has produced a study showing that the impact on Albertans will be very, very serious.
Will the Minister of Finance admit to Albertans that, in fact, his goods and services tax is going to fuel inflation in that province as well as across the country, maintain high interest rates in Canada, and reduce consumer spending in Alberta and across the nation? Will he come clean with Albertans today?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have come clean with Albertans. I have said precisely what our analysis shows the impact will be in the province of Alberta. Alberta will benefit from the replacement of the manufacturers' sales tax with the goods and services tax to a greater extent than any other province in the country: close to 3 per cent in terms of increased income.
I have made the point, as my hon. friend has heard me say, that Albertans today are paying $685 for every man, woman and child through the manufacturers' sales tax. That has hardly changed as a result of the replacement of that tax with the goods and services tax.
It is very hard to understand the impact that the Alberta government says the GST will have on consumer spending. Where the impact will be felt will be because of the fact that Albertans are major exporters and that is where the GST will benefit their economy. Albertans will benefit because the cost of capital or the cost of a new oil well or a new pulp and paper plant will drop in price and also because the Alberta economy will benefit from opportunities to expand and diversify as a result of the combination of the federal sales tax being replaced by the goods and services tax and the free trade agreement.
April 4, 1990


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health. It has been revealed this week that the Department of Health has secretly commissioned further studies into the Meme breast implant. Yet the official position of the department remains that of the Kerrigan report that women should not worry.
Given that the government-commissioned Kerrigan report has been widely discredited, even called a plagiary by one leading researcher in the field, will the minister finally admit that his department has been misleading Canadian women on the safety of this implant, and will he withdraw this dangerous product from the marketplace until it is proven safe?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it would take more time than I have to correct all the inaccuracies in the hon. member's question. Let me, however, indicate a number of things to him.
First, we have not commissioned secret reports. A number of researchers have come to us to make proposals for research that they would like to do, which we have agreed to finance, and I think it is appropriate that we should do that. We have not had concerns which led us to commission reports.
Second, one of the reports that the member claims to be commissioned, which is being done by the Ottawa Heart Institute, is looking at all aspects of polyurethane in implants in Canada. It is not simply looking at the Meme breast implant.
Third, there have been some 12,000 Meme breast implants sold in Canada since 1984. The incidence of failure among the Meme is considerably lower than the failure rate among other breast implants. That should be a matter of which the hon. gentleman should be aware.
Additionally, there is a good deal of question about research that was alleged to have discredited the Meme when the hon. member gave his press conference earlier in the week.
I would like to make a proposal to the hon. member. Instead of going out and making false allegations, if the hon. member would like to have the facts, I would be
Oral Questions
pleased to have arranged for him a full briefing by officials within the department to give him the appropriate information so that he would have the information before making his allegations, instead of making his allegations first and seeking information after.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, both studies in the United States and in Canada show that this implant deteriorates within the body and produces carcinogenic products which then are distributed throughout the woman's body. There is no necessity to keep this product on the market while it is being investigated, none whatsoever.
Remembering that there are 60 cases in the United States and more than one in Canada in which this issue is being raised because of the safety of the product, what is more important to the minister: the profits of a distributor and a handful of plastic surgeons, or the safety and health of Canadian women?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the approach that is being taken by the hon. member is irresponsible. What he does is to frighten women and he does so in a way that is totally irresponsible because he has not taken the effort to get the information before making these allegations.
The House will recall that a minute ago I simply offered to the hon. member to give him a full briefing in this matter. He did not indicate his willingness to take up the briefing. I would indicate to him as well that the University of Florida study to which he refers has been largely discredited. He would have known that if he had bothered to check his facts first.
I would like to repeat that invitation to him. I will make the invitation as well to our colleague from Winnipeg North who, unlike the hon. gentleman, has been responsible in seeking information first before making false allegations.


ACID RAIN
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In light of the legislation passed last night in the United States Senate by a majority of 89 to 11,1 am sure the minister is gratified and I would hope that his ministry will now be pursuing in every way with his provincial counterparts to ensure that we are doing

April 4, 1990
Oral Questions
everything within our power to control acid rain as soon as possible.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right and we all know his interest on this great issue for Canada.
As a matter of fact, this vote moves us much closer to the opening of formal negotiations with the Americans. During last year, on many occasions, U.S. and Canadian officials have met to set up the framework and the essential elements of what the agreement could contain.
We think that those formal negotiations should begin very soon. We hope that it will be possible to conclude an agreement by the fall.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Health. I am a woman and I am very concerned about the Meme breast implant.
Why is the Minister of Health placing at risk all women in this country? The American manufacturer of this product has stated that household polyfoam is not designed for implantation within the human body.
Why is the minister not removing this product from the market? Why is he placing the women of this country at great risk?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I am threatening the health of all the women in this country. That sort of an exaggeration does no credit to the hon. member.


Mr. Dionne:: Why don't you turn your collar around?


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the hon. member will pay attention-


Mr. Tiirner (Vancouver Quadra):: Get back on your tricycle.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -the goal of all hon. members in the House, irrespective of which side of the House they sit on, should be to ensure the safety of all Canadians and not falsely create fear among Canadians. As a consequence, I would invite the hon. member to have a full
briefing with regard to this, to receive the information first before making false allegations of this nature.
For example, if the hon. member is referring to the University of Florida study, which was referred to by another hon. member earlier, any plastic subjected to very high temperatures, which do not exist in the human body, will break down into carcinogens. The University of Florida study has been discredited.
If hon. members on any side of the House would like to have the facts, I again repeat the offer to make the facts available to them. I would invite them, before making false allegations which unnecessarily frighten people, to get the facts.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, these are not my points of view. The points of view I am stating today come from research scientists in the minister's own health department, top scientists who have resigned because of this issue.
If I may be so bold, I wonder if this was something that was going to be implanted into the male body, would he be as concerned today?
This product is not being implanted in any Ottawa-Carleton hospital today. It is recognized in the Ottawa-Carleton region as a danger to women. Why, Mr. Minister, can you not remove this product from the market until it has been safely tested?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member indicates is that nothing will convince her that the implant is safe.
She suggested that somehow there is a matter of discrimination here, that if men were involved this product would be off the market, but because it involves women it is on the market. That sort of an allegation brings no credit to the hon. member at all.
The hon. member will know that Dr. Keon from Ottawa is studying the uses of polyurethane, not simply as it relates to breast implants but the degradation of all polyurethane used in implants. Polyurethane is used in a whole range of medical devices, used in both men and women. The health and safety of every Canadian, male or female, is essential to us.
April 4, 1990

The hon. member says that members of my department have resigned. I would welcome the names of those members of my department. I am aware of one case where there has been a resignation of an individual.
I can tell the hon. member that the advice received by the Medical Devices Branch within my department is that the Meme breast implant is believed to be at least as safe as any other implant. Statistics show that the failure rate among the Meme breast implants is considerably lower than among every other silicone breast implant.
If we were to follow the hon. member's suggestion, we would be saying that we would withdraw a device with a lower failure rate than the other ones, and would require women in the interim to have implants which have a higher failure rate. She would be the first one to complain if we were to do that.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. When she commissioned the Canadian Labour Market Productivity Centre Task Forces on Labour Force Development Strategy some months ago, she said she would heed the recommendations of those task forces.
When the task forces submitted their report a couple of days ago, they emphasized in no less than four separate recommendations that the unemployment insurance account be used exclusively for income maintenance and income supplement.
In light of that, will the minister now reconsider her own recommendation that $800 million be used from the unemployment insurance account for training purposes, and will she accept instead her own committee's recommendation?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of recommendations in the report that was received this week. I think that it is going to be very helpful to us in setting up our training strategy which we plan to implement as soon as we get Bill C-21.
Oral Questions
As I explained to some of the people who represented the Labour Management Productivity Centre, I am prepared to take into account all of their recommendations. Clearly this is a difficult one for us, given our present financial situation, as I do not have other resources at the moment for the kinds of training and the other recommendations that they are making.
I do want to thank them for the very hard work that they have done, because I believe it is going to be very helpful to us as soon as we get Bill C-21.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, those same task forces take into consideration the financial dilemma that the minister finds herself in and they propose two alternatives for funding for training. In fact, what they suggest for her consideration are tax credit incentives for employers who engage in training, or that a payroll tax on all employers with a rebate for those who engage in training be implemented.
Which of these two will the minister consider as an alternative to taking funds that her task force says should be used exclusively-and I stress exclusively-for income supplement and income maintenance?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we will of course be looking at all of the recommendations and I will have a response to the report in due course.
I am very interested in the hon. member's question, because I would like to know what the position of the Liberal party is on this issue. It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the member for LaSalle who is running for the leadership of this party said that he thought the Senate should drop their opposition to this bill. He said: "I think what they should do is drop their opposition to the unemployment bill".
Is that the hon. member's position, the Liberal party's position, the leader's position, the Senate's position? Who has a position in the Liberal party?


CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, whoever that might be. It has to do with the heightened concern around the world about the spread and the use of chemical weapons as a result of the Iraqi threat against

April 4, 1990
Oral Questions
Israel the other day and the well-known fact that these chemicals are being stockpiled in various places by various nations.
I want to ask the government whether it intends to show more leadership on this issue. Specifically, does it intend to use its seat on the Security Council of the United Nations to provoke new international momentum with respect to a total ban on chemical weapons and an international context in which nations which threaten not only to possess but to use these kinds of weapons are brought to heel?


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is extremely timely. The statement by President Hussein in relation to chemical weapons is one that the Government of Canada condemns as being of an extremely bellicose nature in an area that is already tense and it in no way advances the cause of peace.
I would like to raise two points in answer to the hon. member's specific question. First, Canada as a nation does not export to Iraq any equipment, material, chemicals or any substances that could be used in the development of chemical weapons.
Second, in relation to the question of the Security Council, this is a point that I will bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because I think the leadership role that Canada can play in this, as the hon. member suggests, is very timely and important and the Government of Canada would like to do that.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of the Environment. As the minister knows, the Department of National Defence developed and tested a number of chemical and biological weapons at Suffield, Alberta and other sites, including one in the province of Quebec.
Since some sites may still be contaminated with deadly agents such as anthrax, and since the Department of National Defence is known to cover up rather than clean up incidents such as this, will the Minister of the Environment undertake an immediate and complete search of all government records to determine and make public the location of such development and testing sites
and test these sites for contamination, particularly the anthrax site in the province of Quebec?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that the Department of National Defence is hiring someone to go back over the records of the second world war to see if there is any further information or evidence which could confirm or deny whether field tests of anthrax, for example, took place at either Grosse Isle or at Suffield. We will certainly make whatever information that comes out of this review public.
As I am sure the member is aware, the Department of National Health and Welfare is undertaking investigations this summer in Grosse Isle to determine if there is any evidence of anthrax in that part of the country.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, while the Prime Minister was musing about the benefits of a proposed trade agreement for Mexico with the United States, Canadian workers continued to lose their jobs and Canadian industry continue to move south.
For example, we have the announcement today in the riding of the Minister of Supply and Services just outside of Ottawa, that Speedo Swimwear is moving to Kentucky with 70 jobs being lost; Bright's Wines is closing down a major winery in the Surrey area of British Columbia; the International Packers plant in Saskatoon will have 60 jobs lost because of harassment under the pork restrictions in the United States.
How can we be talking of being sucked into a North American trade agreement when in fact this government provides no adjustment, no support for the Canadian victims of the existing free trade agreement? How can we do that and find ourselves putting our workers in double jeopardy, not only with the Americans but now with the Mexicans?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if I can recall the hon. member's attention to what the Prime Minister said yesterday, he did not say we were entering into discussions with the Mexicans and
April 4, 1990

Americans on a North American free trade agreement. He talked positively about the need for freer trade, as is exemplified by our actions in the GATT negotiations now and the negotiations that led to the free trade agreement with the United States.
The hon. member talks about job loss. This is another instance of the hon. member for Etobicoke North saying that every time someone loses his job-every time a sparrow falls-we will blame it on free trade. What must be recalled is that in the first two months of the year, the bottom line is that there have been 64,000 jobs created. There were some 250,000 jobs created bottom line last year.
About four million jobs change hands during the course of a year, some through job loss, some through people moving from one job to another, but because of the significance of that dynamism in our economy, the important thing to look at is the bottom line, and the bottom line is very positive, 64,000 jobs in two months.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line contained in the minister's own documents tabled in this House at budget time is that there will be 100,000 jobs less this coming year than there were last year. Is that as a result of the free trade agreement? Is that what he is saying is a benefit?
The government commissioned its own study on the auto parts industry which points out that we are already facing intense competition from Mexico and the southeastern United States. We are in danger of losing close to 80 per cent of our auto parts industry. The government is providing no support for the restructuring of that industry and now it finds itself being drawn into a North American trade agreement.
When is the government going to get a sound policy that will protect the interests of the workers in the auto parts industry and the workers throughout this country?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the views of the hon. member from Winnipeg-South-Centre on free trade are well known, and I suggest his reaction is no surprise. It has become a fixation and there is no way anybody can change that. However, I beleive people realize the automobile industry right now is going through a period
Oral Questions
of over-production and under-consumption, and is now in an adjustment period. Clearly, the automobile parts industry also is affected. However, we have now seen since the beginning of this year that a number of laid-off employees have been recalled. Again, I believe this is typical of that industry. Let them blame that on the United States or free trade if they will Mr. Speaker, and I am even amazed that today's rain is not being blamed on the United States.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice of a question of privilege which I believe affects myself and other members of this House. In introducing the question of privilege, I would like to quote form the ruling you made in the House on April 14, 1987, a ruling that you referred to again on March 26, 1990. You said:
It is essential to our democratic system. The controversial issue should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and the reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the majority. They are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They provide the Opposition with a means to delay a decision. They also provide the majority with a means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to the procedure of a democratic assembly. Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the total frustration of one side or the other, the total stagnation of debate, or the total paralysis of the system.
Mr. Speaker, I remember the night you made that ruling. You made that ruling at a time when the opposition parties were fighting C-22, the drug legislation. At that time the opposition had totally paralyzed the government's ability to move forward on that legislation.
You, Mr. Speaker, in making that ruling, recognized that you were going beyond the mere written rules of the House, that you were looking at the purpose of debate, at the purpose of the rules. You recognized that you were looking beyond the actual wording. You made a

April 4, 1990
Oral Questions
unique ruling on that occasion, a ruling which you yourself, on reflection, had said would come back to haunt the House. It meant that every time there was a legitimate grievance by one side or the other with regard to how the new rules and procedures are being used, you would be appealed to to make a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the hon. member, especially because he is referring to a specific order of the Chair. Other members have indicated their wish to rise on a point of order. I may be able to help the House.
I would like the hon. member to tell me exactly what his point of privilege is. What is it somebody has done that is making it impossible for him or others to carry on their duties?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to do that and will be doing so immediately.
Yesterday, when the government rose on notice of motion to limit report stage and third reading on the goods and services legislation, it severely limited the right of each and every member, whether on the government side or on the opposition side, from entering into any real debate on the issues that were before this House.
Mr. Speaker, if I could refer again to your ruling. Yesterday when you grouped the issues for debate you said, as reported at page 10125 of Hansard:
I want to point out that this ruling does not limit debate in a
significant way with respect to report stage. I have done some
careful calculations and under this ruling there will be 11 debates
and 26 votes plus the final vote at report stage for concurrence.
Mr. Speaker, you go on to say that this may be subject to some other rule of the House. The point is that in your ruling yesterday, you allowed us 11 different debates on the different types of amendments that come before this House.
I would submit that the actions that took place in the finance committee severely limited opposition parties to debate amendments at report stage. You are aware that at that particular finance committee, as a result of the ruling by the Chair, upheld by the majority-we do not doubt that-the opposition parties were limited to one minute per amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I am listening carefully and I recognize a grievance when I hear one. But, in respect of the committee, I have already dealt with that in a ruling. I gather what the hon. member is saying, on behalf of other members in the House and himself, is that the use of time allocation in the report stage of the bill is an abusive process amounting to a breach of the privilege of members. Now, if I am leaping ahead please correct me, but I take it that is the point the hon. member is making.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is part of the point that I am trying to make in this House and I think it is a matter of not only what happened in the House yesterday, because even before debate had started, even though Orders of the Day had been called and you had made a ruling over the grouping of the amendments for debate, even before any motion had been moved by an opposition member, the government gave its notice to restrict debate on report stage and third reading. This in itself is abhorrent.
This in itself restricts me and other members in this House from having the ability to discuss the amendments that were proposed, and we know that under the ways that this House works, 10 of those 11 groupings will probably never even be started in debate in this House.
I mentioned the committee stage and the ruling of the chair of the finance committee, because this was also related to the study of this particular piece of legislation. It is my submission that the opposition was never given the opportunity at report stage or in committee to debate this important legislation. We were not given any opportunity whatsoever to have a meaningful debate on each and every one of the amendments that we wish to put forward.
My submission, Mr. Speaker, and it relates to the rules of the House, is that under the rules of the House we are to attend the House. We must assume that we attend the House for a purpose, and part of that purpose is to make motions and to have the ability to debate those motions. If we allow committee chairs to continue to limit debate, in a manner which is completely useless, if we are in a situation where, before debate even starts on report stage and third reading, the government is going to cut off debate, then what is the purpose of a member of Parliament attending the House? What is the purpose of a member of Parliament making motions? What is the purpose of having the opportunity to debate if the government is going to deny that opportunity time after
April 4, 1990

time, at each and every stage of the bill? That is significant to the privileges of each member of the House and it is significant to the privileges of all members of this House.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I intend to respond very quickly and immediately to the point made by the hon. member, not because the hon. member does not put forward a grievance. He does, and he puts it forward with argument and with eloquence, but he is asking me to interfere on the basis that it is privilege.
I do not think that I can do that, at least not under the circumstances. The government, for whatever reason, has decided to follow orders of this place which are placed here as a consequence of the will of the House and to which we are all bound.
Second, as a consequence of the time allocation order, there has to be a vote of this House. That takes authority over other things. I take nothing away from what the hon. member has said. His grievance has been veiy well put forward, clearly, succinctly, and with some passion, but it is not a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the point raised by the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons yesterday concerning Bill C-21. I need some guidance, and I would like the Chair to reflect on the comments I am going to make.
The minister raised a point of order to argue his case against the message of the Senate regarding Bill C-21.
I had some difficulty with the debate yesterday, because to me it seemed highly irregular-


Mr. Speaker:: One moment, please.
Point of Order

I think I indicated yesterday that, accepting the invitation of the hon. member for Kamloops, I was going to put off further argument on that matter until I could consult with all parties, and come back at a time convenient to everybody.
At least one member came to me earlier today and wanted to know if I was going to proceed this afternoon. I said I have no intention of proceeding this afternoon. There is no need, in case anybody feels that they are not yet in a position to argue, to proceed.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier probably does have some points which will be of help to me. I would ask hon. members to concur and to accept the arrangement which we made yesterday. That is where it is going to be. I will come back to all hon. members involved as soon as it is appropriate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste the time of the House. I am just trying to understand the process here, because rules and order of this House is what the Chair is supposed to keep. I understand that. I want to make sure that I understand the same rules.
In view of citation 315 of the fifth edition of Beau-chesne, I just want to ask why, yesterday, a point of order was allowed on a decision made by a majority of this House some 20 days ago to return a message to the Senate, which contained an acceptance of one amendment and others in principle.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member alluded to that yesterday. It will be part of my eventual reply. It is part of the argument that takes place as to whether or not the point of order was, under all the circumstances, even in order. I will deal with all that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 315:
(2) It is irregular to reflect upon, argue against, or in any manner call in question in debate past acts or proceedings of the House,
That is what the minister did yesterday. I ask you to rule on that.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not entirely sure the hon. member is right.
There was more than one message from the Senate. I am not going to argue the case of hon. members at the moment. The matter has been put off. I will come back.

April 4, 1990
Point of Order
All of these arguments can be made, but, as I made very clear yesterday, I am accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops on this matter.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, before this House becomes a scene of another attack on democracy, I move:
That strangers be ordered to withdraw.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has moved a motion. First, I want to say to the hon. member that I think precedent and procedural law are such that it is not appropriate to move that motion unless the hon. member has the floor on debate, and I am so ruling. That does not mean that the hon. member may not move the motion at another time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with anything else I would like the Chair to inform us which Standing Order says that we must be in debate. Standing Order 14 of this House states:
If any Member takes notice that strangers are present, the Speaker or the Chairman (as the case may be), shall forthwith put the question "That strangers be ordered to withdraw", without permitting any debate or amendment; provided that the Speaker or the Chairman may order the withdrawal of strangers.
That is it. I do not see any reason or need for us to be in debate on this question. I think it is a point of order that could be taken up at any time. I want to have quotations and the Standing Order that says we must be in debate to have that motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, obviously before I moved that motion to expel strangers it was well researched. I must say that on a number of occasions in this House, to say nothing of the Mother of Parliament in Britain, it has been used on a point of order. I would say that almost exclusively it has been used in the United Kingdom on a point of order.
As my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier has indicated, this is not open to discussion. Standing Order 14 reads:
If any Member takes notice that strangers are present, the Speaker or the Chairman (as the case may be), shall forthwith put the question "That strangers be ordered to withdraw", without permitting any debate or amendment; provided that the Speaker or the Chairman may order the withdrawal of strangers.
The critical word is "shall". It is not will, not may, but in fact shall. Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, I can go
on at some length both in terms of precedents in our House and particularly in the Mother of Parliament.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is concerned that there may have been an error in the Speaker's ruling and the hon. member for Kamloops is indicating that he wants some clarification as well. Speakers are not infallible. I am going to stand the House down for a few minutes to respond to the concern that has been mentioned. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.18 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 3.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I want to thank all members of the House for their courtesy, especially the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the hon. member for Kamloops for allowing me a few minutes to respond to the question put by both hon. members.
The matter arises from a motion put on a point of order by the hon. member for Kamloops at the end of Question Period. That motion is in effect a motion which when the hon. member sees a stranger involves putting the matter to the House. The House would vote as to whether or not the House ought to be cleared. That is, all people in this Chamber whether they are guests or the public or whether they work for the House, other than members of Parliament, would have to clear the House. The House would then move to a secret session.
The ruling I made was that it is not appropriate to move that particular motion on a point of order. At that point both hon. members in a very courteous way asked if I could give them authority to do that.
I have considered the authorities and I would like to share them with hon. members. First, I am referring to Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 234(2):
A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion.
The second citation I wish to bring to the attention of the House is Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 318(2):

**********I
April 4, 1990

A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion-except for a motion that a Member be now heard.
I refer to the Annotated Standing Orders, page 459, footnote No. 1:
Although Members cannot move motions when recognized on a point of order (Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 78), if the Chair has not recognized a Member to move a motion "That a Member be now heard" -
-and goes on to discuss that particular exception. I have tried to accommodate hon. members and give the reason for the order, and as I have said before, if there are practices here that hon. members do not agree with in terms of our rules and procedures then of course there is a time and place to decide to change them if possible. I think I have to say that the ruling I made must stand.
I want to point out something else. This ruling is on the narrow point as to whether or not the hon. member could move the motion on a point of order. That is all it is. There may be another discussion with respect to what it was the hon. member from Kamloops wanted to do.
I thank hon. members for their courtesy.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to table, in both official languages, the Order in Council announcing recent appointments made by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), this Order in Council shall be deemed to have been referred to the standing committees listed in appendix.
[English)
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.
Routine Proceedings


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


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion 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 (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried. Orders of the day, the hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Marcel Danis: That regarding Bill C-62, an Act to amend the Excise Thx Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Thriff, the Excise Act, the Income Thx Act, the Statistics Act and the Thx Court of Canada Act, one day be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one day to the consideration of third reading stage of the bill; and that fifteen minutes before the end of each of these stages, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose, respectively, of the report stage and third reading shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did comment on this time allocation motion in our debate yesterday and I would like to repeat what I said at that time because there are a number of more members in the House.
We have been debating Bill C-62 for some while now. We have had a White Paper, a technical paper, draft legislation, consultations and committee hearings. But I think what we found very clearly demonstrated yesterday was when you, Sir, were asked to go through amendment after amendment which said exactly the same thing. It wasted 15 minutes of time of this House, 15 minutes of time which could have been used by a member for a speech on this bill. It became clear as I listened to you reading through these amendments and to the hon. members opposite saying "no" every time you said: "Shall I dispense?", that they had absolutely no intention of wanting to debate or discuss this legislation. What they wanted to do was waste the time of the House. This is exactly the same as what we have heard from the members opposite in the New Democratic Party who have made no secret of their motives here. Their motives are very clear, as has been stated by the House Leader and others in the New Democratic Party, that they will use every means within their control to delay, divert, and
April 4, 1990

obstruct this legislation. That, Mr. Speaker, is so clear, and that is why we had to bring in a motion for time allocation.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Perhaps you could remind members that it is unparliamentary to call into question the motives of members of parliament, as the Minister of Finance is now doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate, the hon. Minister of Finance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not calling into question any member's motives; I am just stating very clearly the motive of the members of the New Democratic Party as stated by themselves. It is very clear. I am not imputing motives or questioning motives. It is fundamentally clear that what they want to do is divert this legislation.


M. Douglas Young: Of course we do.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Scrap the tax.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite say: "Scrap the tax. Axe the tax". We have every intention of axing the tax. The tax that we are going to axe is a federal sales tax, the manufacturers' sales tax, that has been in place since-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nault:: There won't be a Tory left in Alberta.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair on a point of order.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister wants to impugn or describe the motives of the New Democratic Party, I ask to defend the interests of the Canadian people, a vast majority of whom oppose this legislation.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have here an outburst by a member from Windsor who is saying that the New Democratic Party is protecting the interests of the Canadian people. Let me ask this hon. member why the New Democrats are in support of a tax which holds back Canadian exports. In Windsor there are many exporters. In southwestern Ontario-
Time Allocation


An hon. member:: That's not true.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says it is not true. Time and again, the members of the automotive industry, the chemical industry, the other elements of the manufacturing industry, the mining sector, the forest products sector, the basic industries, the strength of our economy, have all said that the existing tax is providing a hidden tax that is holding back their ability to export into other countries and create jobs and economic wealth here in Canada.


M. Douglas Young: That's not the way to go.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: On the other side, there are people in the economy, Canadian producers who are competing against imports-


Robert Daniel Nault: It's good for tourists too!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and these companies have to pay one-third more tax than the imports against which they compete. Why is it that the hon. member from Windsor and the member for Broadview- Greenwood persist in supporting a tax that is holding back our economy? It makes no sense for them to do this.


M. Douglas Young: They want a fair tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Minister of Finance has the floor.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to also draw to the attention of members opposite that there was a royal commission in 1940; there was another study in 1956; there was the Carter Commission in 1966; there was a further report in 1973; and there was a fifth report in 1983. I believe each one of these reports was commissioned or appointed by the Liberal government of the day and each one of these reports has said: "Scrap the tax. Axe the tax. The tax must go".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted I was saying that there were five royal commissions or committee reports that all said we should be scrapping the existing manufacturers' sales tax.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I was delighted to see the members opposite surge to their feet and say: "That is exactly what this government should be doing". I am

April 4, 1990
Time Allocation
delighted that the members opposite now are coming to their senses, that they realize that the tax that must be axed is the federal sales tax, which for 65 years has been holding back this economy.
We are committed to bringing in this legislation. That is the essence of the direction that we are going in as a government.
The member for Gloucester yesterday talked about the consistency of the position of the Liberal party. This is a delightful thought to try to consider.
First, he said the existing tax has to go. Shortly after that he changed his tune, possibly because someone in his party got after him. The previous Liberal finance critic was yanked because he talked some sense. The members of the Liberal caucus said he could not stay on in that position. So I guess my friend from Gloucester felt that same heat and changed his position.
What has been perfectly consistent since that time is that there have been no alternatives. There have been no options. There have been no new ideas-


Mr. Mills:: That is not right. You know that is not right. How can you say that with a straight face?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me complete my thought. There have been no thoughts put forward, no options put forward that represent the position of the Liberal party.
My friend from Broadview-Greenwood has a little book that he has written about tax. We have the position of Mr. Chretien, who is running for the leadership of the Liberal party, who said: "I would not scrap the GST if it comes in".
Then we have the position of Mr. Martin, the member for LaSalle-Emard who says: "I'll scrap this tax, if we do not have some negotiations going on over here with the provinces". Or he says: "I'll scrap the tax, if there is not an opportunity here to improve the existing tax".
The whole nature of what we are hearing from members of the Liberal party is that they are on a bandwagon. They are political hijackers. They are trying to hijack the political process, because they do not have any options.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They are trying to jump on the bandwagon. They are trying to get on the bandwagon of opposition, saying: "We are against this tax". That is what they are saying to the Canadian people. Then, when they get crowded a little as to what would happen if we had-God help us-a Liberal party in place, what do we hear from them?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have listened to this drivel for 10 minutes, which I thought that was the maximum amount of time we would have to be exposed to such comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member started at 4.42 p.m. He is finishing at 4.52 p.m.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have been interrupted by such thunderous applause from time to time that you have had to extend the time for my speech.
I want to close, if I could, by commenting on what the member for Gloucester said yesterday when he stated that this tax is not visible. I do not know how much more visible the member for Gloucester could want this tax.
Is there anybody in this country who does not know about the 7 per cent GST? Is there anybody in the country who is aware how much existing federal sales tax they pay in the price of a jacket, a coat, a car or in the price of a chocolate bar?


Nelson Andrew Riis: How about a haircut?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No. The existing tax is totally invisible. The 7 per cent tax is a very visible tax.
I have said on many occasions that it is a very democratic tax. Governments in the future will be held far more accountable by the fact that the GST is a visible tax. Canadians understand this tax. They will know that if any government wants to change it in the future, they will be able to punish that government if there is not a good, appropriate reason for it. That is the reason why we on this side feel it is the right way to go.
It is not popular, and we understand that. We were not elected to do the popular things. We were elected to do the things that are right for this country, things that will improve the economy, improve the treatment of senior
April 4, 1990

citizens and low-income people. This is the direction that we feel as a country we should be going in.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to watch the Minister of Finance wriggle around on his goods and services tax. As he was concluding his remarks, the Minister of Finance stated that surely the GST is visible and that everybody in Canada knows that there is going to be a 7 per cent GST because we have talked so much about it. If that were the test, I think that the minister would have to agree that the FST must be visible because he spoke incessantly about it over the last year and one half. If the GST is visible because he has talked about it, certainly the FST has now become visible as well.
The minister is right about the fact that you can punish governments, I understand that. The minister says that governments will be punished if they misuse the GST. The fact is the FST has gone from 9 per cent in 1984 to 13.5 per cent in 1990.
When you look at the 32 tax increases the government has put forward you see that this government has shown great courage with respect to taxation. It makes no difference if it is visible or invisible-it will tax anything that moves.
When you look at the web of deception that is being woven here, Mr. Speaker, and when you listen to the Minister of Finance who answered in the House today a question I put to him by saying that Albertans would be better off under the goods and services tax, imagine what the Minister of Finance and the government are saying to Albertans. While people across that province say no to the GST, and while the government of that province publishes reports indicating the kind of havoc that will be wreaked on Alberta if this tax is put through, the minister, the government and their supporters in the House get up and say: "The tax will be good for Albertans'.
The Minister of Finance talked about royal commissions, reports and studies. I defy the Minister of Finance to produce one report or one study that talked about implementing a goods and services tax, a value-added tax, a business transfer tax or any type of consumer-driven tax that is two-tiered. Never has that been suggested, not only by a royal commission or a study in
Time Allocation
Canada, but it has never been suggested by anybody in the world.


Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre):: What about Liberal support for the multi-stage tax?


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice brings up a very good point. The support for the multi-stage tax that was put in place in the committee was for a single tax.
The Minister of Justice should be very careful when she talks about support for various public positions that she has taken. The Minister of Justice is not in a very good position to talk about positions she has supported before, and what she is doing now. I would be more careful of my own position if I were her.
When the Minister of Justice speaks to the women of Canada pretty soon on bills that she is bringing before the House, maybe she will have more to say about switching her position. The Minister of Justice is going to have a short-lived career on the front pages of women's magazines in this country if she keeps this up.
I want to make sure that the people of Canada understand what is taking place here today. We are talking on behalf of Canadians because parliamentarians are going through the same process as the government has imposed on Canadians. It is refusing to listen. If you are against the GST, it is because you do not understand it. But the government will not let you talk about it long enough to make sure that the 20 per cent of Canadians who are left, who do not oppose this tax, will in fact change their minds to make it 100 per cent of Canadians who reject this tax.
I defy any member to go out to Alberta or other parts of the country to see the fear and frustration that Canadians are experiencing over this tax.
One thing that the Conservatives have done as a government is impose time allocation. If this government had been in charge during the French Revolution, it would have made Robespierre look like Peter Rabbit. They pull the guillotine more often than anybody else has in the history of this country.


Some hon. members:: Shame!


M. Douglas Young: Not only is the government forcing time allocation to make sure it gets rid of this bill as far as the House of Commons is concerned before Easter, if you are a Conservative and you oppose this bill you are expelled. You are exiled. You cannot as a Conservative be against this bill. They can only control

April 4, 1990
Time Allocation
people to a certain extent. Mr. Kindy, Mr. Kilgour, people like that, are expelled.
But what about Don Getty? Is he going to be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the hon. member is to name some member of the House, I hope he will name him by his constituency.


M. Douglas Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Two Conservative members from Alberta were expelled from their party. Imagine a member representing people in Edmonton or a member representing people in Calgary being expelled.
What would be important to know from the Conservatives is whether Conservatives who oppose the tax are going to be thrown out of the party. I want to know what they are going to do with Don Getty and Dick Johnston. Is the member who was so proud of the expulsion of those two members going to say to Don Getty and Dick Johnston: "We don't want you any more"? No.
This tax goes against Conservative principles.


Mr. Lewis:: What principles?


M. Douglas Young: I will explain the principles, since the Minister of Transport asks.
Let me explain the four principles that the Minister of Finance set out in his document last August. In the document written by the Department of Finance and issued under the name of the Minister of Finance, he said that the tax would be integrated, a unified tax. Is it? Of course not. No, it is not integrated because Conservative premiers across the country, like the premiers of Nova Scotia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, say: "No".
I do not know if the government has a national caucus to which premiers are invited or if someone is going to take the opportunity to boot them out as well, but Conservatives do not support the goods and services tax because this particular proposal which has been brought before the House is so flawed that they cannot sell it to their own members.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to see some fear-and you have seen some in a previous incarnation-you must be really concerned about what is happening to anybody who steps out of line. The sign that was put up today states: "Tories beware. Anybody who steps out of line has
committed political suicide". That is what they are being told.
The two members from Alberta have been told: "You are to serve as an example. You are expendable". If the word goes out to members of Parliament that they cannot speak their minds without suffering expulsion from the caucus, then you, Mr. Speaker, must be seeing a lot of frustration to your right.


Philip Derek Lewis: Do you want them?


M. Douglas Young: The hon. Minister of Justice is getting involved before the baseball season begins by doing some bartering here. He might be looking for a trade.
I am sure that the two members in question from Alberta will have all kinds of opportunities to explain to the people of Alberta why they can no longer speak their minds inside the caucus.
The Minister of Finance in his brief speech today talked about tax reform. Six years of government planning has wound up in a sales tax that is opposed by 80 per cent of the Canadian people.
Can you imagine anybody could botching a job to that extent? Some 80 per cent of Canadians are opposed to the goods and services tax. The sad thing about all of this is that the government has now got so used to time allocation, to the guillotine, that it does it without compunction. There was a time when this kind of action would raise the ire of Canadians and every member of this House. Now, it is as simple as sitting down to breakfast. The government House leader sits down with the Prime Minister and a few other people and says: "I guess we will muzzle Parliament again today".
Canadians are going to hear a lot more about the GST. Canadians will continue to be against the GST. No matter how many times the government imposes time allocation, it is never going to convince Canadians that this terrible tax is an acceptable one.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Canadian people should be realizing today is that what we are seeing from the Conservative government across the way is some of the heaviest handed tactics we have seen in the history of this parliamentary democracy. What we are seeing are jack-
April 4, 1990

boot tactics by the Conservative party across the way to impose a tax that over 80 per cent of the Canadian people do not want.
Do you know what the government is allowing? It is allowing only one day on report stage-one day to debate the amendments to the goods and services tax. It is allowing one day to argue this tax that the Canadian people do not want. Then it is going to force it through with a guillotine, with closure.
Then the government is going to allow one day on third and final reading. One day is all we are going to get on the most controversial economic move in the history of this country.
This Conservative government makes C. D. Howe and the pipeline debate look generous in comparison. The Canadian people should be aware of that. This smacks of a fundamental lack of democracy, a fundamental lack of openness on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Over 80 per cent of the people are opposed to the goods and services tax, a tax on ordinary people across this country that is very unfair. The only way the government is getting it through is by using its majority and forcing it through against the will of Parliament, forcing it through against the will of the people of this country.
Why is it doing that? It is doing it for one simple reason. It is afraid of a revolt on the back-benches of the Conservative party. There is a revolt brewing in the back-benches of that party.
We know that it would take only 21 members of the Conservative party to switch and vote with the opposition and this tax would be killed. We now know that we have two members, the member for Calgary Northeast and the member for Edmonton Southeast who have said they are voting against this bill on third reading.
Do you know what has happened to them? They have been expelled from the Alberta caucus of the Conservative party. That is an outright shame. It is absolutely disgusting.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: What about Willie? Somebody is sitting on Willie Littlechild right now.
Time Allocation


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Here are two members who have said they want to speak their mind. They had the courage of their convictions and they said they are going to vote against the GST. What happens to them? They get expelled from the Alberta caucus of the Conservative party. That is absolutely and utterly disgusting and despicable in 1990.
I do not know of any other precedent where a member is expelled from a political caucus in this parliamentary democracy because they happen to speak on behalf of their own constituents, on behalf of their own people.
We know those two members are not alone. In The Toronto Star today there is a report that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has said that he will also vote against the GST at third and final reading.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: According to Linda Diebel of The Toronto Star the hon. member for Wetaskiwin will be voting against the government at third and final reading. If the hon. member does that, we will not have 21 to go. We only need 17 more Conservative members to stand up and vote on behalf of the people of this country to defeat the GST. Stand up for Canada. Speak on behalf of this country. Stand up for the people of Canada. Show the courage of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin who has said, according to The Toronto Star, that he will vote against the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and vote for the people of his riding.
Those are three courageous members and I hope the Conservative Party does not throw out the hon. member for Wetaskiwin like they threw out the member from Calgaiy and the member from Edmonton.
In addition to those three courageous members, the hon. member for Wild Rose has said that she will abstain, that she cannot possibly vote for the GST. I encourage the Canadian people to phone her office and tell her to have the courage of Messrs. Kindy and Kilgour, to have the courage of the member for Wetaskiwin, stand and vote against the GST and represent the people of her riding as these members are representing their ridings.
Those two members have been expelled. The Toronto Star states that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin is now going to vote against the GST. That means if we have 18 more Tories, 18 more brave and courageous souls who

April 4, 1990
Time Allocation
will stand and vote against this tax, the tax would be dead. It would be finished. We would axe the tax. We have one Tory tax too many. Let's hit that tax here and now.
If this Tory tax comes in, it will increase inflation in the country, it will increase interest rates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin on a point of order.


Mr. Littlechild:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the House that as far as my vote on the goods and services tax is concerned, I have had an opportunity to discuss it with my constituents and I will be voting in favour of the GST.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. members:: Goodbye, Willie, goodbye, Willie!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Although that was not a point of order, I will still recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if the television cameras in this place could have a little creativity, they would have noticed that before the hon. member for Wetaskiwin rose to speak, the heavy-handed Whip of the Conservative Party went over to his seat and he whispered in his ear. The member for Wetaskiwin then picked up his pencil and made some notes on a piece of paper when the Whip was whispering in his ear. After the Whip went away, so he was off the camera, the member for Wetaskiwin got up in his place and stated that he had consulted with his constituents and will vote for the GST. What hypocrisy! The people of the country should know that.
The member for Wetaskiwin had just said in The Toronto Star, and I quote Linda Diebel: "Tories David Kilgour, Alex Kindy and Willie Littlechild-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin on a point of order again.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think what is being said is what The Toronto Star may have written, not what I said. Also, with respect to the Whip, he did not slip me a paper nor did he say anything to me as he walked by.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I did not say he slipped him a piece of paper. What happened, if the cameras were creative, the heavy-handed Whip of the Conservative Party went over there and he whispered in his ear. The member for Wetaskiwin took a pad of paper and started to write as the Whip spoke in his ear. Within about half a minute, the member for Wetaskiwin got up in the House and said: "Look, I am listening to my constituents. I have been converted on the road to Damascus. I am listening to my constituents and I am going to vote for the GST".
Is it any wonder why that member is running fourth in the riding of Wetaskiwin? Is it any wonder why the Conservative party is running fourth in the province of Alberta, because they will not listen to the people and are bringing in a tax that people in that province and this country do not want; from the Conservative premier right on down they do not want that tax.
It is inflationary. It is going to drive up interest rates in this country. It is going to drive up the deficit in this country. It is going to cause a loss of jobs in this country. It is going to drive out investment. We know that. We know there are alternatives. We know we could raise the money that we need in this country through the income tax system in ways which would not be inflationary, which would not drive up interest rates, which would not add to the national deficit, which would create jobs, which would stimulate investment.
The Conservative party across the way is breaking faith with the people of this country. It is a breach of the democratic process. It is jackboot tactics pure and simple. It makes C. D. Howe back in the 1950s look like a child in comparison.
How about those members across the way showing some courage and standing up to the Minister of Finance, standing up to the chairman of the finance committee, standing up to the Prime Minister of this country, having the courage of their convictions, representing the people.
There is a revolt in the back bench of that Conservative party and we saw an example today where the member for Wetaskiwin said in the Toronto Star that he would vote against it. The heavy-handed Whip moves in, within seconds he gets up and he has a conversion on the road to Damascus-
April 4, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest. A point of order, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, without getting into the debate, I think Hansard should show exactly what had happened. I saw the hon. member stand for quite a long time but you were distracted, Mr. Speaker, and did not notice him. This was long before anyone had walked up to him. This is why I want to set the record straight in defence of the hon. member opposite. I am not taking part in any debate but as members of this House, it is our duty to come to the defence of any other member regardless of party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest on debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It really is not a point of order, it is debate, but I will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on a very short point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let that pass. I was speaking when this happened. The member for Wetaski-win was not on his feet before he was approached by the Deputy Whip-


Jesse Philip Flis: Not true.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -before the Whip wandered over there. If the cameras were on it would have been plain for the world to see. There was pressure brought on the member on the floor of the House to change his mind and he decided he was going to vote for the GST. The people in this country should know it.
The Liberal party should not be complicit in passing the GST in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. government Whip on a point of order.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, my name has been brought into this debate by the member. You may notice I did not say hon. member, Mr. Speaker. You heard from the member who rose on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is no such thing as "not an hon. member" in this House. Every member in this House is an hon. member.
Time Allocation


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I did not in any way, shape or form attempt to influence the statement that the member was about to make. He said it. I said it. It is the pattern in this Chamber to accept people's word.
That hon. member challenged me to a debate on the GST several weeks ago, the member from the NDP. I arranged five different sessions. He has bowed out of every single one of them. I have now accepted his arrangements in Calgary at a union hall, the Carpenters, for this Saturday night, but he has got trouble accepting me arranging a debate in his riding.
We want Canadians to know about this tax. He should come and debate me in his own riding. I am going to debate him in his hall in my riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam on a point of order.


Ms. Langan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order and I will try to stick to it.
I sat back here, removed from the fray that has been going on here this afternoon, and watched the deputy Whip approach and discuss something with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. As he left and in the very spot the House leader from my side of the House is standing at this moment, I said to him: "Did you get your message across?" He turned, looked, laughed and said: "Yes."
That was the deputy Whip from the government side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think everybody has pretty well explained what has happened. The Chair is satisfied with what has happened. Therefore let's continue with debate.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I think if ever there was a need to demonstrate why we have this motion before us now to set out the allocation of time on this bill, we have seen it. We have seen the kind of nonsense, frankly, that will come forward. We have seen the kind of tactics and unparliamentary procedure, abuse of Parliament. We have seen from the member who just spoke an attempt to talk about other members and suggest how they may or may not determine their own thinking, and whether or not they may be influenced by others when in fact I have observed him for the last several months, as a member of the finance committee, doing exactly the same kind of thing.

April 4, 1990
Time Allocation
He comes to the committee, makes an arrangement with us, goes back to his caucus, and then comes back and says that he is sorry, but he cannot keep the deal he made yesterday because he has been instructed by his caucus to change his mind. That occurred yesterday at the committee. If I had the transcripts with me I would bring them, but I will do it at an appropriate time.
As a member of the finance committee I want to use this opportunity to explain the reason for this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor on a point of order.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, as a fellow member of the finance committee I think that when a serious charge such as that is made by a member of an important committee of this House, either the member should be prepared to substantiate such a serious charge or else should withdraw that charge immediately, and I ask the Speaker so to rule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not really know what the charge is. Would the hon. member for Essex-Windsor please tell me what the charge is.


Steven W. Langdon: The charge, which certainly I heard from the member for Edmonton Northwest was that a certain deal had been made by the member for Yorkton-Melville and that subsequently the member for Yorkton- Melville-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I need a transcript to see what happened in committee. What the hon. member talked about happened in committee and we are now in the House of Commons. Therefore the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest has the floor on debate. I cannot rule on what was done in committee.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about what took place in committee. It was in fact the member across the way who was talking about what took place in committee. He made a charge in this House as to what took place in committee, a charge which accused my fellow committee member of the finance committee of breaking his word in committee.
That is an extremely serious charge. It cannot be permitted to stand, either without proof or without withdrawal. I simply appeal to this member to withdraw that charge as unworthy of him and unworthy of his party.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw any charges that anyone might be offended by, which I am not particularly aware of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fine, the hon. member has withdrawn. On debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest has the floor.


Murray Dorin: I would like to try to establish why I talked about the committee procedure. For someone to suggest in this House, or anywhere in the country for that matter, that somehow this issue has not received sufficient debate in Parliament or outside Parliament strains the credibility of anyone who might suggest that. I can think of no other issue, perhaps with the exception of the free trade debate in the last Parliament, where there has been a greater degree of debate and discussion in and outside Parliament.
Popularity or lack thereof is one issue, but I believe that no one could suggest that there has been a lack of debate or discussion. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which has had this issue on its agenda for at least four years. We have studied it, had extensive hearings, different studies, examinations, and even a foreign visit. There have been changes made along the way to improve it and to meet the concerns some of the people have presented to us.
There is no doubt, in terms of examining all the available information, that the case has been met by any common sense yardstick. Therefore the argument today that more debate in Parliament or in the country would somehow change the dynamics of this issue is unfounded and unwarranted.
In this regard the procedures of the committee on this bill are relevant. In advance of the second reading vote on the bill, given the expectation that the committee would be given responsibility for consideration of the bill, the finance committee agreed on a method of proceeding. That method was endorsed at a planning committee meeting on February 12, with consideration of the bill to continue and commence with meetings with officials from the Department of Finance.
Without complaint, notice, explanation or even courtesy, the official members of that committee from the New Democratic Party abrogated their responsibility as committee members and sent in their stead two other
April 4, 1990

members whose sole purpose, frankly, was to obstruct the proceedings of that committee.
This went on for a considerable period of time until an eventual resolution was reached. Following that, in spite of continued offers and requests by the chairman and myself, that party which is now complaining about lack of opportunity for reasonable debate refused to accept the majority proposal, to present an alternative proposal or to suggest somehow how we might proceed to deal with the business of the committee in a timely manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Churchill on a point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the member who is speaking tell the truth to the House. He knows that we did make counteroffers, and that was for the committee to travel across this country and hear witnesses from coast to coast to coast in each province qpd territory, That was offgred to the government and it would not listen. We wanted the people to speak. We wanted the people to come to the committee. The hon. member should tell the truth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What the hon. member is saying is debate. The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest has the floor.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I am relating to you and other members my viewpoint, my opinion, which frankly is the truth. Other members may have their own opinions and may dispute that, but that is up to them.
I think the whole issye casts a negative light on the question of whether or not members are independent members of committees who can make their own decisions or whether they must feel they are going to have-


An hon. member:: You are voting independently from your caucus?


Murray Dorin: Absolutely. I do not need any instructions. I have been involved with this issue for a long time and consistently supported it, going right back to the previous election. In case hon. members wish to know, my election brochures during the last campaign contained a commitment to sales tax reform and moving in this direction. This was included in the documentation that I distributed to every household in my riding. I made that
Time Allocation
perfectly clear, and I answered questions to that extent during the election campaign.
I find it very strange indeed opponents or opposition members suggest that it is independence when a committee tests the limits of its authority, which is somehow acting in defiance of the government or doing something which is not particularly popular with the minister. When a committee tests its authority in measures that happen to support the government, that is suggested to be autocracy.
It seems to me that opposition members cannot have it both ways. From time to time they have to rise in their places and take a position which may not necessarily always be popular within their own caucus.
Do we see them do that? No, we see them coming in here and participating in their publicly announced and acknowledged tactic to obstruct Parliament, to prevent Parliament from doing its business. The only way we can get on to have any kind of debate at all on this bill-because we know what happened at second reading stage, no debate was allowed because of the tactics of the NDP-is to proceed with this motion, vote this motion, pass it, and move on to time allocation.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance went over the line as far as I was concerned. For many years I have said publicly that for me he is one of the most respected members of this House, so respected that many months ago when we heard that he was going to advance this goods and services tax a group of us got together and tried to come up with a constructive alternative. I must say to all members of this House it is a tough job to come up with a constructive alternative. I believe, as all of us do, that the only way we can advance debate is by coming up with alternatives.
For months a group of us worked together with tax experts from across the country. We even consulted Senators Bradley and Gephardt in the United States, Hall-Rabushka from the Hoover Institute at Stanford, Lyman Maclnnis, past president of the Ontario Institute of Chartered Accountants, and Thomas Hodgson, President of Central Guaranty Trust in Toronto, the whiz kid of Bay Street. We got together with the researchers at the Library of Parliament and with Statistics Canada which develops modelling systems, some of those same

April 4, 1990
Time Allocation
modelling systems that the Minister of Finance uses in his department.
We came up with a constructive alternative to the goods and services tax. We came up with an alternative that was fairer, simpler, efficient and workable. It was a system where we knew we had to obviate the need for a goods and services tax because of the amount of revenue it was going to bring in. We admitted that the manufacturers' sales tax, the federal sales tax, was not a good thing and in our program we phased it out over three years, not all at once. We knew we had to be revenue neutral. We came up with numbers that would allow us to meet all of those objectives.
We came up with a form, and we called it the single tax, and it is 25 per cent for individuals and 25 per cent for corporations. We gave very progressive, refundable tax credits to those people in our community who are disadvantaged. We admitted all the way through this that we were advancing debate.
We did not say that our ideas were conclusive. We sent our material to the Minister of Finance on several occasions, and asked him to refute it, to give it to his officials to criticize it and try to improve on it. Not once did I hear from his department, or from the minister. I have been listening for months to him saying there are absolutely no alternatives on this side of the House. Finally, when I got his ear today, he snuffed off 179 pages of hard work by men and women from academia, from business, and work done by chartered accountants. He said: "Oh, that is some little booklet, on a single tax that does not work".


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: He is blind and deaf to reality.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Well, I think the Minister of Finance is really losing it. He refuses to acknowledge that 80 per cent of people in this country are concerned about the goods and services tax. It is a tremendous disincentive to small business. It is causing fear for senior citizens.
Instead of listening and asking his departmental officials to do an analysis of that and point out the weaknesses, he continues to say there are absolutely no alternatives. I think the Minister of Finance is doing a tremendous disservice to his office.
It is only one alternative. I have said in this House before that this is not the Liberal Party position. We, in this party, right now, are going through a leadership debate. So we have three, four or five alternatives. But that is not the point.


Mr. Karpoff:: Your leader is going to decide for you.


Dennis Joseph Mills: In fairness, we are a team. But that is no excuse for the Minister of Finance to ignore the idea. Whether this idea came from a member of the New Democratic Party or whether this idea came from a Conservative member, or whether it came from industry, it does not matter. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to look at a constructive alternative to a tax that is just crippling the spirit of this country.
We have said in this House before and many Liberal members have said that the current tax system is not just the product of members opposite, it is the product of many governments over many years. The point is that right now it is 15,000 pages of rules and exceptions to exceptions. Even the best accountants and tax lawyers in this country will readily admit today that they no longer understand it. It is out of control. Canadians are being so frustrated by the current Income Thx Act that it is time for this government to take the lead and clean it up.
The government always talks about productivity. We lack productivity because, generally speaking, Canadians do not feel there is fairness in the tax system. A man who is working on a shop floor making $20 an hour might pay $8 a week in tax on that hourly wage and at the end of the year he might pay another $1,500 or $2,000. His neighbour next door might be an architect or a tax lawyer who is making $150,000 a year and he will not be paying any tax. We know that is not right.
The tax system, with all its legal tax preferences, is so imbalanced right now, that the person who is working his heart and guts out on the shop floor says: "Why should I work so hard when my neighbour who is making three times as much does not pay anything?". That system does not work.
If we are going to have fairness and productivity and if we are going to get a nation that can be a world-class competitor again, we must start with the tax system. A goods and service tax that adds another 45 or 50 pages to the 45 or 50 pages that every individual in Canada receives right now, is not the way to go.
April 4, 1990

One of the members said today that he phoned his constituents and indicated that he had enough constituents who were supportive of the goods and services tax.
I can tell you that in my riding it is the exact opposite. It is not that the people do not want to pay tax. People just want something that is fair, simple and efficient. The current system does not provide that.
This is one idea. Professor Brooks has another idea. I think it is the responsibility of this government to do a full analysis of this. We are already at the third draft in our proposal. It is the government's responsibility to respond.
The disincentive factor that is caused by this goods and services tax is going to force a further underground economy. Right now they guestimate that there is $40 billion to $50 billion in an underground economy in this country. If we had a system that was more fair we could probably recapture some of that underground economy. There might be enough to develop a national day care program.
But this government is so obsessed with cutting and retreating from programs that it is forgetting that there is a creative process. Instead of trying to develop ways to make the pie larger and renewing the spirit of productivity, it is cutting. This government has been retreating from national responsibility for the last six years. If it keeps going like this, it will be history within the next two years.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have been travelling with the finance committee on the GST debate. It has been almost three years since the finance minister informed Canadians through the tax reform White Paper how he planned to replace the 65 year-old manufacturers' sales tax.
The bill has already met with the expected enthusiastic response from the opposition parties in the House of Commons. But the many benefits for the whole economy of a broadly based goods and services tax far outweighs the criticism to date of this government proposal.
There is a major problem with the manufacturers' sales tax. The MST is applied to business inputs. That is the materials, parts and supplies used in the manufacturing process. This makes it tougher for Canadian export-
Time Allocation
ers to sell their products in foreign markets and compete with producers who pay no tax on their business inputs. In other words, being uncompetitive costs Canada jobs.
Surely it is time for us to take an honest look at the manufacturers' sales tax, that 13.5 per cent bite on most things made in Canada that has been conveniently hidden for too long. Suppose this tax did not exist and suppose your provincial premier, myself being from Ontario, Premier Peterson, decided to impose a similar provincial tax on manufacturers, there would be a great public outcry. There would be a charge that Ontario jobs would be lost and that business could not stand the competition from other tax-free provinces.
Or, suppose that the city of Cambridge or the city of Kitchener decided to impose its own manufacturers' sales tax on industry within those city limits? The move would be denounced as driving businesses to other communities such as Guelph, Brantford and Woodstock.
What are some of the concerns with the manufacturers' sales tax? First, it applies to a very narrow base. There are five commodities; tobacco, alcohol, automobiles, automobile parts and motor fuels. They represent about 16 per cent of government spending and yet they generate about one-third of the revenue from the manufacturers' sales tax. People who come here always ask why gas is so much cheaper south of the border. Why is tobacco so much cheaper? Why is alcohol so much cheaper? It is those five products that pay a heavy burden with the manufacturers' sales tax.
Another thing that Canadians have heard is that over the past 60 years there has been fiddling with the tax to satisfy one special interest group over another. As a result, there has been some 22,000 special provisions; including things such as athletic headbands. An athletic headband is considered clothing. Therefore, it is exempt from the manufacturers' sales tax. But if you buy an athletic wristband, it is considered sporting equipment and therefore is taxed.
A facial tissue is considered a cosmetic product and the MST is included in the price. The makers of facial tissues will argue that it is a health care product and, as such, should be exempt from the MST. If the makers are successful in winning that argument then they do not

April 4, 1990
Time Allocation
have to pay the tax. The tax they do not pay eventually is picked up by consumers somewhere else.
Another concern about the existing manufacturers' sales tax, the tax we want to get rid of, is the impact it has on domestically produced commodities. For example, I was talking about cosmetics. There are various rates. The reason for various rates depends on how a company handles its marketing and distribution function. On some cosmetics on the shelf the effective federal tax is as low as 5.8 per cent. On other products it is as high as 19.2 per cent.
Here we have similar products made by different companies in the same industry and yet we have a wide range of tax. I could not take you into a store and point out which product has the 6 per cent MST and which one has a 19 per cent effective rate. That is the type of situation with which we are dealing.
Small appliances have rates as low as 5.5 per cent and some as high as 13.9 per cent. Here we have within Canada again, companies competing against themselves but charged different rates of tax. They are trying, through the courts, to lessen their tax burden. They do so by setting up new corporate structures so they can change market distribution and reduce tax.
Another major concern is the impact on imported goods and exports. For example, office machines and equipment. For a domestic producer the MST rate is as low as 12 per cent to as high as 13 per cent. The important fact is that for a foreign company, the effective rate to that company on MST when it imports office machines and equipment is 7.5 per cent. Right away the Canadian domestic producer of office machines and equipment is at a 5 per cent disadvantage. He is at a 5 per cent disadvantage because of a tax his own country is charging. Canada is the only country that has a manufacturers' sales tax of this type, and when we consider that 40 per cent of our income comes from exports it is ludicrous that we maintain this tax.
I can think of one benefit of the manufacturers' sales tax, which has really been for politicians only. That is the fact that it is virtually invisible to consumers. Some people say "what you don't know won't hurt you".
Many people did not know that they were already paying a federal sales tax. A one-income family with two children and an income of $35,000 today is paying a manufacturers' sales tax on the average consumer basket of about $1,500. After the introduction of the GST they will pay about the same amount. For this particular family there is no change.
We have gone from a tax you can see to a tax you cannot see. I think the people of this country have reacted because they are suddenly seeing something which has been there for many years. Almost since its introduction, the MST has been a problem to manufacturers. We have heard of the many royal commissions that addressed its fundamental flaws in 1940, 1966 and 1983. Each study has recommended major change.
Canada is the only industrialized country with a manufacturers' sales tax of this kind. In 1990, the manufacturers' sales tax fails every test of good tax policy. At the age of 65 it is time to retire the manufacturers' sales tax.
No one should suggest that the GST is 100 per cent perfect. But when you compare it to the existing manufacturers' sales tax, the GST is a clear winner, a gold medal winner.


Mrs. Maheu:: Tell that to your voters.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: I will tell it to the voters.
According to the C.D. Howe Institute, the adoption of the GST would be the single most significant, recent advance in Canadian tax policy. The study states that the GST, by broadening the base of the tax to include currently untaxed goods and services, by changing the method of collection, will improve the efficiency of the Canadian economy.
So we have the C.D. Howe Institute, the Economic Council of Canada, the Conference Board of Canada who all support the improvement and the competitive position of Canadian manufacturing which they acknowledge will benefit the whole economy. They do not have any problem with the recommendation in Finance that it will create 60,000 new jobs every year.
The GST is a solution to a problem that most Canadians are unaware they have. There will not be any more royal commissions, any more study. This government has taken the daring and necessary step to reform the sales
bB
April 4, 1990

tax system. Canadians may not like being told they have a deficit. They do not like being told they have a deficit problem. They may not like having to pay taxes, but Canadians are realistic. They realize there are no freebies. There are no painless solutions to this serious problem.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You and Wilson ought to get together.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: We are clearly together, and I have been supporting this right from the beginning. We would like to improve it.
Naturally, we would like to have had a national sales tax that would have incorporated the federal and provincial sales tax systems, but this was not possible, given the political dynamics of the day. The issue is not those failed negotiations. The issue is the pressing need to proceed with reforming the tax system which is hurting Canadian business, and we are doing it in such a way that it leaves open the possibility of a truly national sales tax at a later date.
In conclusion, I would like to quote Terence Corcoran of The Globe and Mail. He said on December 8: "Think of the GST as a home renovation. It will make a bit of a mess while the work is being done, but the final result will be something you can be proud of".


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, after having heard three members from the government side, I think it is inevitable that I, and my party, should share the same contempt for this government that the Canadian people feel as a result of the utter contempt this government has directed toward the Canadian people.
I listened to the member for Edmonton Northwest bleating about the efforts of the New Democratic Party representative on the finance committee. Whatever may be said about the efforts of my colleagues on that committee, they had one single purpose, and that was to ensure that all of the Canadian people were heard on this tax. We can understand why we heard the parliamentary secretary say: "We did not want to hear any more because they are all going to say the same thing." Eighty per cent of the Canadian people are going to say the same thing, that this tax is an unacceptable tax. It is a tax that must be opposed, and will be opposed.
Time Allocation
We have heard my colleague talk of certain members on the government side who did not adhere to caucus discipline. I think it is important to know the fundamental elements that constitute the basis for that caucus discipline. I think it was best expressed by the hon. member for Simcoe Centre. She expressed it in ordinary language that everybody could understand: "If I listen to my constituents, I would not have time to give leadership."
We just heard the hon. member down the way say: "We are through with hearings. We are through with royal commissions. We are through with all that stuff. We made a decision." It is a decision which I said before is utterly contemptuous of the Canadian people.
Because the Canadian people have been denied the right to be heard adequately, the Ontario caucus of the New Democratic Party has for the last several days been holding hearings so at least Ontarians could be heard.
I think it is important, even before addressing the tax, to give you an impression of how Canadians are feeling. They feel that what is happening to their country as a result of the consistent actions of this government, tears at the very fabric of Canadian civilization, our humanitarian instincts and our sense of community. There is the sense that somehow our country is being robbed of so much that gave us pride and confidence, that in spite of everything, we could influence our fate and the destiny of this country.
But with the changes as a result of the free trade agreement, the cuts in UIC, privatization, deregulation, and other actions which have been opposed by the people but implemented by the government, it has created a terrible sense of powerlessness, frustration, anger and alienation. If the government wants to know why there seems to be so much division in this country then it should look for the answer in what it has done.
By creating a level playing field with the United States it has done what we predicted would happen. The Conservatives have made this country more like the United States. There are too many people out there who, frustrated with the government, are looking around for scapegoats. That is why we find so many of us looking for others to blame and exhibiting all kinds of character-

April 4, 1990
Time Allocation
istics that are alien to our culture before this government came to power.
It is interesting that the Minister of Finance and the other member who talked about this bill to introduce the goods and services tax, did not at all attempt to defend the goods and services tax itself. They said only that the manufacturers' sales tax should be eliminated, that it cost jobs and that it should be eliminated in the interest of the growth of the Canadian economy.
We have never questioned that. The manufacturers' sales tax should be eliminated. But should it be replaced with a goods and services tax?


Some hon. members:: No.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Let us for a moment, Mr. Speaker, consider what the manufacturers' sales tax entailed. The manufacturers' sales tax led to $18.5 billion in revenue, whereas the goods and services tax will raise $21.5 billion in revenue. What is very interesting, if you look at the actual net gain in revenue, apart from the cost of administering the tax and rebates associated with the tax, all we would need to do is raise $14.5 billion. We can raise that $14.5 billion without having a goods and services tax, or the 4,000 people needed to collect that tax, simply by making small changes in a variety of taxes with no change in the establishment of the Department of National Revenue.
Let me list the changes. You can search for the details in the publication of Neil Brooks which was cited earlier.
Let us suppose we eliminate the MST and the GST but maintain the excise taxes on cigarettes and liquor. That is good for $2.3 billion. Eliminate the entertainment deductions for rich business people and the corporations; $1 billion. Tighten capital gains; $.5 billion. Eliminate all necessary tax breaks for corporations; $2 billion. Impose a minimum tax on corporations, the same as the Americans do; $2 million. Tax wealth either in the form of an inheritance or an annual tax on net wealth; $2.5 billion. Stop tax cheating as we used to before this government came to power; $3 billion. Restore the income tax to five rather than three marginal rates and raise the top marginal rate to 40 per cent. It is awfully interesting what the result of that is. Even the Minister
of Finance admits that inflation will increase by 1.25 per cent or more probably 3 per cent as a result of the GST.
The alternative would not only allow a fairer tax system and eliminate the problems of the MST, in fact it would cut inflation by 2.3 per cent. This, in turn, would mean that interest rates could be cut. If interest rates were cut investment would increase. If investment increased, jobs would be produced.
Yes, there is an alternative that is in the interests of the vast majority of Canadians. The Tories are not interested in the Canadian people, they show utter contempt and the people will show their utter contempt for a government that cares not for them or the country.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have near unanimity, at least on this side of the House and among those on the other side who refuse to be muzzled by their Whip that there is, on the part of the government, total and utter contempt for the wishes and needs of Canadians, total and utter contempt for the activities in this House.
A few moments ago we heard the Minister of Finance sneer contemptuously at the fact that we in the Liberal party did not have an alternative, and his associate minister held for his consideration a proposal by one of our colleagues, the member for Broadview-Greenwood, the single tax. What did they do? They say there are no alternatives. The Conservatives refuse to listen. They refuse to hear what Canadians have to say. They refuse to hear what Parliament has to say.
My colleagues from Alberta will know and appreciate these statistics. Since Standing Order 57, which refers to the closure motion, was adopted in 1913, it has been applied in this House 21 times to cut off debate from 1913 to December of 1988. In this Parliament, since 1988 that closure motion has been invoked 13 times.
Today we saw this motion applied in order to muzzle the backbenchers of the Conservative Party itself. How can Canadians get across their vehement dislike for this goods and services tax when the governing party has to put a muzzle on its own members?
I know all members on this side of the House think it is a shame that Canadians cannot debate the biggest tax fraud ever perpetrated against Canadians since Confederation. Mr. Speaker, I know you are going to give me 10 minutes to address this issue. We have seen the first application of a 7 per cent tax. I am only going to be able
April 4, 1990

to speak for 1.4 per cent of that time. I see members opposite smile.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have eight minutes remaining in his speech.
Time Allocation
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 5,1990