1990-04-03

Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. House leader of the Official Opposition raised a question of privilege relating to events of Friday, March 30, 1990, a day designated as the first allotted day of the supply period ending June 30, 1990 under Standing Order 81(17).
The hon. member argued that the privileges of opposition members had been breached by the call for quorum made by the chief government Whip. Since this had resulted in a count-out, the Acting Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 29(3), had declared the House adjourned. By count-out I mean there were not enough members in the House to provide a quorum.
The result, in the view of the hon. House leader of the Official Opposition, denied opposition members the right to debate the motion on an environmental action plan and so infringed their privileges. The hon. member seeks redress through the redesignation of a first allotted day for the current supply period.
The Chair will first deal with this key question. The provisions regarding quorum have been in existence since 1867. Standing Order 29(3), in place since 1982, provides additionally for a 15-minute bell to summon members. It reads as follows:
If, during a sitting of the House, the attention of the Speaker is drawn to the lack of a quorum, the Speaker shall, upon determining that a quorum is lacking, order the bells to ring for no longer than fifteen minutes; thereupon a count of the Members present shall be
taken, and if a quorum is still lacking, the Speaker shall adjourn the
House until the next sitting day.
On Friday last, as the Votes and Proceedings indicate, no government members were present for the count. Faced with a count-out, the Acting Speaker declared the House adjourned.
The Chair has carefully reviewed the events of March 30, and it has noted that Orders of the Day were reached and debate duly begun on the opposition motion. Later, under the provisions of Standing Order 26(1), the House continued to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to consider the business before it. In other words, it was moved that the House sit beyond three o'clock that afternoon and that was sustained, so debate was continuing past the ordinary hour of adjournment which was three o'clock. That motion did not come from the government side; it came from the opposition side.
The hon. House leader of the Official Opposition argues that the quorum call by the chief government Whip truncated the debate and effectively robbed the opposition of its allotted day. However, under the circumstances, it is difficult for the Chair to conclude that the government must bear the sole responsibility for the House adjourning for want of a quorum.
It has often been argued that allotted days are a fundamental right of the opposition minorities in the House, offering a specific forum for debate on their concerns. If one accepts, as your Speaker does, that this perspective is accurate, then one is also left to conclude that the opposition must not only accept but would carefully guard the need to maintain a quorum for debate on its items of business.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca commented vigorously about the consequences of government members not responding to the quorum bells. As I said yesterday, this falls into the realm of tactics. I think I also added that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Arguably, if it so wished, the government could have marshalled 15 members to rise in their places and oppose
April 3, 1990

Speaker's Ruling
the extension of the sitting. This it did not do. The invocation of Standing Order 29(3) may have ended the debate earlier than the opposition might have wished, but its effect on the government side is not without considerable consequence as well.
Hon. members who had planned to speak on the motion may well be disappointed that this proved impossible, but a review of the circumstances offers no evidence that their rights were in any way interfered with or their privileges breached.
Let us turn now to the consequences of the count-out, namely the dropping of the continuing order for supply from the Order Paper.
The authorities are clear on this subject. Bourinot's fourth edition states at page 218:
A "count out" will always supersede any question that is before the House; and if an order of the day for supply, or for the reading or committal of a bill, be under consideration at the time, and there is no quorum present, the House must be asked at a subsequent sitting to revive the question that may have lapsed in this way.
The hon. House leader for the Official Opposition cites Standing Order 82(1) which reads:
At the commencement of each session, the House shall designate, by motion, a continuing Order of the Day for the consideration of the business of supply.
He goes on to contend that the loss of the continuing order carries dire consequences, namely the loss of all supply proceedings in this session, and that reinstatement of that order will re-establish the number of votable opposition motions available to the parties in opposition.

The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier also raised with the Chair the status of the business of supply now before various standing committees of the House, I am referring to the Estimates for fiscal year 1990-91. He claimed that since the continuing order for supply was no longer on the order paper, standing committees no longer have the authority to continue consideration of Budget votes, at least not until the continuing order is reinstated. I must say the hon. member argued his case very convincingly. However, the Chair has great difficulty in accepting his statements.
It is true there are no precedents for this situation, but I fail to see how the loss of the continuing order for supply could erase previous decisions by the House to adopt interim supply or refer consideration of the
Estimates to its committees. However, the fact remains that the House does not at this time have any mechanism for considering supply proceedings until a continuing order is reinstated on the order paper.

The Chair agrees with hon. members that a continuing order must be redesignated, but I do not see how last Friday's events could have simply erased the decisions the House has made to date on supply in this session. I refer hon. members to the document, Status of Bills and Motions, where pages 59 through 66 list the business of supply already considered by the House. I would note, in particular, the decisions of February 22, 1990, No. 31 on page 64 of the Status, referring the Main Estimates, 1990-1991 to standing committees where they are now under consideration.
The authorities are clear on the consequences of reviving a dropped order. I quote from Erskine May, twenty-first edition at page 315:
If on such an order of the day procedure has been commenced and
interrupted, the proceeding thus revived is set down for resumption at
the position indicated by the last decision of the House entered upon
the Votes and Proceedings.
I would therefore rule that once the order for supply has been re-established, the business of supply will resume at the point of the last House decision; namely awaiting the second allotted day in the current period to be designated. As far as the number of votable motions are concerned, we are also at the same point we were last Friday. There remain no more votable motions available in the current supply calendar.
Next, I would like to deal with the fourth and final point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. Put simply, he asks if the motion of the minister for the redesignation of the permanent order of supply is a debatable motion, pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), which reads as follows:
(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meetings or adjournment.
The argument of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier was supported by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who further argued that a July 3, 1917 precedent was not applicable because it dealt with reinstatement of a bill at second reading stage. He also claimed that Standing Order 67(l)(p) is the operative
April 3, 1990

mechanism to reinstate the supply proceedings ordered by way of notice and debate.
The July 3, 1917 case was indeed about a bill being reinstated and the Speaker did rule based on a quote of May's twelfth edition, page 219, that the motion did not require notice and was not subject to debate. Following this precedent there are others: Wednesday, March 12, 1919 and August 1, 1956, to mention only two. The latter is important because the House had just reviewed in 1955, the equivalent of Standing Order 67(l)(p), which was essentially worded the same as it is today. Yet a superseded order was reinstated on August 1, 1956, without debate or notice. It was not treated as the equivalent of Standing Order 67(l)(p).
I should also deal with the points of the hon. member for Kamloops who argued that a lapsed order for supply should be considered as a matter of confidence. On that point I shall only say that a lapsed order is not a decision of substance by the House. It is only the consequence of the House not having appointed a day for consideration of such an order. Furthermore, the motion before the House last Friday was due to expire without question put pursuant to Standing Order 81(17). It is therefore difficult to invoke the usual convention of a lost decision in the House on a matter of confidence.
The hon. member also referred to page 422 of Bouri-not's fourth edition which refers to a lapsed order in committee of supply. Bourinot states clearly that this would require notice of a motion for the House to resolve itself into committee again. This reference relates to the 19th century British practice. The Chair has however found a more recent case in Canadian practice.
On June 9, 1938, an identical situation developed in committee of supply and the reinstatement for the House to resolve itself back into committee was brought forward on June 10, 1938, that is the next day, without debate or notice and no objection was taken. In any case, the whole supply process was completely revamped in the 1968 reform and the committee of supply was abolished. The present case is unique in our procedure and can only be treated as just another dropped or
Routine Proceedings
superseded order as the Chair can find no basis in logic, convention or common sense to treat it any differently.
In summary then, the Chair has found that the quorum call initiated by the government which resulted in the House adjourning for lack of quorum on an opposition day does not constitute a breach of the privileges of this House. Furthermore, the motion for the redesignation of the continuing order for supply does not require notice, is not subject to debate and can be moved forthwith by the minister.
I want to say something in this regard. Yesterday when the House reached motions, I had indicated by way of a comment earlier that at that point I invited the hon. House leader to respect the difficulties that we were in because it would have required me to make an immediate order on a complex series of points. The House leader courteously did that. But we had reached motions, and I now find that we have to deal with it on the basis as if the House leader was dealing with motions. If the House leader wishes to, I would invite him to move his motion now, because the delay is due to the fact that the Chair had to ask the indulgence of the House to reserve for the ruling.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: I move: That the continuing order of the day for the consideration of the business of supply in the name of the President of the Treasury Board be redesignated.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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

April 3, 1990
Routine Proceedings
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to lay upon the table the nineteenth annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages covering the calendar year 1989, pursuant to section 34(1) of the Official Languages Act.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(a), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.


ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Casey
Champagne (Champlain) Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cook
Corbett
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling de Cotret Dobbie Edwards Fee
Fontaine
Friesen
Greene
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hogue
Horner
Hudon
James
Kempling
Koury
Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming) Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
McLean
Mitges
Moore
Nowlan
Plourde
Pronovost
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont) Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Van de Walle
Venne
Vien
Weiner
Assiniboia)
Winegard
April 3, 1990

number of Order in Council appointments which were made by this government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, a list of which is attached.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Mr. Speaker:: Two hon. members, the minister and the House leader of the New Democratic Party are both rising on a point of order. The hon. minister.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I could perhaps be helpful by being a little anticipatory here.
Yesterday, in my anxiety to make sure that the opposition was forewarned as soon as possible, one of my colleagues put forward notice under Standing Order 78(3), on advice that it was appropriate. That now seems to be the subject of question. Since I do not intend to proceed with the motion under Standing Order 78(3) today, it is really academic, and I will ensure that prior to it being moved, unless the opposition prepares to co-operate under Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2), I will provide the appropriate notice.
If that is a point of order, I just want to make sure that there is no dispute on this side of the House.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointment. I had a long procedural argument and stayed awake most of the night writing it. I am disappointed that I will not have a chance to make it. The government gave notice yesterday. It was inappropriate and a highly unusual turn of events. I thought it was actually a decision that the government had made, but I take the word of the Government House Leader that it was a mistake and the government should not have done
what it did yesterday. We will wait to see what it will do later today.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rose in my place yesterday after the Minister of State for Small Businesses gave notice to the House, as recorded in yesterday's Hansard at page 10102. At that time I did make the point that the notice of motion was, in my view, not in order and should not be accepted by the Chair. Of course, Mr. Speaker I do not have to put the arguments to you since the government recognized how weak a case it had.


Harvie Andre: Sit down!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Maybe I will sit down, but I would like to make sure that the House leader of the government stops being so scornful of this House and treating us with disdain. I wish he had a little more-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that if there needs to be an argument, it could be carried on elsewhere.
The point of order was raised by the minister. The minister has withdrawn the notice. The House leader for the New Democratic Party and the House leader for the Official Opposition have commented on it and that is where it remains.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: We are now in Orders of the Day on Bill C-62.1 must advise the House that I have certain rulings to make with respect to motions by way of amendment, which were filed up to the close of the Notice Paper at seven o'clock last night.
There are 90 motions in amendment set down on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act. I have reviewed the motions and am now ready to make a ruling.
As hon. members will note, there are 68 motions in amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Gloucester which seek to delete a separate clause of the bill, including the Schedule and the Title.
The effect of debating these motions, as I commented upon in a similar situation with respect to Bill C-20, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act on October 10, 1989, is that the House will be virtually proceeding through a repetition of the second reading

debate. This manner of proceeding during the report stage causes the Chair serious concern.
Both Mr. Speaker Francis and I have expressed strong reservations about this procedure, and here I refer all hon. members to the debates of June 14, 1984 at pages 4680 and 4681, and of October 10,1989 at pages 4464 and 4465.
Therefore, I should advise the House that in this instance while all such amendments will be debated and put to a vote, in a future circumstance the Chair may apply more vigorously the Speaker's power of selection of motions in amendment in strict accordance with Standing Order 76(5).
I regret that because of the short period of time between seven o'clock last night and this morning, the usual consultation on these motions has not been able to take place. That is nobody's fault. The fact that it has not taken place takes nothing away from a practice which we have been following now for quite some time and which I think is a very satisfactory practice as far as all hon. members are concerned and also a practice which makes it far more easy for the Speaker and the assistance I receive from the Table to deal with these things.
I ask hon. members to excuse the fact that we have not been able to consult since last night. As I say, that is nobody's fault, but it takes nothing away from our intention to consult as much as possible in all cases where it is possible.
Motions Nos. 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8,9,10,11, 31, 32, 33,34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 90 standing in the name of the hon. member for Gloucester will be grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 90 will apply to all the remaining motions in this group.
Motions Nos. 12 and 13, standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 14, 15 and 16, standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, are admissible and will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately-
Government Orders
Motions Nos. 17 and 20, standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, are in order. They will be debated together but voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24, standing in the names of the hon. members for Yorkton-Melville and Mississauga West, are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 19 and 86, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga West, are in order. They will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 19 being applied to Motion No. 86.
Motion Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, standing in the names of the hon. members for Yorkton-Melville and Gloucester, are admissible. They will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately.
Motion Nos. 37, 38 and 56, standing in the names of the hon. members for Gloucester and Mississauga West, are acceptable. They will be debated together but voted upon separately.
Motion No. 88, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ontario is in order. It will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion Nos. 87 and 89, standing in the names of the hon. members for Yorkton-Melville and Gloucester, are acceptable and will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately.
Just so that all hon. members understand the effect of grouping the numerous motions of the hon. member for Gloucester into a single debate and a single vote, I want to say that those particular amendments seek to delete seriatim a number of sections in the bill itself.
As I mentioned earlier, the effect is that it literally means that we would have a debate and a vote on each one which would amount to a repetition of second reading debate.
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 eleven debates and 26 votes plus the final vote at report stage for concurrence. If one looks at the grouping there will be just under two hours of debating time for every member in the House, if that should be the will of the House. I am pointing that out because this ruling does not cut down on debate. I think

April 3, 1990
Government Orders
that it properly deals with a certain kind of amendment, an amendment to delete clause after clause after clause. It puts it all in one debate for one vote for the reasons that I have expressed.
I hope the hon. member for Gloucester will accept my ruling and co-operate with the Chair.
I will now put motions No. 1 to 11, 31-36, 39-55, 57-85 and 90 to the House. The motions are moved by the hon. member for Gloucester and seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to question your ruling in any way. I understand that consultations did not take place between the Table and the movers of the amendments. Therefore, I have to accept that there were circumstances which, in my language, would be abnormal in the sense that normally the person tabling a series of amendments, such as the member for Gloucester, would have been consulted as to the grouping of all the proposed amendments into one vote. There not being a common thread, the argument could have been made at that time that indeed individual and separate votes on every one of those amendments was in order.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would take it that your admonition that we do not argue this point at this time would be for this occasion only. I do it with great hesitation, asking the Chair that perhaps on another occasion we could use the arguments that we would like to put forth whereby every one of those amendments is a substantive amendment and does not reflect on the principle of the bill, but rather that we object strongly to the clauses of this bill and would like to debate them and eliminate them one after the other.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, you have notice of my intention to rise of this point at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier raises a point which is certainly not unexpected under the circumstances. I want to make it very clear to hon. members that I have made a ruling, but having said that, it is the right of hon. members at any time in the future
to raise matters of order with the Chair. This is some indication of my thinking on the matter.
I say to the hon. member for Gloucester that I am sorry that there was not a chance for consultation but in this case, there wasn't. Hon. members know also that all table officers and the Chair were very busily engaged yesterday and last night on not just this matter but others. I will not say anything more than that.
If the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier wants to raise this matter at another time, of course he is completely free to do so. I thank him for recognizing that when a ruling is made, he has to accept that. This is an example that can be used in discussion at another time and I would certainly not in any way make it impossible for the matter to be raised.
The hon. member knows that these are not always easy decisions to make, especially with a bill which is very contentious and I am aware of that. It is why I pointed out to hon. members that, at least at the moment, it would be very hard to say that there will not be very extensive debating time at report stage.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: On a
similar point of order, Mr. Speaker. The concern that we have is that in this case Your Honour has indicated there could not be consultations. We have not had an opportunity to make comments or submissions to Your Honour before the ruling was made. I recognize that it has been handed down. However, the difficulty we face is that the ruling that has now been made becomes a precedent along with others that have occurred in this matter. It seems the difficulty is that had each of the members of the opposition put forward one of the amendments to delete a clause and posted 77 different amendments by 77 different members instead of all from one, perhaps the grouping for debate would not have been as severe as it has been.
I just want to make it clear that while we cannot challenge Your Honour's ruling, and do not do so, we in fact accept it, but in future we would not want it to be regarded as a precedent that we are accepting in light of the fact that we did not have an opportunity to make submissions in advance of that ruling concerning which items might or might not be in the various groupings.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and all members a moment ago, any time members want to rise on a matter of order in which they question or wish to consult with the Speaker, or make recommendations to the Speaker and through the Speaker to other members of the House, that is a perfectly normal practice here. I am not going to preclude that.
I also point out that the House has the power to change the standing orders and I refer specifically to Standing Order 76(5). Those standing orders give very strong powers of selection of motions to the Speaker. That is where the authority is given to me by all members of the House. If members want to change that, that is a matter for members to consider.
I thank the hon. member for his intervention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the just released discussion paper, The Green Plan, is the first attempt of the Minister of the Environment to consult the public after failing to obtain approval for his environmental agenda, drafted in secrecy and rejected earlier this year.
The discussion paper ignores Tory budget cuts to environmental protection, research on alternative and renewable sources of energy, research on toxicology, wildlife, et cetera.
The paper lacks substance, lacks a sense of urgency, and lacks political will. It is the product of a cabinet constantly being dragged into the environment debate but not really committed to change.
The paper raises yesterday's questions which set back the environmental agenda by several years. Because of all this, Canadians should come forward, ask the relevant questions and help formulate the difficult answers. Then it will be the minister's task to prove that this government wants to act on the protection of the environment and implementation of sustainable development.
Clearly it has been left to Canadians to define the real environmental agenda.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake companion resolution is a laudable initiative.
The accord itself, even with its imperfections, may also deserve broader support, except for one item: the distinct society clause.
The distinct society clause or phrase is found in a clause without definition or parameters. We must conclude therefore that it may be interpreted in a variety of ways.
Canadians have expressed their concern about the ambiguous distinct society clause. A paragraph in the preamble establishing some parameters provided by the Supreme Court of Canada would address those concerns whether before or at an agreed extension to the June 23 deadline.
Most would agree that a whole Canada is in everyone's best interest. Flexibility, compromise and tolerance are parts of the Canadian way. I am confident that Canadians, as in the past, will rise above their problems for the good of all and for the good of this great country, Canada.


LITHUANIA
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Lithuanian Parliament are visiting Moscow today. President Lands-bergis acknowledges that the re-establishment of their independence presents constitutional problems for the Soviet Union.
Some people are of the view that Canada should not be putting pressure on Mikhail Gorbachev over the

April 3, 1990
Lithuanian situation. However, as President Landsbergis asks, are the democratic nations willing to sell Lithuania to the Soviet Union once more?
How should Canada respond? As a first step we could give Lithuania diplomatic recognition. Remember the Soviet Union has admitted Lithuania was incorporated into the U.S.S.R. illegally, and Canada has never accepted Lithuania's annexation.
The historic events which have occurred over the past year have been breathtaking. Country after country have turned their backs on communism and are now struggling to build a democratic government.
Now is the time for Canada to stand firmly beside our friends in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to ensure their dreams of independence are realized.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon and later this week, hon. members will vote on Bill C-62, the famous goods and services tax bill.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Philip Edmonston: If the bill is passed, this tax will be the biggest and most unfair tax grab in Canada's history. Nearly 80 per cent of Canadians in this country are opposed to this tax.


An Hon. Member:: That's not true!


Philip Edmonston: Canadians believe, and rightly so, that this tax will result in higher taxes, higher inflation and interest rates, and an increase in the unemployment rate, especially in Quebec.
We urge all Quebecers to call their respective Conservative members, those so-called defenders of Quebec, and tell them to vote against this tax grab, Mr. Speaker.
I would also ask the members for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) and Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Char-trand) to have the courage to act according to their principles and vote against this unfair sales tax.


An Hon. Member:: Call them now!


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the emperor of Canada Post has new clothes: 27,000 uniforms to be precise. The problem is that the emperor does not have to wear these clothes himself, only his subjects do.
Mind you, there is hope. Some of the emperor's disciples have now been heard wishing that they too could have the company pay for 100 per cent of their wardrobe. Maybe that wish should be granted. Maybe the emperor should require that all his managers wear the uniform. After all what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as my colleagues from Newfoundland would say.
There is also a problem with the style of the emperor's new clothes which the wearers say are ill fitting, impractical and unsafe. "Not so", says the emperor's designers, "the style is easy to understand and easy to wear". Does that reflect the corporation's opinion of the employee?
Finally there is the matter of the emperor's diminishing loyalty to the Crown. Why does the uniform no longer cany either the name or the flag of the country? Has the emperor sought the approval of cabinet for this matter? Has cabinet even considered the issue?
In these trying times one only wishes the emperor the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job, both qualities which he lacks.


BERGEN CONFERENCE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Bergen Conference of European and North American States will take place from May 8 to May 16, 1990. The conference is a major step in a process that started with the publication of the Brundtland Report, leading up to the UN conference on environment and development in 1992. Canada has been a staunch supporter of the Bergen Conference.
Environment Canada will be the Canadian government's main participant at this Conference. The delegation will be headed by the Hon. Lucien Bouchard and
April 3, 1990

will include both government representatives and representatives of non-governmental sectors.
To promote full participation by Canada's youth, about $60,000 was allocated to bring young people from all parts of the country together to prepare a Canadian youth action plan and send five representatives to the Bergen Conference.


MURPHY AVIATION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, Murphy Aviation of Chilliwack is a five year old company that is making itself known world-wide. Doubling its gross annually for the past three years, Murphy delivered 120-plus aircraft kits in 1989. Ninety per cent of Murphy's business is exported to over 18 countries including Japan, France, the United Kingdom and Australia.
Murphy builds only the best by employing the best. In fact former de Havilland aeronautical engineer, the legendary Richard Hiscock, is helping Murphy develop a new, all metal, three seater high wing aircraft called a Rebel.
The Rebel will use a Rotax engine built in Austria by a Bombardier subsidiary. Employing 20 people, Murphy is an example of what a small company can achieve through dedication and hard work.
Murphy Aviation is building a solid future for itself, for Chilliwack and for Canada. Indeed, Murphy Aviation is yet another of the many success stories from the riding of Fraser Valley East.
It was my pleasure to attend its open house and I say: "Congratulations, keep up the good job".


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in protest of the GST.
Before me I have over 5,000 petitions collected by the Toronto Real Estate Board. The goods and services tax affects the real estate industry in a number of veiy profound ways.
First, in Willowdale the average price of a home will go up over $10,000 because of this tax. When we have over 20,000 homeless in Toronto and 200,000 homeless in Canada, this is going in the wrong direction.
Second, many small and medium sized real estate firms will have to go out of business because of the tax burden on their operations.
Third, agents are going to be asked to collect the tax on top of their commissions. Customers will refuse to pay it. Agents are going to lose.
It is one more example of the protest of Canadians and why this unfair tax must be abolished.



Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, very soon members of this House will be voting on the hated goods and services tax. Close to 80 per cent of Canadians across the country oppose the tax, but the government has chosen not to listen to the people.
Only 21 of 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 my province of Alberta people opposed to the GST could call Murray Dorin in Edmonton Northwest at 454-1220. They could call Scott Thorkelson in Edmonton-Strathcona at 439-8900. They could call Jack Shields in Athabasca at 743-2498. They could call Ken Hughes in Macleod at 938-5005. They could call Brian O'Kurley in Elk Island at 467-4944. They could call Walter Van De Walle in St. Albert at 459-8413. They could call Doug Fee in Red Deer at 342-7222-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's calls have expired.


CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of Canadians give a few hours of their time to help the Canadian Cancer Society in its April fund raising campaign. More than 90 cents of every dollar raised goes to cancer research, patient services and public education.

April 3, 1990
When the Canadian Cancer Society volunteer calls, please give generously. Cancer can be beaten.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members and government members opposite may truly wonder who is listening and via which medium as Parliament debates the issues that concern the future of Canada. The answer has implications for policy affecting Toronto specifically and Canada's growing ethnocultural communities in general.
In a Neilsen survey for November, CFMT-TV, a multilingual TV station which reaches some 25 per cent of all Toronto area households, that is 495,085 of them, was found to be the main source of news for all Canadians.
For example, 70 per cent of all Italo-Canadians watch the station; 85 per cent of all Portuguese Canadians in the metro area and 60 per cent of all Chinese Canadians also watch. Together, for the minister's information, all of those nationalities represent some 50 per cent of metro inhabitants.
I recommend to the Minister of Communications and his colleagues in cabinet that they read the Neilsen graphs and start putting social and cultural policies in the larger context. I might advise the ministers that there is a different world out there, and it is time the government woke up to that reality as it considers constitutional and other changes.


FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, lobster fishermen along the north shore of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick from Shediac to Malagash have asked the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to increase the carapace size of lobsters from two and one-quarter inches to two and five-eighths inches this year and then another one-eighth inch again next year.
This action is a conservation measure and would allow lobsters to grow longer, resulting in a better fishery. The fishermen and processors in the three ports of Pugwash, Wallace and Malagash are so determined to see this
policy implemented that all have voluntarily agreed to restrict their own catches to the increased size.
If the fishermen are prepared to take this action, I respectfully request that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans address their proposal and change the policy to reflect the wishes of the industry.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, soon members of Parliament will be voting on the goods and services tax. If passed, this tax would bring in the biggest and most unfair tax haul in Canadian history.
Close to 80 per cent of Canadians across this country oppose this tax, but only 21 of the 167 Conservative MPs need to vote with the combined opposition parties to defeat this tax and stop the GST.
Several Conservatives have already said they cannot support the GST, and we are urging Canadians across the country to phone their Conservative member of Parliament.
I call on the following Conservative members of Parliament to have the courage to stand up to their constituents and oppose this unjust tax. The hon. member for Okanagan-Centre at 776-3337, Cariboo-Chil-cotin at 392-2626, Fraser Valley East at 792-3311, Delta at 946-7858, from the Fraser Valley West constituency at 856-0878, and others; from Wild Rose at 948-3737, from Edmonton South East-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


CLUB ACADIEN DE SEPT-iLES


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, the Club Acadien de Sept-Iles is celebrating its twenty-fifth anniversary this year, and 1990 is thus an important milestone in the history of the Acadian community in Sept-iles.
The organization, founded 25 years ago by Acadians who settled in Sept-iles in the early 50s, has been actively involved in the economic, social and religious life of our city and the entire region.
The Club Acadien de Sept-iles has been very active in ways that have helped make Sept-iles a very attractive community and a wonderful place to live.
April 3, 1990

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask all members of this House, and especially the Acadians among them, to join me in paying tribute to the Acadian community of Sept-Iles on this important occasion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.
In his discussion framework on the environment, which he published last week, the minister said: "Responding to the problem of global warming will be a formidable challenge-If we wait for all the answers, we will no doubt be too late."
Yet, in Alberta yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the government had agreed to drop national targets for cutting air pollution, and further, that Ottawa had no intention of penalizing provinces that were responsible for high levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
How could he allow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to agree to drop national commitments and targets for cutting air pollution, and if he has done that, does it not mean that he and the government as a whole think that his exercise in considering changes in the environmental policy of this country is nothing more than a sham and a public relations exercise?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should read more carefully the communique that was released yesterday by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The first thing that he must note in this communique is that the ministers have decided that we must pursue, on a national and provincial level, the reduction of CO2 emissions through as tough measures as possible.
They have also decided that this problem must be put into the context of the international scene. I agree completely with that. No definitive solution will be
Oral Questions
brought forward on this without the full agreement of everyone involved in this pollution.
Canada will not give up its leadership role on this, and this government strongly feels that we must not exclude the possibility of going as far as making unilateral commitments if it can help with the development of an international convention.
Canada is very serious and we will never make a commitment without being sure that it will be fulfilled. Canada makes commitments when she can fulfil them. The way to do it is to define beforehand the right means of achieving the commitment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that in 1988 his government made an international commitment to cut greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide by 20 per cent by the year 2005.
Does the government still maintain this international commitment? If so, how can it do it without having targets in this country for cutting air pollution?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is very important on such a major issue not to distort the facts. Canada never made any commitment at the Toronto conference and no country in the world made a commitment like this. We still have to wait for one country to make the commitment. It is a very serious commitment and we will do it together.
As the hon. member knows, there will be a very important international conference in Brazil in 1992. This will be the forum where Canada will lead the world in signing an international convention on climate change.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment seems to have been contradicted not only by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but also by the Minister of Finance.
Last week, the Minister of Environment stated on television that he had secured from his government for his Green Plan "a spending commitment". Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stated last Friday that the amount to be allocated had not yet been determined.

April 3, 1990
Oral Questions
I therefore ask the minister who is telling the truth? He who stated that the amount to be allocated has already been set, or the Minister of Finance who stated that there is no such commitment? Who is telling the truth about this?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Leader of the Opposition is reading his questions, but that he does not read the replies he gets to his questions.


An Hon. Member:: There has been no reply!


Lucien Bouchard: If the Leader of the Opposition will only refer to the reply given by the Minister of Finance, he will see that the Minister stated first that a portion of this year's budgetary reserves will be allocated to the action plan and that it is large enough to allow us by next fall to submit to the Canadian people a five-year plan which will be the first of its kind in the history of Canada by its scope and global nature. Moreover, the minister added that he wanted to maintain some flexibility in the funds already allocated, so that the consultation may be truly meaningful, and I hope that, if Canadians participate fully in this consultation, we will be able then, if necessary, to adjust the resources already allocated on the basis of the newly expressed needs.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The government has always claimed that one of the benefits of the GST would be its visibility. Now, could the Minister of Finance admit today that there is no clause in Bill C-62 that would compel a retailer to provide a receipt or a bill indicating clearly that the consumer had truly paid the 7 per cent goods and services tax on the item or service purchased?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, our position on this is quite clear. The proposal that we have put forward is that the retailer should include the tax in the price on the shelf, on the tag on the jacket, or whatever, but at the checkout counter when the money is paid, the amount should be broken down as between the GST paid and the price of the article being purchased.
We have also made provision so that the cost of point of sale equipment, cash registers, things like this, will be reduced by 20 per cent in its after-tax value to encourage retailers to put themselves in a position where they can comply with that type of proposal.
I also ask the hon. member to consider this: The essence of the amendments that he has made to the bill is to scrap the bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What does that do? That gets us right back to a tax which today is totally invisible. The hon. member does not know, and no one can tell from the price of a product, how much the tax is on any particular product, but there is tax on everything that we buy today. The clear position of the hon. member's party is to go back to a totally hidden tax, quite contrary to the position that he is fostering right now.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Major suppliers of cash registers and point of sale equipment have made it very clear that the proposal put forward by the government is going to cause a chaotic situation for retailers as well as consumers in Canada.
In view of the fact that people who know small business best were still saying as late as last night that this is going to be an administrative nightmare, will the minister not recognize that the government's proposal is in fact going to create an administrative nightmare for small business and consumers in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that. I do accept the fact that there will be some increased compliance burden on the part of small business, that there will be some adjustments to be made as they understand the nature of the tax and how it affects the cost of their purchases and the pricing of their products. Once they achieve an understanding of this, the operation of the tax is simple to comply with.
I would also encourage the hon. member to reflect on what he said in his first question and to ask himself as well as his leader why the Liberal party is advocating a return to a tax that is so deeply hidden that no one in this country knows the amount of federal sales tax they are paying in the price of any product today. Why does the Liberal party want a hidden tax? Why do they want to return to that and try to fool Canadians that there is no
April 3, 1990

tax in the price of a product today, when he knows perfectly well there is.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. We talked earlier about the international agreement that was made in 1988 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005. Everyone was going to give this serious consideration. The minister's own report released this weekend says: "Canada is the world's fourth largest producer of carbon dioxide on a per capita basis".
Clearly, Canada has a responsibility to show some leadership rather than simply saying "Yes, we will think globally, but we won't do anything locally."
Other countries have made the commitment to take some leadership on this issue and cut emissions now. They include countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Will the minister commit himself and his government to set targets now for a 20 per cent CO2 reduction by the year 2005?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think that we must straighten out the fact which has been expressed in the question. The Toronto conference in 1988 did not conclude with an agreement. It was an international conference which issued a report recommending that countries of the world make a commitment to reduce the emission of CO2 by 20 per cent by the year 2005.
Since then all the countries of the world have been trying to define how it can be achieved. Canada is at the forefront of those countries.
While we were in Norway a few months ago we strongly supported and actually led a statement agreeing that we must stabilize the level of CO2 emissions by the year 2000 at the 1988 level. People know that Canada is probably one of the most advanced countries in this objective. Canada must make a commitment, but the only way to achieve a real result would be to do it through an international convention because Canada accounts for only 2 per cent of the CO2 problem of the world.
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. The only way to do something is to do it, and that is what Canadians are asking of this government.
What this government has been good at is studying studies. In fact, after the 1988 conference and that recommendation, the former energy minister did commission a study from DPA Consulting to study CO2 emission and targeting.
It its report to the government, DPA Consulting said that by setting that objective of a 20 per cent reduction by the year 2005 we could not only save the environment, we could save money, some $100 billion in those years as a result of reducing carbon dioxide. That is $4,000 for every man, woman and child.
It does not need to be studied yet again. It is quite clear that we have to do something now. When is he going to set targets? When is he going to meet this objective?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon member's question, when she puts forward the DPA consultants' report, I think it is important to take a look at what the Minister of the Environment has said about the 1988 conference which is absolutely correct.
What happened after 1988 was that energy ministers established a task force for the purpose of determining how we could meet or move toward that 20 per cent target from the point of view of the energy portfolios, provincially and territorially on the one hand, and federally on the other.
The DPA consultants' study was a study commissioned by the task force set up by provincial and federal energy ministers. At yesterday's meeting in Kananaskis the task force clearly reported to the ministers that it did not agree with the DPA consultants' study. It does not believe that that target can be met in the manner in which DPA has put it forward.
The task force gave us indications of how we could move toward the 20 per cent target. That is why the Minister of the Environment and others of us are going to get into the consultation, which is the route to go as opposed to one which is based simply on an illogical

April 3, 1990
Oral Questions
approach, something which the hon. member so often puts forward.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary is for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister came up yesterday with the idea for a new tax, an environmental tax as he called it. My question is for the Minister who is looking for money. How much did he spend last week to have his news conference on his Green Plan broadcasted via satellite?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may want to respond. [Translation]


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the question would better be dealt with at another level than the House of Commons. I will gladly disclose all the information that might be required on that subject. There is nothing to hide. We are most willing to do that. I would point out, however, that the leader of the New Democratic Party neglected a veiy important aspect of our plan. Consultation has just started-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be given a chance to answer the question, if I may. The consultation process that has just begun is crucial. I believe this whole House should support a process that will give our country its first five-year environmental action plan. And we will be the first country in the world to have one. I urge the leader of the New Democratic Party to give us her support.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his report in the House today.
In the annual report the Commissioner gives the government failing grades on its application of the new official language law. The government put up no information program. It co-ordinated no campaign. It did nothing to counter the divisive misinformation spread by certain groups and individuals in this country.
This government has failed to communicate to Canadians the objectives and provisions of linguistic reform.
I ask the Prime Minister to show some firm leadership on this issue, to instruct his ministers to stand in their places-20 months after the adoption by this House of an official language law-and give it regulations. For God's sake, let us have some courage and do what we have to do here in this House.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows perfectly well, Bill C-72 provides for a special and complex process. It provides for consultation with minority groups, and I can inform the House that most of these consultations have taken place. They have indicated the need for some changes in the draft regulations submitted to these groups. These changes are now being made. Once the consultation process is complete, the government will decide when the draft regulations will be tabled in the House.
Finally, I can say that this government is deeply committed to this process. Our purpose in tabling the regulations on C-72 will be to adopt official languages regulations that are fair and equitable for all Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages stressed the inertia of federal departments and agencies. They are stuck between the new legislation and 20 years' worth of obsolete guidelines.
Mr. Speaker, I put this question to the President of the Treasury Board for the fourth time this year. Considering the lack of leadership afflicting federal departments and agencies today, leadership that is the responsibility of the minister, as employer but also as minister responsible for official languages, will the minister have the courage to table his regulations very shortly, since, as we know, the consultation process is complete?
I also want to know, since he claims he is still consulting, who he is consulting with? With his American friends?
April 3, 1990

Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, any inertia was caused by our colleagues opposite who, for 19 years, failed to take any action at all.
Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-72 was passed, in addition to the consultations on the regulations to be tabled in this House, Treasury Board introduced for Crown corporations operating under a memorandum of agreement the same system that applied to departments. As far as the department are concerned, at the time, four memoranda of agreement were in force; we negotiated 25.
I would like to quote what the Commissioner of Official Languages said on page 53 of his report. He said, and I quote: "Greater than the increase in the number of bilingual positions and more indicative of the capacity of the Public Service to serve the public in both languages is the increase in the number of bilingual employees in both relative and absolute terms".
The ratio of bilingual employees rose from 28 per cent in 1984 to 33 per cent in 1989, and this is something the government can be proud of.


TOURISM
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for tourism. Package tour organizers in the northeastern United States warn us of the harmful effects the GST will have on the Canadian tourism industry and more particularly on Quebec, where tourism is the fourth largest industry.
If the minister understands the threat the GST poses for tourism, what does he intend to do to help this industry now?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that most of what he has asked for has already been done as of the end of last week.
If the hon. member will read the bill, which has been reported from the committee, he will see there have been changes made exactly as he suggests. I support those changes. It will be good for the tourism industry and good for the Province of Quebec.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister explain that, since the tour operators are critical of your proposed rebate system? What do you intend to do to rectify the situation now?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this is how the rebate system should work. I hope it will be put in place this way and that it can be accommodated under the legislation as it has been reported.
When a group tour is organized the entrepreneurs of the tour will be able to apply for a rebate of the GST on behalf of the clients on the tour, thus making the whole process easier. This will make the GST not a problem for the clients.
This is a streamlining of the rebate system for which I have fought in the last two or three months. The Minister of Finance supports it. The finance committee of the House supports it. I hope the hon. member will support it too.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter written to John Bulloch from the Sweda Cash Register Company. It is addressed "Dear John".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The letter explains that there is no way the cash registers of the country will be ready by January 1, 1991 for collecting the GST. It states in part: "We sincerely believe that this will result in a chaotic situation with retailers, who we firmly believe will be unable to collect the GST under the prevailing circumstances".
In light of the fact that there will be cash register and consumer chaos, is the minister in a position to stand up in the House today and admit that there is no way that he can meet the deadline of January 1, 1991, that he has come to his senses and that he will withdraw the GST bill now?

April 3, 1990
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it might occur to the hon. member that one of the reasons why there might possibly be difficulty in companies meeting the demands is because business has been so good for the small business community that it has been ordering so many of these cash registers it is difficult for the cash register companies to meet this extraordinary demand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I know the hon. member is quite aware that we have put forward two proposals already for streamlined accounting to help the small business community in meeting the requirements of the GST.
My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has at least one other proposal for streamlined accounting under consideration.
These will be in place to assist the small business community in meeting the requirements of the GST. I believe that this and a number of other things that I have talked about before in this House demonstrate quite clearly our sensitivity to the concerns of the small business community, as it approaches the requirements of the GST in January, 1991.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will send a copy of the letter to the minister to help educate him on the problems with cash registers, if I can have a Page bring that to the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec, the Prime Minister's home province, Michel Decary, who works with Mr. Bullock, told the Quebec Finance Minister that the GST is a real nightmare for small and medium-sized businesses because the cash registers will not be converted in time to handle two separate taxes.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: Given this serious problem, how will Canadians know exactly what tax they will pay with the GST? Does the Minister of Finance have an answer to this important question for all Canadians this afternoon?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the attitude of many people in the small business community. They would prefer not to make changes. People can understand people who would prefer not to make changes.
When we look at the benefits that are going to be brought forward by the introduction of the goods and services tax, we see how it will help businesses which are competing today, and how it will put those businesses on a level playing field with the imports with which they compete. Canadian businesses are now paying one-third more tax than the imports that they are competing with.
These are the clear benefits that are in place. While there may be some difficulties as the small business community encounters that need for change, once that change is behind it the benefits are going to be very, very clear.
We have put in place a payment of up to $1,000 which will pay small businesses to help them get over this transitional hurdle. We have also put in place the small business streamlined accounting. As well, we are making it less of a requirement for them to make the payments of the taxes than we are for big business. There are a number of ways in which we have helped the small business community-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Markham- Whitchurch-Stouffville.
* # *


GUN CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufT-
ville): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I have two points concerning gun control legislation.
_ First, why the delay? After the recent tragedy at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal I thought we would have seen legislation passed or entered in this House very quickly.
Second, can the minister assure members of the House that the process of applying for a licence for a firearm will be much more rigorous and thorough in order to help prevent a massacre such as occurred in Montreal?
April 3, 1990
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Kim Campbell: I will confess to the House to having had prior notice of the question, but I am sure the House will agree that it is an excellent question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Kim Campbell: I would also assure the House that the hon. member has asked it based on his own very sincere interest in this particular issue.
I am pleased to advise him that I am finalizing my discussions on this matter. The government will introduce legislation as soon as possible. That legislation will recognize the principle that the hon. member addressed, that is, measures to promote greater safety and responsibility in the acquisition of firearms.
I look forward to the support of all members of the House when this legislation is brought forward.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last weekend the Prime Minister indicated he would support moves by Mexico to strike a free-trade deal with the United States. He also said recently that he would not be shocked by the eventual creation of a North American free-trade zone including Mexico and that such a zone could materialize in the next decade. My question is this: Does the Prime Minister intend to involve Canada in a process to create this free-trade zone with the United States and Mexico? Yes or no?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should have read carefully my speech as reported in today's paper. The article in The Globe and Mail says that:
Oral Questions

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney yesterday offered warm words of encouragement for new Mexican trade initiatives but stopped just short of formally backing a free-trade deal between Mexico and the United States.
I indicated yesterday in Montreal, as I have indicated in other circumstances, that I believe the best way for developing countries to achieve prosperity and social justice is to be given the opportunity to enhance their trade, to have greater access to rich and dynamic markets and to have a greater facility to develop national wealth by trading internationally. Greater trade abroad creates jobs at home.
I believe that unless you adopt that kind of philosophy the rich continue to get richer and the poor stagnate.
I am very surprised to see that my hon. friend from the Liberal party would do anything other than encourage the Government of Canada, which is encouraging as best we can the Government of Mexico and others, to seek more liberalized trading arrangements with their partners and around the world.

Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my question. I want to know whether or not he supports Mexico's initiative?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Mexican government does not need Canada's support. It may decide to initiate a dialogue with the Americans or the Brazilians. As far as I know, however, they have not entered into negotiations with their southern or their northern neighbours. I told Mexicans I would not be surprised to see a country such as theirs seek more liberalized trading arrangements with their neighbours to the north or the south. It seems only normal that a developing country like Mexico would be studying that possibility, since the G-7 countries have described the Canada-United-States free-trade agreement as a model for the whole world. If that is the case, the Mexicans could benefit from it, much to their credit.

April 3, 1990
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of Fisheries.
In view of the extraordinary gap in the maritime surveillance off Canada's coastline-the longest in the world-and particularly in light of Recommendation 22 of the Harris report regarding the provision of additional resources to undertake this task, could the minister inform the House precisely what action he plans to redress this serious deficiency?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, permit me to answer on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries who is, as the hon. member will know, on the east coast consulting on precisely these matters.
As I understand it there has just been a contract signed with a private sector firm in St. John's, Newfoundland. It is a contract which will result in the doubling of the hours that will be contributed to surveillance. Much better technology will be employed. Our capacity to know what goes on off the east coast will be much, much improved.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I know about that, and I thank the hon. minister for refreshing my memory.
That does not even make up for the 1,400 hours that the trackers are going to lose. That is a drop in the bucket.
You can have good science, good laws, good regulations and all the resources in the world, but unless there is proper and sufficient surveillance, monitoring and control of the fish stocks we are fighting a losing war.
The fishermen, the scientists, the bureaucrats and the task forces are all telling him, as we and the world are telling him, there is a need for real action now by this government to control over-fishing. The question is when is the minister going to get on with it?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just admitted that his memory had to be refreshed about the contract that was just signed.
The trackers covered roughly 1,700 hours of tracking. The new contract will cover 3,815 hours of tracking. There will be 33 new additional jobs contributed to this particular activity. There will be new technology. For instance, the Litton V-5 search radar which is the latest development in the world will be employed in this particular exercise.
What else does the hon. member want us to do? He is, as usual, way behind the times.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: In
French?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. My question today is about free trade.

That is the end of that.
My question is for the Prime Minister about his statements concerning the signing of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the United States. It is one thing to speak, Mr. Prime Minister, of Mexico-United States negotiations outside the context of the agreement we have between Canada and the United States, but the fact is that 43 per cent of Mexico's trade with the United States is parallel to commodities that trade between Canada and the United States.
Mexico will pay $1.60 an hour and have access to U.S. markets. Canada pays $12 or $14 an hour and will lose out.
What work have you done to ensure that our wage base will be secure here in Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: In French!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I wish to thank again the member from British Columbia and to congratulate him wholeheartedly for an impressive lin-


April 3, 1990

guistic achievement. I also have a word of warning for the newly elected leader of the NDP: "Watch out. He is learning fast!" My sincere congratulations to the member for his initiative.

My hon. friend knows full well, of course, that Canadian interests are protected by the rules of origin provisions our arrangements with the United States.
Should Mexico seek to negotiate a freer trade or a free trade agreement with the United States, obviously this conceivably could have an impact on trade with Canada. That is something that we would monitor very carefully.
However, our fundamental position is that it is clearly in the interests of a developing country like Mexico to seek to increase its own national wealth and the well-being of its citizens to take it out of a degree of poverty to a greater stage of development and prosperity through greater trade.
One of the ways of doing that is through free trade with its neighbours. I do not think those of us on either side of the House would be offended if Mexico sought to do that. Indeed, I know my hon. friend would want to encourage Mexico to do more of it.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Prime Minister's position on being concerned about Mexico's poverty. But the problems of Mexico's poverty should not be solved at the expense of Canadian workers and Canadian businessmen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Barrett: The fact is, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that unless the government is prepared to defend Canadian workers, what is the use of being the government? The government's position should be supporting Canadians.
What studies has the Canadian government done that evaluate the impact of a successful conclusion of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the United States, and its impact on the Canadian market? Mr. Hartt already suggests that five times the amount of trade is taking place-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The question is: What study has been done? Perhaps the minister wants to respond.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was, as I am sure the House and the country were, dismayed by some of the earlier comments by my hon. friend. The socialists always talk a better game about social justice than they ever deliver.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not think that it is in keeping with the spirit of Coldwell or Tommy Douglas for the member from British Columbia to be talking about Canadians being worried about-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: Baloney! You're selling out Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Algoma.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba pointed out just how impossible-some would say "phoney"-the federal government's program of assistance to farmers is in that the federal government is demanding $100 million from the province of Manitoba when its entire agriculture budget is only $85 million.
I wonder why the government has designed a program that cannot help farmers because it has demanded an impossible amount of support and assistance from the provincial governments. I wonder why the government is doing this.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) and Minister of State (Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised by the remarks of the hon. member. Our government has put about $20 billion over the last several years into agriculture. It has done a lot for farmers in Canada.
After two days of discussion on the future of agriculture last week, the Minister of Agriculture put $500 million on the table. Given that agriculture is a shared responsibility in the country, we think that the federal government has done a lot for farmers over the last several years.

April 3, 1990
Point of Order
We share the burden and we think that the provinces should put in a lot more money, and share with us for the benefit of the farmers.
I think it is a fair offer. It is on the table. We are waiting for an answer from the provinces. We think it is possible for the provinces and the federal government to do something together.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, farmers in southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba had a worse drought last summer than the previous year. They have been waiting for six months for action. All they have been getting is federal-provincial wrangling for months. When is the minister going to actually send cheques to farmers who want to put in a crop this spring? When is that going to happen?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade answered those questions yesterday.
Over the last two years we have put almost $8 billion into agriculture. During the same period of time, the three provinces put only $1.4 billion into agriculture. I don't think it is an equal share.
We have put the money aside and it is there. We are flexible. We are awaiting an answer from the provinces, I think the money is there. This represents a strong commitment by the federal government for Canadian farmers.


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to take this opportunity to raise points of order respecting a message from the Senate with regard to Bill C-21.1 would like to present to you arguments as to why the message from the Senate is inappropriate and seek the Chair's guidance in formulating a motion for a return message to the Senate.
Over several centuries of parliamentary rule a clear division of powers and responsibilities has emerged
concerning the roles of each House in a bicameral system. These responsibilities have been documented in publications, Erskine May and Beauchesne to name just two. The division of responsibilities is also laid out in sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act and in Standing Orders 79 and 80 of this House which go back . to 1967.1 would refer hon. members and the Chair to my statement of March 12, 1990 in this House on this subject.
I would also like to add to that statement today and ask you to rule that amendments 5(a) and (b), 7 and 9 in the message from the other place are out of order because they differ in one way or another with the specific conditions laid out in the royal recommendation of Bill C-21, and because they infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. As I stated on March 12, 1990,1 believe there are several other of their proposed amendments which also do this, but I will leave that to your consideration. I would also like to comment on the propriety of the Senate's amendments.
In particular, as the Speaker knows a major principle of Bill C-21 is to shift to full financing of the UI program through employer/employee contributions. The Senate amendments, particularly 7 and 9, would negate this principle and put the funding onus back on the general taxpayer to approximately the same degree as in the statute that Bill C-21 seeks to change.
Had these amendments come from a member of this House, I am sure that citation 698(5) of Beauchesne's sixth edition would have been invoked to rule them inadmissible. They are clearly contrary to that principle of the bill.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, is it logical for the Senate to ask this House by way of acquiescence to its message that which the House could not do directly? I would suggest no, but I would appreciate the Chair's observation. Would the Senate amendments be in order if they were proposed in our House? I do not believe they would. Would it be proper for this House to accept amendments from the Senate which would not be acceptable if they came from members of this House? Should not the Speaker rule these out of order on that basis?
Another point, Mr. Speaker, on which your views are solicited has to do with the fact that Bill C-21 arose from the budget of April 27, 1989. Starting on page 12 of the budget speech, the minister described the UI changes which contribute "$1.9 billion to deficit reduction in the
April 3, 1990

first full year". I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that is not an insignificant sum.
Since Confederation and indeed before the manner in which the government's fiscal program is presented to the House has been through a budget address. The address lays out the government's expenditure plans and the means by which these plans are to be financed. Our Standing Orders prescribe six days of debate and that a motion be put asking the House to support the budget. This confidence motion is important because it gives the government the authority to proceed immediately with the fiscal plans in the budget even though many of these may require legislative change. It is on the strength of the budget address, the formal procedure, the vote of confidence, that a lot of action is initiated, and indeed taxes are collected immediately with the expectation that the legislation will catch up later.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1979 the first act of a new government of a different political party was to pass a bill from the budget of the previous government prior to 1979. Indeed, in 1984 ironically one of the first acts of our government was to bring in a PGRT bill which was part of a budget of a previous government. However such is the strength, and I say this only to emphasize that such is the nature of a budget and the confidence motion that comes with it. To tamper with that or to reverse that somehow in another place is to tamper with the veiy fundamental purposes and powers of this body.
I would submit that the Senate amendments to Bill C-21 undermine in a significant way the budget of April 27 in which this House has expressed its confidence. If I am correct in this assertion, does it not put a further obstacle to the acceptability by this House of the Senate message? That is, could the House express confidence in a budget and then accept Senate originated changes which undermine that same budget without in essence revoking the previously given confidence? Putting it another way, if Bill C-21 were to be defeated in this House of Commons, a claim would be made that the government had lost the confidence of the House.
For the Senate to insist upon amendments that essentially undo or negate the principles of Bill C-21 is to ask the House to vote non-confidence in the government, an inappropriate request from the Senate. Governments must have the confidence of the House but surely not
Point of Order
necessarily that of the Senate. Indeed it is the confidence of the House and only the House.
I wish to quote one paragraph from an authority, R. McGregor Dawson in The Government of Canada, at page 212 of the fifth edition where it states:
The British North America Act requires that any measure for the spending of public funds can be considered by the House of Commons (where it must also originate) only after it has been first recommended by a message from the governor general, and by constitutional usage such a message can be transmitted to the House only through a cabinet minister. Custom and the standing orders of the House have established a companion principle that any proposal for the imposition of tax must also be made by a member of the cabinet. These two rules have been further reinforced by the practice, implied in the standing orders, that no amendment to increase taxes or appropriations can be made except upon the motion of a minister, although any member may move to have any tax or appropriation reduced or struck out. All the above principles have been derived from long English practice, and collectively they place the cabinet in a position where its responsibility in all financial matters is complete and ineluctable.
In addition to those arguments, as noted previously, Bill C-21 has a royal recommendation. I might remind hon. members that it is the parliamentary law clerk, not the government, that decides whether legislation requires a royal recommendation. If members are not aware I would refer them to Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 61, citation 225.(4), where it states that the law clerk's duties include the examination of:
-all government legislative proposals prior to their introduction to determine whether they entail an expenditure of public moneys; if they are found to do so, then drafts the Royal Recommendation for inclusion with the proposal.
The parliamentary law clerk affixed the royal recommendation to Bill C-21. That is not an issue for debate. It is very clear that a bill which represents a $2 billion impact on the deficit could hardly be considered not to require a royal recommendation.
Members of this House must then ask themselves what kind of amendments can be made to a bill that already has a royal recommendation. For this answer one need only refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 183, citation 596, where it states:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the Royal Recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.

April 3, 1990
Point of Order
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
I would then refer the Speaker to Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 185, citation 604, which states:
Amendments to bills are out of order if they attempt to substitute an alternative scheme to that proposed with the Royal Recommendation.
I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to rulings by past speakers on this issue, in particular The Selected Decisions of Speaker Lamoureux, published in 1985, which contains a number of references in this area on pages 457, 459, 463-64, 466, 469, 473-74, 477-481, and 483. Specifically, I draw your attention to page 479-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the minister is trying to do here, but we are trying to keep track of his statement.
I wonder if he would agree to tabling that statement so that we could all read it correctly, or slow down his delivery so we can receive the translation and the quotations that he is giving us today.
We had no notice of this, Mr. Speaker, and we take exception to him reading it into the record as fast as he can.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the comment from the other side of the House. I am not so sure that it is up to the Chair to say how fast or slow a member might speak. I take it as a courteous request to make it easier for the opposition to follow the argument, and of course I am in the minister's hands. I am sure that he would want to comply.


Harvie Andre: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if I were speaking too rapidly it was only so as not to take up too much time of the House. Of course I will table the document. The hon. member knew that. He did not have to stand to make that known.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I did not know anything about it. Keep to the truth.


Harvie Andre: Well, Mr. Speaker, he knew as much about it as I knew about his point of order yesterday, to which I listened for 45 minutes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Here we are again mixing apples and oranges.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the House. The minister is giving a detailed and careful argument on a matter of some considerable importance to this place. I would like him to continue because I am listening as carefully as I can.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to page 479 of this publication which deals with the Speaker's ruling on February 5, 1973 concerning amendments proposed to Bill C-124, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
During that procedural discussion the Speaker was asked to rule on whether amendments were acceptable if they have as their effect an alteration of the royal recommendation or if they constitute a rejection of the bill.
The Speaker ruled that the motions in question are out of order because they change the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation. He said that amendments are only in order if they fall within terms of the resolution.
I would also draw the Speaker's attention to the publication, Selective Decisions of Speaker James Jerome, published in 1983. I would draw your attention to pages 114, 118, 119,120-121, and 123. Specifically, pages 119 and 120 deal with amendments proposed to Bill C-69, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Speaker's ruling on December 15, 1975. The issues discussed concern whether amendments can be made that involve the expenditure of money not sanctioned by the royal recommendation. In the ruling Speaker Jerome ruled these amendments out of order because they infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown and because the expenditures proposed were not provided for in the royal recommendation.
Before I proceed to explain why amendments 5(a) and (b), 7 and 9 relate to these rulings, I would like to point out that several initiatives in Bill C-21 were provided for in the budget speech and papers presented by the Minister of Finance, as I have indicated. In my speech of March 12, 1990 I referred directly to the budget speech so I will not quote from it now. However, again Beauchesne's and Erskine May state that the most important parts of ways and means is the budget speech.
April 3, 1990

Mr. Speaker, I would also refer you to the so-called Gladstone amendment of 1866, to the Standing Order of the British House of Commons and to the ninth report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance tabled in the Senate on February 13,1990 concerning the Senate's traditional treatment of legislation with royal recommendations.
Beauchesne's goes on to state in Citation 974:
The Minister of Finance presents the House of Commons with a
budget statement by moving a motion "That this House approves in
general the budgetary policy of the government - "
This House divided positively on this motion in 1989 thus approving the financial provisions set out in that budget to fix UI premium rates for three years and to modify the financial provisions of the act.
Attempts to modify these provisions as amendments 7 and 9 do are a clear attempt by the other place to change budgetary policy. As we know, budgetary policy is the sole prerogative of the Crown and the House of Commons. To allow the other place to dictate this policy through amendments 7 and 9 would be a clear breach of our responsibilities as elected members of Parliament. The additional costs to the Consolidated Revenue Fund resulting in a change in the 1989 budget as proposed by the other place would exceed $1.75 billion annually.
Amendments 5(a) and (b) are contrary to the royal recommendation because they propose to substitute an alternate scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
Clause 22 of Bill C-21 designs a penalty system for people who quit their jobs without just cause by imposing a penalty of seven to twelve weeks.
Amendments 5(a) and (b) propose a different and more expensive-over $350 million-scheme than that provided for in the royal recommendation. For this reason 5(a) and (b) should be ruled out of order.
Amendment 7 attempts to design Consolidated Revenue Fund participation for a new version of regionally extended benefits which would exceed $1.5 billion annually. This amount is out of order for two reasons. First, it provides for an alternate scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation. Second, it infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown by establishing payment
Point of Order
from the CRF which was explicitly withdrawn in the 1989 budget approved by this House.
Amendment 9 also attempts to design Consolidated Revenue Fund participation for the payment of fishing benefits which exceed $250 million annually. This amendment is out of order for two reasons. First, it provides for an alternate scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation. Second, it infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown by establishing payments with the CRF which were withdrawn from the 1989 budget approved by the House.
It is the duty of members to protect the rights and responsibilities accorded to this House, not only by the Constitution Act and our Standing Orders, but by centuries of parliamentary procedure and rulings which have given financial responsibility to the House of Commons.
It is incumbent upon us, the elected representatives of the people, to ensure that the nation's finances are guarded by the people's representatives, by members of Parliament who must seek again the support of an elected body, not by appointed people.
I have listed some of the parliamentary rulings. I would urge all members to abide by their responsibilities and recognize that what is being asked of us is trampling on the traditions and responsibilities of this House.
I would like to refer the House to citation 620 of Beauchesne's sixth edition which talks about amendments to a tax act. In fact, what we are talking about here, taxes applied to employees and employers for the purposes of funding UI, are taxes in a real sense which represents billions of dollars to those paying their tax.
I quote citation 620(2):
(2) This method involves more than just a question of agreement. It involves a question of the privileges of the House which have been enshrined in Standing Order 80. But if the House, in its wisdom, feels that the circumstances are such that it should waive its asserted privileges it does so, in effect, by suspending Standing order 80. Therefore, unless a motion proposes to suspend Standing Order 80, it would require the unanimous consent of the House to pass the amendments which are proposed.
With that citation we are in a situation that, in fact, were we to want to accept the amendments of the Senate, they would have to be preceded by a motion to

April 3, 1990
Point of Order
suspend Standing Order 80, which as the Chair knows has been in place since 1867, and flows directly from the Constitution, Sections 53 and 54.
I recognize and clearly do not expect a ruling in immediate short order, Mr. Speaker, but I would appreciate the guidance of the Chair in this regard. I am reminded and encouraged by rereading the decisions of the Chair in respect to Bill C-103 of July 1988 wherein the Speaker was moved to acknowledge that the Senate's alterations to that bill were in fact infringing on the privileges of this House.
It is incumbent upon us to recognize that these amendments infringe on the privileges of this House. We must defend these hard-won privileges. While the Senate, the other place, takes its authority from Section 17 of the Constitution which says there will be a Parliament consisting of the Governor General, the Senate and the House of Commons we know that by long centuries of tradition the Governor General, not being elected, does not not exercise that authority. The Senate not being elected ought not to be trodding on the authorities of this House of Commons. It is up to the House of Commons to defend our responsibilities and our authorities.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been put forward by the government House leader without notice, by the way. If that is the way he wants to operate in the House from now on, we will take that as notice and we will comply with that kind of bad precedent. I just want to make sure that the minister, who has called a meeting of the House Leaders for 3.15 p.m., will not have a meeting all by himself somewhere and will wait for this debate to be over, at which time we will meet with him to discuss the House business for the coming week.
The question arises, of course, as to why the minister did not make this argument on March 12 last, when this House debated for some time the message from the Senate dealing with Bill C-21. At the time, if you look at the record, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the minister did not invoke the arguments that he has put to you today, but rather accepted one amendment fully, and three in principle, and then passed a message on to the Senate.
I believe that the minister, Mr. Speaker, by asking you a very great number of hypothetical questions, and also constitutional questions, is putting the Chair in a very difficult situation. What the Speaker has to do now is to rule on hypothetical questions, which I hope you will not,
Mr. Speaker, and on constitutional questions, which are not the prerogative of the Chair.
Therefore, why did the government not bring these arguments to us on March 12? Because they are trying to play funny games with the House. This new House leader that we have today is known as the bully around here. He bullies people around, he thinks that he is going to get his way, that he will accomplish everything by having his way.


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. minister.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it may be personal privilege. I have a relatively thick skin. I sat here for 45 minutes yesterday and listened to the hon. member abuse me. But I do not understand what the personal abuse he hurls toward me has to do with the constitutional questions I am asking the House to address. I wish the hon. member would address that constitutional question: does he believe in democracy or does he not?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has risen on a point of order, and as far as everything I have heard so far is concerned, he is certainly in order to do so. He has presented an argument in some detail to such an extent that the appropriate members on the opposition side have naturally asked for a copy of the argument. I understand that.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is properly replying and there may be other things that could be said in another place. What I need is argument directed to the matters that are raised and that are before us. Without that, I cannot be of very much assistance to the House. I would ask all hon. members to keep that in mind.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will keep those remarks in mind and try to address the various points quickly and, I hope, with clarity so that members of the House will understand that indeed I made some valid arguments on March 12 last which I would like members to return to in dealing with some of the specifics dealing with Bill C-21.
I still think that hypothetical questions and constitutional questions are not the responsibility of the Chair and I would refer the minister to the experts in his department to address those questions and maybe give
April 3, 1990

us some advice and he could come into the House and read for us again.
I do not think that the arguments raised by-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could interrupt the hon. member for just a moment. Generally speaking, the proposition put by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier that it is not for the Chair to decide a constitutional question is at least prima facie valid.
The argument put by the hon. minister may well contain matters which are procedural and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier may very well want to distinguish between those that might be procedural and those that he might argue ought not to be within the purview of the Speaker. But there may be a mix of things in this debate. I hope that assists the hon. member a little bit.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for those remarks. I recognize that procedural questions are indeed to be discussed and can be raised in this House. My only point is that constitutional questions per se are not in the purview of the Chair.
The government, or the minister speaking for the government, is trying to bail out of a difficult situation, a difficult conundrum they got themselves into on Bill C-21. We all know that as of now the procedure is that the Senate has had the bill before it, studied it, looked at it seriously, referred it back to this House with a message recommending some nine amendments. Three of those amendments were accepted by the government and sent back with a message to the Senate. We know now that another message is back here. We have it on the Order Paper and that is the situation in regard to Bill C-21.
What the government is attempting to do today is try to muddy the waters and come back and argue that the first message received by this House was indeed not acceptable and should not have been received. We will argue, Mr. Speaker, that that of course is nonsense and that the government in alleging such things, is behind the times and trying to again catch up to the facts of the procedures of this House.
I may refer to debate in the Senate during my remarks. I hope the House will bear with me, because there has been a study made by the Senate of these amendments and a ruling made by the Chair, the Speaker of the
Point of Order
Senate, on February 20, 1990 which members would probably like to read and inspire themselves with.
It has been alleged by this government that the Senate actions with respect to Bill C-21 are constitutionally and procedurally unsound. That is exactly what we have been told today by the minister. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that these charges are without foundation in either fact or law. Ignoring precedent, dismissing authorities is nothing more than an attempt to divert all attention from the wilful inadequacies of the legislation itself, that is, Bill C-21.
In my comments to this House on March 12,1 related historical background as to why this side of the House, the Liberal caucus, believes that these amendments were in order.

Mr. Speaker, in 1867 there were those in this country who opposed the establishment of the Senate. They wanted a Parliament constituted strictly on the basis of representation by population. Those persons, we will recall, were mostly from Canada West, which is now Ontario, my province. Fortunately, they did not prevail. They did not win their argument. Other provinces refused to agree, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, to a Parliament in which they would be in a minority situation and where Ontario would have the upper hand.
Those of us who come from Central Canada, as we say today, must recognize, however, that members of the House of Commons are elected and have a most important role to perform, and also that there is another Chamber, the Senate, which has an important role as well, which is to review and perhaps rethink the legislation referred to it. One could call this the Senate's right to provide a second opinion on all legislation considered and passed by this House.
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, believe that an elected Senate would probably be more effective. It is a view that is shared by many Liberal members. However, until we do have Senate reform, and as long as the present situation prevails, we must allow the Senate, whatever the government's big guns may have to say about it, to perform the task assigned to it by our Constitution.

April 3, 1990
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker, I am getting to my question. Are the amendments put before this House by the Senate of Canada unacceptable because they contravene our Standing Orders, as the minister said earlier?
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 80(1) to which the minister referred was used by him to argue that these amendments contravene our Standing Orders. He also made use of the constitutional argument-sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867. I could not find anybody in the Senate who said: We accepted Standing Order 80(1) of the House of Commons. This particular standing order should not concern the Senate, Mr. Speaker, and why should it?
Mr. Speaker, to make myself clear, I will read the Standing Order which says, and I quote:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies-
And the Standing Order goes on, Mr. Speaker.
I want to stress the term "aids and supplies" because this is an important part of the point I am trying to make. I argued this point on March 12.1 will do it again today, because the Prime Minister failed to understand what the point was.
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 80(1) goes on as follows:
U.C. bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, the question we have to answer is whether Bill C-21 deals with aids and supplies as described in Standing Order 80(1). In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is no connection with 80(1)-in other words, with aids and supplies. We need not revive the old argument between the House of Commons and the Senate about whether Standing Order 80(1) prevails here. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, 80(1) is not a rule of the Senate but a Standing Order of the House of Commons, and I fail to see how it can be used to argue that Bill C-21 and the Senate's amendments to the bill are concerned with aids and supplies.
Mr. Speaker, if we refer to such authorities as Erskine May, for example, we conclude that there are two categories of public expenditures. It is important that
people understand that public expenditures are those paid directly from the appropriations voted every year by Parliament. What happened today, Mr. Speaker, was that the House voted to restore the appropriations to the government for public expenditures. And then we have ways and means motions, Mr. Speaker, and as you know every year the government introduces ways and means motions to seek authority to allocate funds.
Then we have expenditures paid directly from the public treasury. That is the second category. Expenditures payable with funds authorized by Parliament are those approved each year through appropriation legislation introduced in the House on a regular basis. Expenditures paid by the treasury are called legislative expenditures. Mr. Speaker, those are the ones we are talking about in Bill C-21. This has nothing to do with the old argument as to whether supply and appropriations are involved, but with legislative measures which entail expenditures, with the royal recommendation, of course.
History tells us that the Crown was expected to pay public service expenses with revenue from its assets. When it was found that such a revenue source was not quite enough the Crown asked Parliament for supply and appropriations, or additional funds to meet annual needs. Our Standing Order 81 refers to the supply bill.
At Westminster, supply and appropriation bills with a Royal recommendation are introduced by the Speaker of the House of Commons. We have the same thing in Canada. A bill must carry the Royal recommendation to be called a legislative expenditures measure. That being said, let us examine the other kinds of outlays which I called legislative expenditures. They are not introduced through a supply bill nor are they covered under Standing Orders concerning supply proceedings.
Prior to 1968 they were introduced through financial resolutions before a committee of the whole House. Such resolutions were recommended to the House by the Governor General and, in 1968, the preliminary stage of the resolution was eliminated in Canada. Ever since the Royal recommendation has been sent to the House in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 79(2).
Bill C-21 was introduced with a royal recommendation, pursuant to Standing Order 79(2), and not upon the presentation of a message, pursuant to Standing Order

79(3). I believe it would be useful for me to read Standing Order 79(2) and Standing Order 79(3):
(2) The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
End of Standing Order 79(2).
Standing Order 79(3) reads as follows:
(3) When estimates are brought in, the message from the Governor General shall be presented to and read by the Speaker in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the House should recognize that Bill C-21 is not a supply bill. Definitely, in this case, Standing Order 79(2) and Standing Order 79(3) apply, and not Standing Order 81.
Having said that, let us deal now with the Constitutional issue which the minister raised again today. Are the amendments which the Senate proposed out of order by virtue of Sections 53 and 54 of our Constitutional Act, 1867? Mr. Speaker, I remind all hon. members that Bill C-21 was a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act adopted in 1970 and 1972. I remind them also that the bill which became the Unemployment Insurance Act was Bill C-229 which was read the first time on March 10,1971. That is the legislation which Bill C-21 meant to amend. The amounts were duly allocated under a recommendation of the Governor General.
Whoever examines the amendments which the Senate made to Bill C-21 realizes that a member of this House could have presented each of these amendments as an amendment to Bill C-229 of 1971. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. None of the amendments proposed to the various clauses of Bill C-21 seeks to increase or change the amount or purpose of an allocation in a way which would affect the royal recommendation of March 10, 1971. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that none of the proposed amendments seeks to increase or change the amount or purpose of an allocation in a way that would affect the royal commission of March 10, 1971. Why, then, is the
Point of Order
minister getting so excited? Well, he wishes to make a point.
Mr. Speaker, it follows that the amendments which the Senate proposed to Bill C-21 are not inconsistent with the royal recommendation; quite the opposite. If Bill C-229, in 1971, was in order when it was passed on March 10, 1971, we believe that the same holds for the Senate's amendments that are before the House today, in 1990, because they in no way contravene the allocation of funds provided for in the original bill.
Mr. Speaker, since all the provisions of Bill C-21 could have been presented in 1971 as amendments to Bill C-229, the original legislation, we must wonder why Bill C-21 had the royal recommendation when it was presented to the House of Commons on June 1, 1989, as we know. We wonder why. I know that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) has already addressed this question, but he will certainly repeat his arguments once again.
On February 5, 1990, when the committee asked officials what clauses of Bill C-21 required a royal recommendation, the officials, this government's advisers, said-In other words, when asked why it was necessary to obtain or include a royal recommendation in the bill, these officials replied that neither the Employment and Immigration Commission nor the Department of Justice had determined which provisions of this legislation required a royal recommendation.
It has not been clearly shown either in committee or in this House, Mr. Speaker, that certain clauses require a royal recommendation. They knew of none at the committee stage and we know of none today either. Since no clause that the Senate proposes amending, Mr. Speaker, requires a royal recommendation, we conclude that the royal recommendation of June 1, 1989 is unnecessary, at least as far as these clauses are concerned. That is the line of reasoning on which the Senate justifies the validity of the proposed amendments.
That is what the Speaker of the Senate based his decision on, Mr. Speaker. He cited Erskine May in his ruling that the amendments in question were in order and that they imposed no additional charge on the public treasury.
Unlike a money bill, Bill C-21 reduces the charges on the public treasury. It is therefore in order.

April 3, 1990
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker, I now want to touch on-I could deal with it at length, but I will let my colleagues in this House do so. I will let them go into each of the proposed amendments and how they have been handled by the government.

I would like to use some arguments that the minister has given us today in this House and at other times, concerning Bill C-21. The minister claimed that Senate amendments to Bill C-21 violated Standing Order 80(1).


An Hon. Member:: The House didn't agree.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I did not say that the House didn't agree. I said the Senate is not bound by it. You should listen, Mr. Minister, to what I am saying. I will repeat it again for the minister, because I think he missed the point. I repeat Standing Order 80(1).
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
Standing Order 80 (1), is a unilateral declaration by this House of Commons which has absolutely, as I said earlier in my remarks, no effect on the Senate. The Senate has never accepted, does not have to accept, does not have to deal with Standing Order 80 (1). It does not have to accept the proposition that this Standing Order limits the authority or powers in any way.
Furthermore, Standing Order 80 (1) has absolutely no relevance to the matter at hand since Bill C-21, has nothing whatsoever to do with aids and supplies as I just finished explaining. The term "aids and supplies" refers to the process whereby the government presents and then has approved by the House of Commons its estimates. God knows the Tories have had a large majority so they get their way all the time, and they should not be unhappy about that, but they seem to take it out on us all the time. I want to tell them that aids and supplies, in our interpretation, means aids and supplies, and refers to the process whereby the government presents and then has approved by the House of Commons its estimates which then form part of the appropriation bill.
I do not have to remind the House that last Friday this government pulled the rug out from under its own feet on supply, moved quorum on debate on an opposition day, and lost the procedure for supply in this House.
I would like to have before me the article written by Marjorie Nichols. I think it would be worth reading into the record to make the point. We thought it was a rather dumb thing to do.


Harvie Andre: Not as dumb as you, Gauthier.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It was a waste of authority as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to keep in mind the Speaker's comment a little earlier. These are complicated matters. There will be other matters of debate. Whatever was in one article or in another is not something that helps me answer the question that is being posed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I needed a rest from standing like this. I needed to sit down-he's always been a sucker for a left anyway.
In the 1989-1990 Estimates, Part II, page 62, there is summary of expenditures of the Department of Employment and Immigration. The summary shows which expenditures must be approved by Parliament. Under the sub-heading "Employment and Insurance Program", approval for operating expenditures was requested under Vote 5, and approval for grants and contributions was requested under Vote 10. But four items including the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance account in the amount of $2,660 billion, and government contributions in respect to fishermen's benefits in the amount of $286 million, required no vote. These are statutory expenditures and were included in the Estimates for information purposes only.
I think I should remind the House that the purpose of estimates is to present to Parliament the budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure proposals of the government for the next fiscal year. These estimates include votes, which Parliament is asked to approve through appropriation acts, as well as other items called statutory items, for which the required expenditures have already been
April 3, 1990

approved through existing legislation and are included only for information purposes. This is from Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 484, page 169.
The reason for this is that the statutory obligations continue unchanged for the life of the Unemployment Insurance Act. They need not be confirmed year after year. In the 1989-90 fiscal year the federal government contributed almost $3 billion to the unemployment insurance account. Parliament was not asked to approve these expenditures. Parliament was not asked to agree to spend funds for this purpose. Parliament gave its approval when the program was established and that approval is continuous.
When the estimates are approved by Parliament the resulting appropriation bill or supply bill, as it is also called, is introduced. It does not contain the statutory expenditures. Citation 509(1) of Beauchesne's at page 173 states:
The concurrence by the House of the Estimates is an Order of the
House to bring in a bill, known as the Appropriation Bill -
Consequently, Parliament is not asked to approve annually either directly or indirectly these statutory expenditures or for that matter other statutory expenditures such as family allowances or old age security payments. Parliament is, however, asked to approve non-statutoiy expenditures such as the operating budgets of departments, including the operating budget of the Department of Employment and Immigration.
As I just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, it does so by first agreeing to the appropriation vote in the Estimates. This is what is commonly referred to as granting supply, in other words agreeing to the government's plan of how it intends to spend money.
Parliament then passes an appropriation bill which makes good the supply. It sounds like a very reasonable, well understood system. By approving the appropriation of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, Parliament is accomplishing its duty. Without an appropriation bill the government would have its spending plan approved but no money to put it into effect.


Mr. Baker:: Right on.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is these non-statutoiy expenditures which Parliament approves, which include votes on the Estimates and the appropriation bill, that constitute aids and supply. I just referred to the definition of that. I can
Point of Order
repeat it again if the minister wants to hear it. I see he has left the House, Mr. Speaker. I guess he does not have an interest in this matter and he just wants to go out-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is an experienced and leading member of this place and knows that whether a minister left, or whether a minister stayed, or whether one of his colleagues went, or whether he stayed is not an appropriate comment. I want him to continue to address, as he is quite capable of doing of course, the exact points that I have to decide.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I accept again, Mr. Speaker, but in a debate you would expect the other person to be there when you are speaking and I would like to make that point, very clear. I say this in all kindness. I do not want to-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What kindness?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: From the bottom of my heart where it should be on the left side of centre.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be from the bottom of the heart but how deep down did you dig?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier that the parliamentary secretary is here and I am sure that he is listening carefully to the learned remarks of our friend.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that and I like that person very much.


Mr. Cooper:: Thanks. You just got my pay cut!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As I was saying, it is these non-statutory expenditures which Parliament approves through its vote on the estimates and the appropriation bill that constitutes aids and supplies.
The government requests, of course, the aid of Parliament in meeting its day-to-day operating expenses, and Parliament usually agrees to supply the necessary funds. In fact when an appropriation bill is passed by the House of Commons and Senate, the Speaker of the House of Commons addresses in the Senate Chamber the hon. the Deputy of the Governor General at the time of Royal Assent as follows:
May it please Your Honour, the Commons of Canada have voted
certain supplies required to enable the government to defray the
expenses of the Public Service.

April 3, 1990
Point of Order
These are from Senate Debates, June 19, 1989, page 459, concerning Bill C-35. Veiy, very impressive statement.
May it please Your Honour, the Commons of Canada have voted certain supplies required to enable the government to defray the expenses of the Public Service.
This form of address is used exclusively for appropriation bills. It is used to complete the aids and supplies process. It would of course not be used at the time of Royal Assent on Bill C-21. It could not be because Bill C-21 is not a bill of aids and supplies.
In arguing that the Senate was butchering-the word the minister used-Standing Order 80, the new Government House Leader exhibited a profound misunderstanding of not only the supply process of Parliament, but also the very nature of Bill C-21.
This bill calls for the reduction-I underline that word, the reduction-of expenditures. It asks Parliament to allow the government to end existing statutory expenditures, eliminating existing expenditures. It does not grant aids and supplies. That is our interpretation of what aids and supplies means.
Now I want to come back to an argument that I made a few minutes ago about the constitutional argument that was put to you today by the minister and to which I said to you, Mr. Speaker, that I did not think it was your responsibility to act as constitutional adviser to the minister.
The hon. minister charged that Section 53 of the Constitution Act of 1867 prohibits the Senate from amending money bills. Mr. Speaker, you will find that statement at page 96.


An Hon. Member:: Stuff and nonsense!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is wrong, wrong, wrong. In fact he had been contradicted by his own actions in dealing with the Senate amendments on Bill C-21. Section 53 of our Constitution states:
Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost shall originate in the House of Commons.
The minister claims it is axiomatic that if the Senate amends such a bill the bill does not originate in the House of Commons. That was the argument he used on March 12. Unfortunately, the only thing that is axiomatic or self-evident about this proposition is that it flies in the face of the commonly accepted meaning of the word
"originate". And I may get the dictionary later on if he comes into the House and read it to him again as to what the word originate means.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "originate" as: Give origin to, initiate, cause to begin. It defines its root "origin" as: derivation, beginning or rising or coming from something, starting-point. The word "originate" implies a beginning, not an end. It describes a starting point. Then it must run its course.
Bill C-21 originated in the House of Commons. We all know that. It was an amendment to the original existing legislation. It was amended in the House of Commons and passed by the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, you understand and will recognize some lengthy and very constructive debate on the part of the opposition, but with the usual closure motions and appropriation of time that the government invokes all the time. This is the thirty-fifth time the government has done it in this Parliament. We are getting to the point now where the cynicism is such that we expect the government to do it every day.
I would not be surprised if it did so on this matter. I would not be surprised if it did it on Bill C-62, the GST bill. I would not be surprised if it did it on the abortion bill. I would not be surprised if it did it on everything before the House, because it has got into the habit of doing it so much. It is now past the stage of something which was used exceptionally and is now used commonly all the time.
Bill C-61 originated in the House of Commons. It went to the Senate, was amended and passed. The requirements of section 53 of our Constitution of 1867 in our opinion were indeed met.
It is interesting that when the minister concluded his argument on Bill C-21 he said that it was a money bill and that section 53 of The Constitution Act, 1867 prohibited the Senate from making any amendments to money bills, and he moved the following motion:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours
that this House agrees with amendments 4(a) made by the Senate to
Bill C-21 -
Although the message then goes on to raise a constitutional objection concerning other Senate amendments, the fact remains that the government House leader and the House itself accepted, without demur or reservation,
April 3, 1990

a Senate amendment to a bill which the government claims is a money bill.
They cannot have it both ways. The minister's declaration that section 53 prohibits the Senate from amending money bills rings hollow in view of his own request that the House of Commons support one of the Senate's amendments. There has to be something lacking in his judgment.
I want to refer to section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, House of Commons Standing Order 79, and the royal recommendation. As with the analysis of the supply process and of money bills, the minister displayed a total lack of understanding about the royal recommendation process.
In his remarks before the House of Commons he alleged that the Senate had passed amendments that went beyond the terms of the royal recommendation attached to Bill C-21 and that in doing so had acted contrary to the requirements of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and House of Commons Standing Order 79.
There is simply no truth in this charge. I will show you why. I want to read section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 for the minister who is out there laughing at this issue which we consider to be very serious and most important. I am going to be nice to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 reads as follows:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Ihx or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
Mr. Speaker, that is clear.
Standing Order 79 which incorporates and adds section 54, reads as follows:
(1) This House-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member could just excuse the Chair for a moment.
First, I want to let the hon. member know that I think I have the points he is making thoroughly secured in my mind. If there are some other references the hon. member would like to make in wrapping up, I would
Point of Order
certainly want to hear them. But I do not think that it needs to take the time of the House, or my time, in reading sections from the Constitution Act or from the Standing Orders. If a point needs to be made on one of them, I think it may be sufficient just to draw my attention to the Standing Order or to the section which I will of course look at and read in any event.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I take your admonition seriously. I was just trying to instruct the people out there who are listening to us and give them the opportunity to understand what the process is all about.
The minister's speech, by stating Standing Order 79(1) means nothing to people out there listening. I think they understand English or French, and I am trying to read the Standing Orders in order to help them better understand what this place is all about.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member and other hon. members that ultimately it would be for me to make sure they understand what we are doing. It might not always be that easy.
I am asking the hon. member to close off his remarks as soon as he can.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the Standing Orders by their number, and you can get them out of the book and read them yourself.
Standing Order 79 incorporates and adds to section 54 of our Constitution, 1867. A royal recommendation is required if a bill appropriates money. Bill C-21 carried a royal recommendation. The minister claimed that clauses 2, subparagraphs (1), (9), 14(1), 19(2), 20 and 50(1) of Bill C-21 imposed a charge on public funds. The Senate did not amend Clauses 2(1), (9), 14(1), 19(2) and 50(1). These clauses remain unchanged. It did amend clause 20 but far from increasing a charge it reduced it by restricting the development use provisions of the bill.
As will be described, a royal recommendation is not necessary if a charge is being reduced. We all know that.
The minister also claimed that the Senate amendment which would maintain a certain level of government contributions to the UI account required a royal recommendation. This claim discloses a total and indeed a comprehensive lack of understanding of the royal recommendation process.

April 3, 1990
Point of Order
The Unemployment Insurance Act requires the government to pay for all regionally extended benefits. Clause 52 of Bill C-21 would eliminate completely the government's contribution. The Senate rejected this proposal. In its place it substituted an amendment which would reduce government contributions by 50 per cent. The minister claims it is absurd. Those are his own words, that it is absurd to argue that this Senate amendment does not require a royal recommendation. In point of fact, the absurdity lies in arguing that an amendment which reduces expenditures requires a royal recommendation.
The royal recommendation attached to Bill C-21 reads as follows:
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled an act-
The provisions of Bill C-21 which are in dispute propose to reduce or eliminate existing statutory expenditures. The Senate amendment to clause 52 of the bill would also reduce existing statutory expenditures but by a lesser amount.
To argue that a royal recommendation from the Governor General is necessary when existing expenditures are being reduced would lead to the following absurdity-and I am using the House leader's words own words. I want to read how absurd it would sound:
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the reduction of public expenditures under the circumstances-
That would make no sense. No such royal recommendation has ever been proposed. I do not think that any government, even a House leader as incompetent as that one, would even think of doing that.
I could go on to quote Erskine May, twentieth edition, at page 716, but keeping in mind your remarks that you do not want me to quote extensively, I hope these will be appended to the speech that I am making, as if read.
That is why the Speaker of the Senate, ruled in order the amendments now before the House of Commons, on the grounds that amendments to reduce or maintain existing charges did not require a royal recommendation. As authority, he cited Erskine May. The minister did not
call upon the Speaker of the House of Commons to rule on these amendments at the time of debate on March 12, knowing, and undoubtedly he did, that they were in fact procedurally proper. What he is doing today by asking you to rule on them is asking you to pull him out of his conundrum. Instead, he chose at that time to present a series of convoluted arguments which, if accepted, would require rewriting the Constitution of this country, the Standing Orders of this House and the authorities, Erskine May, Beauchesne, and many other experts in the field which we use commonly in this House. You would have to rewrite the whole book to please that minister.
I want to conclude my remarks. I know you will be happy to hear that I am going to conclude on an up note. I hope to be able to be a little more positive than the minister.
The minister claims that the Senate is prohibited from making any amendments to the so-called "money bills". He ignores precedent and the authorities. I would like to quote some of those. Appendix 1 of Beauchesne's provides the form to be used in the House of Commons for moving various motions. We use those every day. In the fifth edition at page 282, Form No. 47, which is entitled "Agreeing with Senate Amendments to Money Bills". That is the wording used of the proposed amendment.
The Senate has never agreed with the contention that it is prohibited from making any amendments to money bills, and this position is recognized not only in Beauchesne's, but even in the procedural publications prepared by the House of Commons itself.
Precis of Procedures, second edition, 1987, which was prepared by the House of Commons Table Research Branch and published under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons, recognizes the procedure concerning the "reconsideration by the House of any amendments" made by the Senate to taxation bills, bills which have been preceded by a Ways and Means motion; in other words, money bills.
The truth is described in Dawson's The Government of Canada, sixth edition, 1987, when dealing with a claim of the House of Commons concerning the lack of authority by the Senate over money bills because of Standing Order 80. Mr. Speaker, I beg your patience and indulgence. I have to read it because it is very important and it
April 3, 1990

ends my remarks. The author is Dawson, The Government of Canada, sixth edition, 1987 and I quote:
It is a fair statement that almost the only attention the Senate has given to this grand assertion is to ignore it. On the theoretical side the Senate has argued that if the constitution was intended to limit the Senate's power over money bills once initiated, it would say so. The Senate has insisted further that it could not discharge its functions as a guardian of provincial or regional rights if it had no power over money bills. What is more important is that the Senate has repeatedly amended bills that contained money clauses, and also bills that dealt exclusively with finance, including income tax bills. The Commons has accepted Senate amendments to money bills, usually adding a futile claim that its acquiescence must not be considered a precedent. The Senate could, if practice is any guide, amend a money bill out of all recognition, so that in effect the bill was rejected.
In its amendment to Bill C-21, the Senate has taken a much more moderate course of action than I just described.
I know there are other members in this House who would like to address this issue, explain the impact of the procedure before us and go on to explain why we should indeed accept the message of the Senate and pass it.
Having taken the time of the House, I apologize if at times I was repetitive. I do think, Mr. Speaker, that given the fact that we were given no notice of this debate today, the minister not having thought to give us prior notice of at least a half an hour, or even an hour, we will continue to debate this motion in due course. When we get to the substantive message, whenever it is called, I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I may comment further on this process.


EXCISE TAX ACT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, because this particular point of order may be carried on for some while, I wish to indicate that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to an allocation of time to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Thx Act, the Statistics Act, and the Ihx Court of Canada Act.
Time Allocation
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allowing a specified number of days or a day for the consideration and disposal at both stages of the said bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have another example of either-I do not want to use the word "arrogance", I am trying to find another word. Mr. Speaker, it is not debate. It is a point of order and it is a good one.
The debate on Bill C-62 at report stage has not started. It has not started yet. The order was called by the House at one o'clock and the House adjourned at one o'clock. I submit that the notice given is not in order because the debate has not started. Just calling the order does not mean the debate has started. There has been nobody in this House that has addressed this issue as of now and I maintain-

-that the whole process is biased, it is the only word I can think of, because neither the House nor the committee has had a chance to study the bill. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this point of order is extremely serious and that once again the government is making a mistake because it wants to push it, to bully it through and do things its own way regardless of the Standing Orders of the House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for over an hour listening to my normally eloquent and concise friend on a point of order for an hour.
As the Speaker knows, the order was called this morning. The minister made an intervention on this point of order of 20 minutes. The hon. member chose to go on for 60 minutes and if that is what he chooses to do, that is fine. At the same time it is very clear that the debate was called today. The order was called. The debate has started. If the opposition chooses to speak 60 minutes on a point of order, that is their option. The other option is to continue with Orders of the Day.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, your patience is being tested quite severely today.

Point of Order
I want to lend my voice of support to my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier's intervention. I want to remind you of a comment you made in this House on December 15, 1988 when you spoke some very thoughtful and guiding words for this moment. I quote from page 78 of Hansard: the following:
After a very careful consideration of this point, I am more persuaded by the weight of precedent and practice. Thking into consideration the gravity of the measure to be invoked and the necessity of protecting the rights of the minority, it is my feeling and decision that the intention of the Standing Order as drafted and as it has been applied is to allow a majority to impose closure only after debate on the question has begun. This is to ensure that such debate is not unfairly or prematurely curtailed. In this instance, debate on the motion had clearly not begun when the Hon. Minister served notice.
Mr. Speaker, that was your comment in December of last year. Obviously the debate has not commenced. The debate has not begun. If we are to be consistent in this House, the government House Leader has to learn to accept the fact that while he is anxious to invoke closure or time allocation, he must at least wait until we have begun to debate this stage of the legislation. I know he finds that difficult, but surely to goodness he should at least allow the debate to commence even for a few minutes before he invokes closure and muzzles Parliament.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the order was called this morning. We did have a vote moving to Orders of the Day. The order was called-


An Hon. Member:: There was no debate.


Albert Glen Cooper: Orders of the Day were called. The debate started. It was very clear. If all members had listened veiy carefully they would know that everything was started. We are now in the time slot where that debate is on the floor of the House. If members choose to debate that particular issue or if they choose to go on at great length on a point of order on another subject, that is their option. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that in fact the order has been called for debate and the notice of motion, as presented by the Minister of Finance, is acceptable to the House and is totally in order.


An Hon. Member:: It is not.


Albert Glen Cooper: Certainly, it is.


Mr. Speaker:: I will check the record and come back to the House and clarify this matter.
The hon. member for Kamloops may want to rise on the other matter we were discussing.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do want to rise on this other matter.
I think the position of the New Democratic Party vis-a-vis the Senate is well known. Unlike the other two political parties in this House our view of the Senate and its role is well known. We do not believe it has any place as presently constituted in a democratic society. As a matter of fact, I think you would look long and hard to find a Parliament anywhere in the world of unelected representatives that have acted in the way we have seen the present Senate. I just make that point at the outset.
I listened with interest to the government House leader's remarks. I regret the fact that he did not circulate his notes ahead of time. I know we do not necessarily do this, but this is not a normal discussion. This is not a normal intervention. What we are doing here is questioning the very basis of the Canadian parliamentary system, whether or not the Senate of Canada has the right to amend legislation successfully passed through the House of Commons.
The government has already accepted certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-21. Now to say the Senate has no right to amend the legislation seems to be inconsistent. That alone puts the comments of the government House Leader in the appropriate context, that while I appreciate his concern and frustration the logic seems rather loose.
Since the government has refused to allow the people of Canada to be heard on bills such as Bill C-21 the Senate has taken it upon themselves to hear from the people of Canada through extensive hearings and report back on the findings obtained after listening to the people of Canada.
I think what we are also discussing here is a future implication. With the clawback legislation the government has abandoned the universality of our pension system and our family allowance system. I wonder if the Senate would not feel similarly in that hearings ought to
April 3, 1990

be held on this major change to public policy in these areas.
Or when the the goods and services tax goes to the Senate-God forbid that it ever makes it to the Senate- again, would they not feel an obligation to do what the government refused to do, hold hearings in the province of Quebec. This is almost pitiful when you think that the government says they are interested in public participation and yet not a single day was set aside for hearings in one of the largest provinces in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary rises on a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member with great care and although he is making an interesting intervention as to what the Senate may or may not like to do on any number of bills, I do not see that it has any relevance to the point of order before us which deals specifically with whether or not the Senate has the right to amend financial bills. It has been clearly demonstrated that Bill C-21 is that type of bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend was out of the House when I commented that the government, I understand, has already accepted certain amendments. Having already accepted certain amendments, now seems to be a rather awkward time to be suggesting that they ought not to accept any further amendments. I sense some weakness in the logic of that approach.
However, I suppose technically one could say that the Senate does possess the right under the Constitution Act to do what it has done. Whether it has the ethical right to do that is another question. It seems to me that it places you, Mr. Speaker, in a very, very difficult situation. From time to time all of us in this House probably question the things that are done in the Senate. We doubt the wisdom of some of the judgments made. But surely it is not the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons to comment on the messages received from the Senate.
I submit that the Senate can send any message to the House of Commons it wants and then it is up to the House of Commons to decide how it is to reply. Surely it ought not to be left to the Speaker to decide what comments from the Senate are appropriate and others that are perhaps not appropriate.
Point of Order
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the issue before us today has far-reaching implications in terms of the future role of the upper House. Since we did not have an opportunity to reflect on the very thoughtful comments of the government House leader-and similarly I might say the very thoughtful comments offered by the member for Ottawa-Vanier-and considering the implications of the decisions that you, Mr. Speaker, are being asked to rule upon, that we set this aside and return, perhaps tomorrow, after members have had an opportunity to reflect clearly on the very thoughtful presentations made by both sides and add more suggestions for Your Honour to consider.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops. Over the evening or at least following the House today other hon. members may want to assist the Speaker further. I know the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands may wish to. But in the interest of the accommodation of the House, it seems to me that the hon. member for Kamloops has made a very sensible suggestion.
Copies of the hon. House leader's argument which was carefully put together and is well referenced can be in the hands of hon. members and I shall return to the House at a time appropriate to hon. members and we will complete the debate. It does not have to be decided this afternoon and hon. members would know why I would not decide it this afternoon in any event.
I am going to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops which I think is helpful to the House and we shall see to other matters.


EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. Speaker:: While I am on my feet, I think I should refer to the hon. Minister of Finance's intervention in giving notice of time allocation and the objection taken to that a few minutes ago.
Objection has been taken on the basis that the matter was not before the House. Some reference was made to an earlier precedent. If the hon. member goes back and takes a careful look at that precedent and what I said, we were not even at Orders of the Day. In this case, we got to Orders of the Day. I gave a long ruling on the motions that are now before the House at report stage and following that ruling there was some discussion. It is true

Government Orders
that the hon. member for Gloucester was not on his feet on debate, but I think I would be stretching things a very long way indeed if I should rule today that the House was not seized of the Order of the Day. I do not think I can go that far. I have to accept the notice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, Low-Level Flights; the hon. member for Nanaimo-Co-wichan, Fisheries; the hon. member for Markham- Whitchurch-Stouffville, External Affairs.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As put by the
Speaker today, I have motions 1 to 90. Shall I dispense.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


M. Douglas Young: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 7.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could ask the House leader for the opposition just what is gained by this, because what is becoming very clear to me is the significance and the wisdom of time allocation. The opposition have put forward all these motions, they force upon you this need to waste the time of the House reading the 90 motions one by one, using up the time that they would normally take to speak to these amendments. Clearly it is never the intention of either the opposition parties to debate this bill. They simply want to waste time.
So I would be interested in understanding what their position is and why they are forcing this upon you, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have to respond because the Minister of Finance seems to be a reasonable man. He will understand that at report stage it is the right of any member to table amendments. We have some 90 amendments before the House. For the sake of understanding what is going on, and for the sake of Canadians watching TV today, we should read those amendments so that they know what we are talking about.


M. Douglas Young: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 36.
April 3, 1990

That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Motion No. 40.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Motion No. 42.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Motion No. 44.
Clause 18.	That
Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That Motion That
Government Orders
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 36. No. 57.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 38. No. 58.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 39. No. 59.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 40. No. 60.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 41. No. 61.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 42. No. 62.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 43. No. 63.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 44. No. 64.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 45. No. 65.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 46. No. 66.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 47. No. 67.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 48. No. 68.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 49. No. 69.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 50. No. 70.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 51. No. 71.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 52. No. 72.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 53. No. 73.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 54. No. 74.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 55. No. 75.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 56. No. 76.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 57. No. 77.
Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Clause 20.
Clause 21.
Clause 22.
Clause 23.
Clause 24.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 26.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out that unfortunately my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, will be out of the House temporarily. Perhaps you could indicate another member as a seconder of the motion until such time as he returns. I would be willing to do that myself, or perhaps another colleague.


M. Douglas Young: Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 51.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 55.

April 3, 1990
Government Orders
Motion No. 78.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
Motion No. 79.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 60.
Motion No. 80.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 61.
Motion No. 81.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
Motion No. 82.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 63.
Motion 83.
That Bill C-62, be amended by deleting Clause 64.
Motion No. 84.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 65.
Motion No. 85.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 66.
Motion No. 90.
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting the Title.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the amendments proposed to Bill C-62, I want to point out that we want to be very consistent in this. As was indicated in the minority report prepared by the Liberal party when the technical documents were considered by the finance committee, we stated that no amount of tinkering or changing some of the details of the GST would make it acceptable.
Certainly, our experience in listening to literally the hundreds of people who came before the committee, both as individuals and as representing companies or organizations, indicated that, in fact, that was the case. Without exception, although some people might come before the committee supporting the principle of the goods and services tax, they certainly did not support the proposal that is presently before the House.
What is very interesting in all of this is that the government has taken the approach that it believes the tax will be good for people and that people simply do not understand it. That is a debate that will undoubtedly go on across the country as we continue to consider this particular piece of legislation.
I feel that the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, senior citizens in this country and university students will be more than able to defend
themselves and explain why they are so concerned about the goods and services tax.
Canadians must recognize that the argument being made is that the present federal sales tax is a very difficult tax to administer, it has a lot of leakage and we are not getting as much money out of it as we should. Of course, the government moved it from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent during the time it has been the government in this country. So, if it was a silent killer of jobs back in 1984, it has become a very effective killer of jobs in 1990.
Beyond that, the point that has to be made is that whenever we discuss the issue of the federal sales tax, which has been in effect for some 60 to 70 years, the Minister of Finance and other members of government talk about visibility. So I would like to restrict my comments today to three or four issues that were made issues by the government itself.
The government came forward with its technical documents in August of last year. In the documents surrounding the draft legislation that was made available to us last fall the government said that most important in dealing with this new tax policy was that it should be visible, that it should be integrated with the provinces, that it should be fair and that it should be revenue neutral.
As I have indicated many times before, one of the strategies taken by the government is that anybody who does not support its tax does not understand it, or prefers the existing federal sales tax, or does not have an alternative. The government has had six years to work on an alternative and it has produced one that has 80 per cent of Canadians against it. I would not think that the Minister of Finance or anyone else would be pushing too hard to have other people come up with specific alternatives when in fact the government after six years, has so miserably failed. The reason that the government has failed is because it has not consulted with Canadians. It has not consulted with the provinces. There were discussions at the officials level with provinces, and then last April, after having met with finance ministers here in Ottawa, indicating, I am told, that at some point there would be further discussions and negotiations, the Minister of Finance unilaterally, within a matter of couple of weeks, stated that he was going to go ahead on his own and that the federal government would install a tax at the federal level unilaterally.
April 3, 1990

The Minister of Finance has a tendency sometimes, and certainly I do not take it as a personal affront, to use some pretty strong language. He has accused people of weaselling out.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He didn't like that word. He is getting a little sensitive.


M. Douglas Young: The Minister of Finance is right. I did not like that. But I was prepared for it because the Minister of Finance, as you well know, in November of 1988, called the leader of the Liberal Party at that time, a liar, a coward, and all kinds of things in discussing the goods and services tax. What I think is important is to now look at the four principles that the Minister of Finance and the government have put forth.
First of all, visibility. Bill C-62 is a bill which undoubtedly will have further amendments to it because the government members of the committee have proposed amendments and probably some members of the House may have some amendments.
If you look at clause 223, you will find that "visibility" is not at all guaranteed. All that is said in Clause 223 at page 128 of the bill is:
223. (1) Where a registrant makes a taxable supply, the registrant shall indicate to the recipient, either in prescribed manner or in the invoice or receipt issues to-
The "prescribed manner" is the interesting point because when we questioned the officials of the Department of Finance, they said that we were quite correct, that there would be no way for an individual to know that they had paid the goods and services tax unless they did the calculation themselves.
The example I would give is of a Canadian consumer going into a comer store. Many items in that comer store will be subject to provincial sales tax. Many will be subject to federal sales tax, but under no circumstances will that store ever be able to equip itself with the system that is adequate to break out the different taxes on the individual items. One can imagine the kind of nightmare that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and others have been talking about.
We have this criteria of visibility not being met. To be fair, it will be met in some instances. However, we were basically told about signs, but we do not know how large the signs would be, where they would have to be placed, whether they would be bilingual, all the kinds of the
Government Orders
questions people will want to know who will have to administer the tax and collect it for the government.
Another aspect is revenue neutrality. The chairman of the finance committee was very honest. At about the same time the Minister of Finance was calling other people names during the election campaign, the member for Mississauga South was saying that at 9 per cent the federal sales tax might raise anywhere from $8 billion to $14 billion in extra revenue. Now, of course, with the tax at 7 per cent, probably that figure is around $4 billion or 5 billion.
Do Canadians really believe that a government would undertake a tax policy that has seen the government plummet in the polls to a rating of about 17 per cent across the country; that it would hire 4,000 or 5,000 new tax collectors to administer the bill; that it would get involved in all the kinds of problems that Canadians are pointing out to them on a daily basis, unless there was some secret agenda?
Revenue neutrality is the one area I think we need to examine. If we look at the experience in other countries, the Government of Canada is convinced that although it is going to suffer some short term pain it believes that once it gets the system in place, that probably there will be a few extra dollars in the pot and that it will be able to sweeten that pot come next election.
In other words, the hidden windfall revenue that could conceivably be collected by this allegedly revenue neutral tax would then be used to try to bail it out. It either is revenue neutral or it is not. That is why the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the CFIB and others have said if there is any moneys extra that accrue to government they should be used to directly pay down the deficit as opposed to playing games with electoral promises come the next election.
Another area that was very important was the area of fairness. The government said that any goods and services tax or retail sales tax would have to be fair. It has tried to put forward figures indicating that people earning $30,000 or less a year in terms of family unit would be better off under the goods and services tax.
Those numbers have been challenged by reputed people in the area of economics in this country such as Neil Brook's study, the study for global economics. The credits are not fully indexed. This is where the fairness

April 3, 1990
Government Orders
element has not been met. The Minister of Finance says we can trust the government because from time to time it will adjust those credits to make sure they are fair.
Let us review what the Minister of Finance and the government were saying themselves, not what the opposition was saying. Specific undertakings of the government were that the tax would be visible. It is not visible. It can be visible but it does not have to be visible. Another undertaking was that it will be fair where credits are not indexed; that it will be revenue neutral where there is no guarantee of that because experience elsewhere showed us other things.
We come to the last point and that is integration. One of the things that the Minister of Finance of the government said had to happen with this goods and services tax is that there had to be provincial participation. The provinces as recently as last weekend said no to an integrated national sales tax system.
I submit that the reason we have had to proceed on the basis we have, of eliminating the bill in its entirety, is because the tax is not visible as was promised by the government. It is not fair as was promised by the government because credits are not indexed. It is not integrated with provincial retail tax collection systems because the provinces have refused to do it. There is absolutely no guarantee that it will be revenue neutral.
I believe that the government should take the advice of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, all of whom in various ways and the minister well knows, support the principle of this tax, but say that because of the nature of the problems he faces and the kind of bill he has brought forward, the tax should be withdrawn.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting afternoon waiting to have a chance to speak about this bad legislation, Bill C-62.
We have some 80 amendments before us this afternoon. I see the Minister of Finance here and I understand there have been some discussions both by himself and the Minister of the Environment and cabinet regarding the convenience of using environmental concerns in Canada by stalling the Minister of Environment's five-year plan until the fall. They know from the polling and
the tracking of the polling in the last few years that Canadians are prepared to pay higher taxes and higher costs to clean up the environment for clean drinking water, to clean up the atmosphere, to clean up toxic and hazardous waste, dumpsites, and to clean up the Great Lakes.
There are many areas where Canadians are prepared to pay higher taxes and higher costs. There is a Machiavellian nature to the timing of thisof this bill. This fall the $14 million in advertising on the GST really gets rolling and this so-called double window of public consultation will take place in April and May and June and with provincial and territorial governments, leading to the Minister of the Environment's plan in the fall.
The hope of the Minister of Finance and the government is to try to meld the two issues, the desire of Canadians to clean up the environment with the unpopularity of the GST, by trying to squeak them through with some greater degree of public support into next January. I think that plan is likely to fail because certainly people in the environment community have recognized very quickly the ridiculousness of the position in which the Minister of the Environment has placed himself and the Conservative government. Let us take a look, Mr. Speaker, at the key reasons for the unpopularity of the GST in Bill C-62.1 will come back obviously on another occasion dealing with the broader aspects of the debate that we had here last fall, which was to have a GTS instead of a GST, a green tax system, something that has been looked at by economists who have some understanding of the gravity of the globe's plight. Unfortunately nobody on the front benches of this government seem to have any understanding of it whatsoever, whether it is the plight of the ozone or in terms of greenhouse warming.
We see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources sitting here today after his recent meetings in Kananas-kis. We on this side of the House recognize that he has absolutely no understanding of the severity of the problems of carbon dioxide and methane and CFCs and other greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. It is a very flat earth approach to simply say: "Well, we will wait until 1992. We will wait till Brazil or we will wait until 1995 or we will wait till the year 2000". It is the famous shell game.
April 3, 1990

Let us look at the impact of Bill C-62, the Conservative plan, in terms of people's income, comparing the GST and income tax burdens needed to raise the $18.5 billion the Minister says he needs. This would come from one-earner couples with two children. With an income of $20,000 the GST would take $695 while under income tax it would take $70. For an income of $30,000, $1,405 from the GST, $747 from income tax, about half. At $45,000 it would be $2,475 under the GST, $2,303 under the income tax system.


Mr. McDermid:: What does the MST take from them now?


James Ross Fulton: They are pretty sensitive, Mr. Speaker. Sixty thousand dollars income, it would be $3,115 under the GST, $3,953 under income tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Minister of Finance on a point of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I just wanted to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you recognize this, that this is terribly, terribly misleading. They do not point out the fact that there is existing sales tax that is already being paid and they do not point out that there is a GST credit that reduces the amount of GST net that the individual taxpayer pays. This is terribly misleading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a point of debate. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor. The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Ms. Langan:: Mr. Speaker, that really was not a point of order and I hope that the member for Skeena will have the time added to his time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The member for Skeena always has the time added to his time. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor for two minutes.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to tell the Minister of Finance where the statistics I am using come from. They come from the finance department's statistics that were provided to the finance committee.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is not the whole story.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that the whole story is not being given out.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Half truths.
Private Members' Business


James Ross Fulton: Half truths the Minister of Finance says. Well, we know that the GST is not even half truth. We know exactly where it is coming from because the whole plan is to divert more capital into the hands of the very rich in this country. We know that 5 per cent of Canadians now control 50 per cent of the wealth in the country and that the Minister of Finance's most famous remark was there are not enough millionaires in Canada. Well, the GST is designed to try to make a few more of his friends millionaires.
Let us take a look at someone with an income of $100,000. The GST would be $4,875 whereas income tax would be $8,155. So what does this mean? It means that a working poor family with an income of $20,000 will pay 10 times more in taxes, $695 versus $70, if the money is raised through the GST instead of income tax. The wealthy family on the other hand with an income of $100,000 will pay 40 per cent less through the GST than they would pay through income taxes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member would have had three and a half minutes remaining in his debate. I will give him four minutes when we come back with Bill C-62.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-SENATE BILLS   EASTERN SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN CANADA ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo) moved: that Bill S-ll, an act to restructure the Eastern Canada Synod of the Lutheran Church in America under the name of the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour were to ask, there might be unanimous disposition on the part of

April 3, 1990
Private Members' Business
the House to allow this bill to be dealt with in Committee of the Whole rather than go to a legislative committee, if the hon. member wishes to do so, so that the bill can be dealt with in all stages today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent? The hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will commence debate and then we will go into Committee of the Whole.
On debate, the hon. member for Waterloo.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and members of the New Democratic Party for their collaboration.
Bill S-11 reflects a movement toward strengthening and uniting the Lutheran Church in Canada. It will not only advance the important work of Lutherans here in Canada, but also around the world through the Lutheran World Federation Service. It extends its services in co-operation with CIDA and other agencies in international development assistance around the world, as seen most recently in the independent Namibia where it has been involved in education and health care for many years.
As the member of Parliament for Waterloo, I am pleased to represent an area with a large Lutheran presence, including administrative offices and the Waterloo Lutheran Seminary. Founded by the 16th century German Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, the Lutheran Church has significant membership and support across Canada and across the United States. I am especially proud of the contributions the Lutherans have made, not only to the communities of Waterloo region, but to the development of Canada.
Today, as a Presbyterian supporting Bill S-11, which was introduced in the other place by my fellow Presbyterian, Senator Heath MacQuarrie, I speak on behalf of the Eastern Synod of the Lutheran Evangelical Church in Canada, the petitioners of this bill. The Eastern Synod represents those members who live in the province of Ontario, east of 86 degrees longitude, and in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
The bill allows the Eastern Canada Synod of the Lutheran Church in America to restructure under the name of the "Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada".
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada was formally organized in 1986 as a merger of the Lutheran Church of America, Canada section, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada. The Eastern Synod is the legal successor to the previous Eastern Canada Synod of the Lutheran Church in America. As such, it includes all congregations but one in Geraldton of the former Eastern Canada Synod congregations and several congregations of the former Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada.
The Eastern Synod will thus continue in the tradition of Lutheran jurisdictions in these provinces, which began with the 1884 Charter of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Canada. This body merged with the Synod of Nova Scotia in 1962, to become the Eastern Canada Synod of the Lutheran Church in America.
Bishop William Huras notes that an earlier merger in 1925 united the Synod of Central Canada, organized in 1909, to serve English speaking congregations with the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Canada, retaining the original charter of the latter. Both of these bodies served the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Lutheran congregations and jurisdictional units preceded these chartered bodies. For example, Zion Lutheran Church in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, was founded in 1772 and St. Peter's Cambridge in Waterloo region was founded in 1834. The first Lutheran congregation in Ontario was founded by United Empire Loyalists in 1784 in what is now Riverside Heights, Ontario.
The Eastern Synod will be the latest Lutheran jurisdiction in a noble line of Lutheran communities in this part of Canada, serving in six provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I commend to you this very helpful and useful evolution of a fine group of Christian people across Canada.
Consultations have taken place as was mentioned a moment ago, and I believe there is now a disposition to give this bill second and third readings. I think we might proceed, as appropriate, to pass this bill through all stages.
April 3, 1990


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Franklin McLean: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the hon. member for his efforts in bringing this bill before the House.
I know that the petition for the bill was late and it was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections where the committee recommended to the House that the fees in respect of this bill be waived and that the late petition also be waived so that the bill could proceed.
I know that the member has been diligent in his pursuit of the cause of this church in assisting with this bill. I want to say to Your Honour that we are happy to be able to assist him today by agreeing to have the bill passed through all stages on this occasion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say that we are pleased to move Bill S-11 through all stages today.
I commend the hon. member on the initiative that he has taken. We had to make special provisions to enable this private bill to proceed. I must say, as a member of the Lutheran Church for my entire life, having been baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran Church, that I am pleased to see this initiative.
I want to say that this process would provide a good model for us to follow on a regular basis. There has been the co-operation of all three political parties in ensuring that this legislation not only would proceed through some very difficult moments but proceed expeditiously with full co-operation. This demonstrates clearly that when members of Parliament work together toward a common cause incredible things can happen in a very short time.
Adjournment Debate
I simply want to say that I am pleased to support this initiative on behalf of my party. I thank the hon. member for the initiative that he has taken to make this possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Robert E. Skeliy (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, on March 7, just a few weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the low-level test flight facility at Goose Bay, Labrador. When I asked the minister the question I indicated that I had read press reports that he had exhibited some skepticism as to whether NATO would approve this low-level test flight base at Goose Bay.
I asked the Prime Minister, rather than leaving the decision up to NATO, whether he would not do the right thing on his own accord and on account of the people of Canada and cancel the low-level test flight base as an initiative of the Canadian government as opposed to waiting passively to have NATO cancel the base.
The Prime Minister at that time gave me a flippant answer, an offhand kind of answer in which he accused me and the NDP of being against the creation of thousands of jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We want to see jobs created in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe that some of the things that this government has done over the last little while, such as its mismanagement of the fisheries and its elimination of some of the regional development programs that were designed to assist some of the problem areas in Canada, have actually destroyed jobs in some parts of the country including Newfoundland and Labrador. It is really the failure of this government and its policies that have required those jobs to be created.
We in this party, and I believe most Canadians, do not want to see are jobs created in Newfoundland and Labrador at the expense of the Innu people and the

Adjournment Debate
environment in Labrador. We do not want to see jobs created at the expense of destroying the way of life of those people or undermining of the very underpinnings of their culture.
We feel that there is every justification for Canada to withdraw its support from the Labrador base.
For example, Mr. Speaker, you have probably seen the environmental impact statement that was done by the Department of National Defence. It has been dismissed as shallow, as biased and as bad science by virtually every scientist and every competent analyst who has read it. The environmental impact statement done in support of the Goose Bay testing program has been completely dismissed. We hope that the federal Minister of the Environment will come down, dismiss the report and cancel the base.
Virtually every native nation in this country now finds itself in conflict with the federal government over environmental issues. The Innu is one group. They are now in court in Toronto arguing that this base violates their aboriginal rights, their human rights, and even their rights under international covenants to protect their human rights and their rights to maintain their own culture.
The Barriere Algonguin people are now in court in Quebec because environmental developments in Quebec in the forest industry have progressed without consultation with those people. We would hope that Canada would do the right thing there as well by taking intervener status in the courts against the Government of Quebec to make sure that the Barriere Algonguin people are consulted before their lands are desecrated by clear-cut logging.
The same is true in James Bay. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that just a few days ago the Cree and the Inuit from James Bay came to the steps of the Parliament Buildings here in Ottawa to protest the kinds of developments that are taking place in James Bay. The James Bay project which threatens to destroy their livelihood, flood their traplines, poison the fish and destroy their communities is being expanded.
Unfortunately, Canada is not listening to the arguments made by the James Bay Cree and Inuit. Canada is not listening to their arguments because rather than coming to Parliament to make their case, they feel that they now have to go to the United States to make a case to the people who will be buying Quebec hydro under long-term contracts. Those people, in preference to the
people of Canada, tend to lend a sympathetic ear to the concerns of the James Bay Cree.
As Max Yalden has pointed out in his report, Canada can no longer ignore the pleas that are being made by the native people. We can no longer treat native people in areas of economic development as if their lands were not owned by them and as if they were non people who do not occupy lands.
We can no longer treat aboriginal lands as if they are empty and open for development. We are going to have to treat those people as if they have rights to occupy the lands on which they live and as if they have the right to be consulted and their consent sought before those lands are developed in such a way as to destroy their communities, their livelihoods, their lives and their health.
This is the concern that I have to the response that the Prime Minister gave on March 7. You cannot treat these problems flippantly and without the kind of seriousness that they deserve.
Native people are not taking it any more from the people of Canada and from the Government of Canada. They are now taking their case to the courts where they are being successful in demonstrating that Canada ignores their human and aboriginal rights, their very right to live with the same level of health and the same standard of living as other Canadians.
There is not only that, they are taking their case to international courts, to the United Nations and international human rights commissions. They are being successful in international bodies. This is becoming an embarrassment to Canada, as it should be an embarrassment to Canada in the way we treat our native citizens.
I believe that Canada could be doing the right thing on the Innu issue in Goose Bay on its own initiative by cancelling the Goose Bay project. We know that it will not stand up to the environmental test. It does not stand up to the human rights test. It does not stand up to the test of fairness which should be the test that this government uses in all its decisions with respect to aboriginal people.
Mr. Jean- ~uy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of P itional Defence): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in 1990, NATO identified a requirement
April 3, 1990

for a NATO tactical fighter centre. This centre, when established, will be used for training allied air forces.
Two sites are presently under review, Goose Bay and Konya, Thrkey.
Any decision not to build the centre would be taken by members of the Alliance, and no such decision has occurred.
Canada continues, therefore, to work toward the goal of establishing the centre at Goose Bay. We also continue to discuss our interests with parties opposed to the establishment of the centre in Canada.
I want to say once again to assure this House that any decision to establish the centre at Goose Bay is subject to the government's ruling on the environmental panel's recommendations and the over-all terms and conditions proposed by NATO.
In 1984, when the Government of Canada proposed Goose Bay as a possible site for the centre, the government began the environmental assessment review process. The first of two phases has been completed with the publication of the environmental impact statement.
This study was released for public review, and full hearings will be conducted in the affected communities of Labrador and northeastern Quebec. The panel may also wish to hold hearings in major centres in eastern Canada before recommendations are made to the federal government.
I would also point out that the establishment of a NATO tactical fighter centre at Goose Bay would, as the Prime Minister said, create new jobs for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would be of great economic benefit.
As I said earlier, no decision has been taken by NATO not to proceed with the establishment of the centre.
The Government of Canada will continue with the environmental assessment process to determine the feasibility of establishing a NATO tactical fighter centre at Goose Bay.
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Speaker, I may add that when we made our offer in 1984, we were serious about it. Today, people tend to criticize government studies. In fact, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Mr. Speaker, I met many groups, including one that did not want to take part in the task force because it wanted to sell its study instead of giving it away.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 1990, I rose in this House to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to intervene to help Leonid and Natalia Stonov. They have been waiting for almost 12 years to get their exit visas to leave the U.S.S.R. and go to Israel.
They first applied to leave in 1979, almost 12 years ago. They last applied in 1988. At that time were not only turned down again but were told: "Do not apply for at least another four years".
The reason for the latest refusal in 1988 was that Leonid possesses state secrets. Mr. Stonov was a herbol-ogist. He has not practised his profession in over 10 years. How could he possibly possess, at this stage, state secrets that would worry the U.S.S.R.?
Even Mr. Gorbachev has stated that, in most cases, the state secrecy rule should not apply beyond five years. How could the Stonov's case possibly be an exception to that statement by Mr. Gorbachev?
On Sunday, March 25,1990,1 met with Natalia Stonov at Beth Tikvah Synagogue in Willowdale. She was in Canada on a visitor's visa. The Stonovs have been adopted by the Congregation of Beth Tikvah Synagogue.
On that morning we contacted Leonid Stonov in Moscow. It was thrilling to talk to him.
Leonid is one of the leading members of the Refusnik community in Moscow. Perhaps that is why he has been treated so cruelly for over 10 years.
He and Natalia, who is a physician, have both been stripped of their academic degrees and were once arrested for parasitic behaviour. In other words, they were unemployed.

April 3, 1990
Adjournment Debate
While I want to condemn the Soviet authorities for their treatment of individuals such as the Stonovs, there are hundreds of Refusniks like them.
It is time that the Soviet Union totally lived up to its human rights obligations. How can it possibly be planning to host an international conference on human rights next year, 1991, in Moscow when these cruel abuses continue?
There is an urgent need to deal humanely and compassionately with these long-term Refusniks. On the other hand, I compliment Mr. Gorbachev for his introduction of glasnost which means more openness and perestroika which means restructuring.
From a human rights standpoint, and to be fair, the record must show that an incredible number of Jews have received exit visas in recent years.
Let the record show that in 1986, when I was elected chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry, only 914 Jews obtained exit visas.
I led a small all-party delegation to the U.S.S.R. in 1987. We met with more than 150 Refusniks and with several Soviet officials. There were some positive signals but the climate was rigid and uncompromising. Glasnost had been announced and Mr. Gorbachev was obviously insisting that changes must be made. In 1987, more than 8,000 Jews received exit visas. In 1988, the number climbed to more than 18,000, and last year, 1989, more than 70,000 Jews obtained their exit visas.
While glasnost has brought some progress on human rights, it has also revealed a dark side. With more openness in letters to the editors in newspapers, on TV and in books, many people are fanning the flames of anti-Semitic behaviour. This is a most regrettable and despicable development. Because of the vile nature of these anti-Semitic fanatics, many thousands more Jews now want to leave the U.S.S.R. Jews have become the scapegoats of perestroika.
However, increasingly the way to the Jewish state is blocked. After 23 years of a diplomatic stalemate, no direct flights between Israel and the Soviet Union exist. The only way for Soviet Jews to reach Israel is to disembark at some airport in Europe and then arrange a direct flight to Tel Aviv. Hungarian Airlines recently cancelled its Moscow-Budapest-Tel Aviv flights due to threats from Arab terrorists.
Last week, over 200 members of the U.S. Congress signed a letter to His Excellency Yuriy Dubinin, ambassador of the Soviet Union in Washington. In the letter, they said that they were appalled and dismayed to learn that the Government of the Soviet Union had rejected an appeal from President George Bush and Secretary Baker to permit direct flights for Soviet Jews from Moscow to Israel.
I call upon the Canadian government to work with other democratic governments in the east and the west to help arrange for direct flights from the U.S.S.R. to Israel. The backlog of Soviet Jews with exit visas waiting to leave the U.S.S.R. is in the tens of thousands. This is a human rights time bomb.
In summary, there are three issues that we as Canadian parliamentarians must solve. We cannot solve these issues ourselves. We need the support of other democratic countries.
First, we must continue to pressure the Soviet authorities to deal quickly and compassionately with individual Refusnik cases such as the Stonovs. Let us not have the large volume of Jews receiving their exit visas overshadow the cruel plight of individual Refusniks such as the Stonovs.
Secondly, a way must be found to arrange for direct flights from the U.S.S.R. to Israel.
Third, leaders of the western world must speak up about the ugly consequences of unbridled anti-Semitism.
These are awesome challenges, but this should not deter men and women of good faith to tackle these challenges with all their energy and resources.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this chance to respond to the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. Since he and I both were elected here in 1984 I have heard him rise in the House of Commons on countless occasions to speak on behalf of individuals who are in the Soviet Union seeking refuge and freedom in the west and this afternoon it is just one more of those cases. In responding to him, I will very briefly make some general observations and address the specific case he has raised.
The broad context, of course, is that the condition of Soviet Jews has been improving considerably recently with greater opportunities for cultural and religious expression within the U.S.S.R. As well, there are relaxed restrictions on emigration. To that, we should also make note of the fact that a new Soviet draft law on emigration
April 3, 1990

is currently under consideration. It will offer some hope of easing further the circumstances under which exit visas are obtained.
One very worrisome trend to which the hon. member referred directly is the continuing reality of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. There are a variety of cultural and historic reasons for this. The tragic reality is that this continues to be a potent force in Russian life to this very day.
The Government of Canada notes that and also notes, with regret, that although emigration thresholds for Soviet Jews have risen considerably in recent times, there are still many Refusnik families waiting for permission to leave the U.S.S.R. Among those families is the particular case of Dr. Stonov to which the member has referred to again today.
I would like to assure the member, through you Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Canada will continue to press the Soviet authorities on these remaining cases. We have been doing that. We have had very good success rates.
Specifically, I should report to the House that a senior official of the Department of External Affairs recently met with Dr. Stonov's wife, Natalia Stonov. She presented that official with a petition concerning her husband's status, a petition that was addressed to the Soviet authorities. Mrs. Stonov was assured that the petition would be conveyed by us to the appropriate Soviet authorities, through the Canadian Embassy in Moscow.
Our Ambassador continues to work with diligence and as a matter of priority on these matters, reflecting the policy of the Mulroney government on these issues. Such cases are followed up with the priority that we feel that they most assuredly merit.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, on October 18, 1989 at page 4810 of Hansard the former Minister of Fisheries, on behalf of the federal government, expressed confidence that the 10 to 20 per cent direct export of salmon and herring could be
Adjournment Debate
effectively monitored in terms of conservation needs and management requirements.
On February 22, 1990 the Minister for International Trade and not the Minister of Fisheries announced that an agreement had been reached with the U.S. on the free trade act panel report which concluded that direct access by the U.S. to between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of our salmon and herring caught off the B.C. coast could be provided and still ensure that management needs could be met. It would appear that only the federal ministers of the government believed in this absurd proposition.
There are a number of points which could be touched upon in the course of the proceedings.
First, the agreement reached between Canada and the U.S. will allow for the direct export of 20 per cent of the salmon and herring catch in the first year of a four-year agreement with that increasing to 25 per cent in the years 1991 to 1993. At that time, the entire issue will be subjected to a review.
According to Carla Hills, the U.S. trade representative, this agreement is an interim arrangement only. In so far as the U.S. is concerned, the issue is not settled. It could well be that Canada has provided the U.S. with the precedents it requires to gain full access to our salmon and herring stocks by exceeding the limits recommended by the free trade act panel ruling.
Second, it must be kept in mind that what the U.S. objected to last spring was that landing requirements would impede access to salmon and herring. What the "at sea landing regulations" brought into effect on February 22 actually accomplished is merely to transfer the application of the landing regulations from a shore-based to a sea-based facility.
Third, the former minister told the House on June 14, 1989, as reported at page 3014 of Hansard that the imposition of landing regulations would not likely result in job losses. Obviously the minister has failed to read assessments made by and for his department.
In an April, 1989 background document on the landing requirements there appeared the following: "The revocation of the export restrictions could result in the export of large quantities of unprocessed fish. This will affect the raw material supply for processors".

April 3, 1990
Adjournment Debate
In June, 1989 a document entitled "Vision 2000" prepared by the Pacific Coast Advisory Group contained the following: "The impact of the removal of export restrictions on salmon and herring is as yet uncertain. It could result in a significant increase in the export of unprocessed fish to the U.S. with loss of jobs in the Canadian processing sector".
Fourth, in the official press release of March 9, the Regional Director of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver stated that "100 per cent of the at-sea exports will be subject to exactly the same controls as are in force at shore-based landing stations" and that "all vessels engaging in at-sea exports must have a departmental representative on board at all times".
At page 7 of a document entitled Implementation Plan for the Negotiated Settlement for the Free Trade Act Panel Report dated March 7, 1990 there is found the following: "While most packers will be sampled several times during the fishing season, sampling will not always be done in every fishery or at every loading station on an individual packer". This document was not distributed with the press release referred to earlier.
At page 41 of the actual FTA Panel Report of October 1989, the following observation was made with respect to the possibilities of error: "the risk of error cannot be excluded when part of the population is not available for sampling, and the risk increases with the size of the missing part. The panel agreed that at some percentage that risk would become too large to be acceptable".
Fifth, on the same day the new at-sea landing regulations were brought into force March 9, the Department of External Affairs approved 107 export permits for the shipment of unprocessed herring to the U.S. for freezing before shipment back to Canada for further processing. That was late on a Friday afternoon.
The issue arose as to whether consultations between DFO and External Affairs had taken place prior to the issuance of these permits. Those questions have still not been answered, although asked twice in this Chamber.
The question arises as to when these consultations took place, if at all, and whether the information provided regionally reflected the intention of External Affairs to grant the export permits.
Sixth, as recently as this past weekend the issue of the possible export of unprocessed herring became an issue. According to news reports, some 17 containers of unprocessed herring were supposedly destined for Japan. According to a telex from DFO to the industry on March 20: "Frozen round herring that contains roe will not be approved for export to other than the U.S.A. by External Affairs".
The question becomes whether there will be any effort to use the vehicle of export permits to eventually circumvent even the extremely weak regulations now in place.
In conclusion, the tragedy is that the maximum damage the U.S. industry originally sought back in 1988 was $5 million. What this government has managed to do is place in jeopardy a $900 million industry which employs more than 8,000 plant workers.
The evidence is clear from the minister's own department that the export of unprocessed fish will result in the loss of product for Canadian processors which translates into a loss of jobs for British Columbians.
In the Vision 2000 document there appears the following: "The costs of Pacific fisheries management will have declined to 70 per cent of the level of the mid-1980s and will be totally recovered from the industry in increased fees and royalties and other user-pay or devolution arrangements by the year 2010".
The agreement reached in February on salmon and herring ensures that the role of the federal Department of Fisheries is well on the road to becoming irrelevant in terms of management.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. In my reply, I will concentrate on the herring roe he mentioned earlier, to explain how the system works.
Effective March 9, 1990, according to our export and import licensing legislation, an export licence will be required for all exports of unprocessed herring roe. This was consequential on an agreement negotiated under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the purpose is to fully protect Canada's ability to preserve and manage its herring roe stocks.
April 3, 1990

Under the Free Trade Agreement, exports of unprocessed herring roe to the United States are allowed if the herring is given additional processing or is meant for domestic consumption. This will help to ensure that herring processing which, I may add, is very labour intensive, is maintained in Canada, thus preserving Canadian jobs.
For the best quality roe, the herring must be frozen as soon as possible after it is caught within 72 hours.
The best way to freeze herring to ensure of the herring roe of the best quality is to use the individual quick freezing process. Facilities in British Columbia have an individual quick freezing capacity of 4,000 tons a day, including 2,600 tons coming from the lower mainland and the rest from Prince Rupert. In 1990, the total allowable catches or TAC, for herring are set at 30,769 tons.
The implementation of this new measure resulted last year in two special request. First, British Columbia processors wanted to be allowed, in cases of overabundance of fish, to export their herrings to the United States to use their individual quick freezing facilities; these herrings would be returned later on to Canada for
Adjournment Debate
roe extraction. This year, this exercise was allowed to help the industry adjust its operations for the future.
Second, there was the case of a British Columbia exporter who wanted to send unprocessed herring roe directly to Japan. The exporter was advised that the government had no intention of approving the export of herring roe to any country except the United States, and again provided if some conditions would be met.
Effective March 30, 1990, 127 licences were issued, including 83 to allow herring roe to be quick frozen in the United States and then returned to Canada to be processed, 21 of which were used for a total of 357 tons. As to the process of herring roe in the United States, 44 licences were issued, 22 of which were used for a total of 325 tons. Therefore, it is not likely, that herring roe export levels will change dramatically before the end of the current fishing season.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 4, 1990