1990-02-06

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I have an application for a question of privilege. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention a situation which I suggest may be yet another contempt of the House on the part of the Department of Finance. On September 25, the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition presented to you his view that a national advertising program explaining the goods and services tax in full-page newspaper ads was contemptuous of the House's authority and prejudiced the proceedings of House committees.
Some weeks later, Mr. Speaker, you returned to the House. While you did not find a prima facie case of contempt you did express serious reservations about the advertising campaign. You told the House of Commons and the people of Canada that the contents of the advertisement gave you difficulty. You said that the content was obviously drafted in a cavalier manner and that there was an element of confidence, if not of boldness.
However, you accepted the word of the Ministers of Justice and of Finance that the intent of the ad was to inform Canadians and not to diminish the dignity or authority of the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada. We left the issue with some confidence that it would not be repeated. After all, you summed up your ruling with the following cautionary remark:
I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, not a so-called administrative democracy.
This morning, I read, as I am sure did all other members, that the Department of Finance is continuing to advertise the goods and services tax. While it is not using the print or broadcast media, it is exploiting a very effective advertising tool, namely, direct mail.
We learned from a report by Alan Freeman in The Globe and Mail today, that the finance department has mailed out 1,855,000 copies of a 20-page brochure; 1.4 million English copies; 375,000 French copies, and 80,000 bilingual copies.
The brochure claims that the goods and services tax will result in lowering operating costs to small business, an improved cash flow, a more competitive edge, and so on. These are debatable claims. We have heard from various organizations that represent the small business sector, as a matter of fact that speak for tens of thousands of people operating small businesses, that exactly the opposite will occur. So as I say, Mr. Speaker, what one person believes is a fact would be questioned by someone else.
Again finance department officials are claiming that this is not advertising but is simply factual material intended to inform the public. I find this, as I am sure others do, very reminiscent of the situation last fall. The Department of Finance is employing a communications strategy in advance of a House of Commons decision. After all, today we will likely only be completing second reading of the goods and services legislation.
Such a campaign can only be prejudicial to the work of the House and of the committee which will be charged with amending the GST bill, should it receive second reading later today.

February 6, 1990
Privilege
Of greatest concern is that this time the Department of Finance employed this campaign after you, Mr. Speaker, had issued your warning to them. I ask you to consider what precedent will be set if a prima facie case of contempt is not found in this instance. What will it take to convince those who continue to act in defiance in Parliament that indeed the House of Commons does have an authority which must be protected?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if you find that there is a prima facie case of contempt in this instance I would, of course, be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Justice in reply.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few short points to make on my friend's point of order. I am amazed to find, once again, that the New Democratic Party objects to the Canadian people being informed. We on this side always thought that it was the job of governments and of Parliament to inform people. The NDP seems to operate on the theory that if you keep people in the dark and cover them up they will not create any problems.
I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The essence of your ruling, as I understand it, was that in the advertisement in question back in the fall there was an inference that the goods and services tax had become law. We took to heart the ruling which the Chair made. I can assure the Chair that all advertisements and all informational material has been prepared with that ruling in mind, and there is no intention of misinforming the Canadian people. Rather we intend to inform Canadians with as much information as possible.
I found when I was in my riding over Christmas that that was what people wanted. They want to know how we are going to implement this tax; how do barbers implement it, how do farmers implement it, how do business people implement this new tax. There is an understanding out there that the tax must happen in order to improve our competitive ability.
I hear my friends in the Liberal Party agree. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am content that you will find that all information produced by the Ministry of Finance is in order and is in keeping with your previous ruling.
I wish, while I am on my feet, to respond to my hon. member's comments vis-a-vis debate. I am pleased to welcome the New Democratic Party to the House of Commons for debate rather than delay. We have a litany which is prepared and will go forward from my office advising the people of exactly the delaying tactics of the New Democratic Party. I am joined by my colleagues in the Liberal Party in welcoming the New Democratic Party to a forum for debate rather than delay.
Under the circumstances of this refreshing new attitude on behalf of the New Democratic Party I want to advise the House that, in view of this change of heart on behalf of the New Democrats, the government has no intention of delaying debate. The government will call Bill C-62 today. The government will not invoke closure today. There will be no need for any further points of order on whether the notice given yesterday was in order. We have a very routine Routine Proceedings as far as the government is concerned. We welcome and enjoin the New Democratic Party to participate in debate.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege that has been raised. I know hon. members opposite do not like to hear these words. They are embarrassed about the booklets they are distributing about the country on this goods and services tax, and with good reason.
I must say at the outset that I am delighted to receive support from the New Democratic Party for our leader's initiative taken last September on this important issue. We know that the privileges of Parliament are paramount because we in this party take the view that those privileges represent the privileges of the people who elected us to represent them here, and trampling on these privileges by this government has become quite notorious in the last few years. Frankly, the books that have been published recently, I am sure, are a continuation of the same kind of exercise.
I am delighted to hear the Minister of Justice say that the booklets have been prepared in accordance with Your Honour's ruling. However, I think the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops is a valid one. While these booklets may, on their face, appear to comply with Your Honour's ruling in that they may state that the bill introducing the goods and services tax is currently before Parliament, I want to stress that the booklets are not just factual booklets, but contain information. And more
February 6, 1990

than that, they contain opinion, the government's opinion that this tax is a great thing for people.
The government is using the booklets, not as an advertisement procedure for setting the facts before the people of Canada but for a self-serving justification for the introduction of Bill C-62 in this House. It is an improper use of public funds. It is an improper use of the government's advertising capacity and it constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House because hon. members on this side of the House are not given the opportunity to answer the nonsense published in these books.
I have not seen one of the books. They have not been distributed to us yet that I am aware of, but I understand-now the chief government whip is waving a copy.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could assist the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I have seen one of the books. I would not want him to feel that he could not continue his argument just because he has not seen one.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Your Honour, I do not feel that way at all because I read the press release that dealt with the issue of the books and I could tell from the press release that there was more to those books than met the eye.
What is in those books is opinion. The government has put forward its opinions and its weak justification for this tax, and I suggest that that is an improper use of funds. It is an abuse of the privileges of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has put forward a point of privilege, not a point of order, and it refers to certain publications which are now in the public domain, as the hon. member for Kamloops said, by direct mailing referring to the legislation which is in front of the House and its consequences.
In view of the fact that the Chair was required to make a ruling on this matter some months ago, I will review very carefully the argument made by the hon. member for Kamloops, the response by the Minister of Justice and other members.
I want to assure members that I have the point and there is no particular necessity to engage in any further argument. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-
Privilege
kan seeks the floor and given his stature and experience in the House I will, of course, hear him briefly.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief and to add to the argument of my colleague.
It should be pointed out that at the time when you made your initial ruling last fall, the information that had been disseminated talked about a 9 per cent goods and services tax. As we know, the legislation before us is for a 7 per cent tax, clearly an indication that things can change and that factual information may vary from time to time. I would ask Your Honour to take that into consideration.
Just as an aside, you might note that the amount being spent for the small business mail-out, $1.3 million, is almost identical to the amount to be cut from members' householders through the cut-backs by the government of funding to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. The hon. member for Mackenzie is rising. He may have something to add. I will hear him briefly.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker.
I note in the government House leader's remarks that he says that the purpose of the 20-page document is to advise taxpayers, and small business people in particular, how to implement the tax. I think that this comes to the veiy root and nub of the argument that has been presented by my friend from Kamloops. It assumes that this House will make no amendments to the proposed tax, it assumes that Parliament has no role to play in tax legislation, something that is supposed to have been the role of Parliament since, at least, 1215.
I think this is very much a contempt of Parliament. I think what we have here is advocacy by the Conservative Party. It is not the law of the land and until it becomes the law of the land, the government cannot legitimately tell people how to carry out a tax that still is not even a tax.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for Kamloops for raising the matter, and other members for

February 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
their interventions. As I said, I shall consider the matter and report back to the House as soon as possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


SOLICITOR GENERAL
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both officials languages, the Security Intelligence Review Committee's report to the Solicitor General of Canada on the Innu interview and the native extremism investigation.
Often at this time, I also say that I have a motion. But at this time, because we understand the New Democratic Party wants to debate the goods and services tax, I have no further motions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on External Affairs has conducted an examination of the ramifications of Canada joining the Organization of American States, and I am pleased to present the third report of the committee, in both official languages, thereon.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Before we move through the daily routine of business, because of the high interest rate policy of the government and the fact that interest rates now appear to be increasing, our intention would be to move a motion of concurrence. I believe that ought to be done under motions. If that is the case we certainly would like to move that.


Mr. Speaker:: I would just like to ask the hon. member to be patient while I consider this.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved:: That the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance
presented to the House on Thursday, June 22,1989, be concurred in.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to consider this motion at this time would disrupt the House in terms of its willingness to debate the GST.
What I am wondering is whether that requires some reversion. Had we passed the point at which this motion was in order and, if so, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you the NDP would not have the unanimous consent of the House for any kind of reversion.


Mr. Speaker:: I take the position that we have not proceeded with petitions. I had not recognized any member. It was made clear to me that the hon. member wished to bring to the attention of the House that they wanted to move a motion of concurrence. I was not into petitions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order just to clarify that point. I realize that we would not have gotten the unanimous consent to proceed.
To clarify what seems to be a misconception, it is not our intention to co-operate with the government. I think the Minister of Justice and the government House leader somehow conveyed that impression. I just want to make it perfectly clear that in no way do we plan to co-operate with this government as long as it is attempting to ram and jam the goods and services tax through the House of Commons.
February 6, 1990

Because of the high interest rate of the government and because of the concern we have of the impact this is going to have on consumers, and particularly small businesses in the country, we want to move concurrence in this report which asks, of course, the government to reconsider this silly high interest rate policy.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not think our House leader felt that the NDP were co-operating with the government on the GST. That is not a message that would sit very well with the Canadian people. I think it is quite clear that they are not.
What we did feel was that we were getting a lot of rhetoric from the New Democratic Party, through the press primarily, about their willingness to debate the GST any time, any place, anywhere. We thought maybe it was time to have a demonstration of whether the NDP keeps their word or not. It is clear from the tactics of the last five minutes that they have no intention of debating the GST. They simply intend to waste the money, millions of dollars, of non-debate on the GST. Their only strategy is not to debate it. They do not want the Canadian people to find out what it says because Canadians are going to like it when they find out what it is about.
The only protection they have is to stifle debate in this chamber, try to keep Canadians misinformed or uninformed on the GST. We would like debate and if we have to, at a later date, move closure to get that debate, we will be prepared to do that.


Mr. Gauthier:: That last sentence of the government whip has got to be something else. "Canadians will like the GST." It is the most regressive, hidden tax, the biggest tax grab ever taken out of Canadian pockets in the history of this country and he is saying to us that Canadians will like it. I think the member should go back to his riding and console those people because I am sure they will not like it.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thought you had proceeded to petitions. If we are still on motions, first, I would like to know, is it in order for a motion to be moved at this time? Because I have been restraining my members in the interest of getting debate, asking them not to move motions because I know the tricks and everyone in the House knows what is going to happen. The NDP, if you recognize them, will get a 20-minute
Routine Proceedings
speech on finance matters. Then the government will move to Orders of the Day and that is it.
I lose again my request for an emergency debate today. Our members are upset because I have asked them to hold back. I have members in my caucus who would like to move concurrence motions in many of these so-called reports of committees. I would like to see some co-operation in this House, not this kind of funny game.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I had my headpiece on and I clearly heard the Speaker say, "Petitions". I stood up because I have two petitions to present. I have been denied the right to table any petitions for two weeks. Mr. Speaker, you did call the hon. member for Kamloops. I thought you were calling him because he had petitions and that is why I sat still. But the Speaker called petitions. I stood up to table petitions. I would like a ruling on what stage of the proceedings we are at.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I had made the ruling. I was informed by the hon. member for Kamloops that he wished to put forward a motion. When he stood I recognized him. As far as I am concerned we were not in petitions. I know the hon. member has petitions to present, so do other members. Perhaps we will get to that, but that is my ruling.
I know that the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park has important petitions to speak to. I hope that he will be able to do that soon. All hon. members know that if, for whatever reason, they cannot speak to them they can be presented to the Table, but I understand the reasons for wanting to speak to them and I hope that can be met shortly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to explain, first to my hon. friend from Parkdale-High Park, that as we were moving through Routine Proceedings I had approached the Chair and, about the same time he was about to move on beyond motions, indicated that it was our intention to put a motion in advance of a move to petitions.
I understand his dilemma. It is a dilemma that we all face. Perhaps I should remind my hon. friend the government whip that if he looks at the history of this House that it was the government that moved dilatory motions on four of the five days of debate. So, in a sense,

February 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings
in terms of who is playing around with the rules of the House, he should keep that in mind.
I have two quick points. We are interested in debating the goods and services tax with the people of Canada in the regions and that is why we challenged the front benches of the Conservative Party to debate this in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and so on, but so far we have been unable to arrange, I think with one exception, any debates.
I am prepared, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to permit the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier to put his request for an emergency debate today. I am not certain what it is, but just having faith that whatever issue my hon. colleague would want to put before the Chair in terms of a request for an emergency debate would be a serious one, I am prepared to offer, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, our unanimous consent to allow him to be able to put that at this point.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the NDP are saying that they are seeking unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion and if they are further saying that they have no intention of any further dilatory tactics for the balance of today, then the government would be prepared to give the unanimous consent for the withdrawal of the motion.
But if we are simply trading one dilatory tactic for another and then we are going to follow with another, if they are still on the path of trying to stifle debate in this chamber about the GST then, of course, there is no way that the government will give unanimous consent for them to withdraw their motion. This is a chamber for free and open debate.
Freedom of speech is the most fundamental principle governing this place and they are attempting to cut off debate. They have been doing it since we came back in January on every conceivable occasion in every conceivable way. We take our responsibilities seriously. If they do not want debate tell us clearly, do not run to the media and say they want it when in fact their behaviour in this chamber says they do not. If they want debate we will have debate, if they do not want debate tell us and we will move closure. We will get to that stage of proceedings where debate will occur because it is under closure. If that is the only way to get debate in this
chamber, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to act in that manner.


Mr. Speaker:: This is going beyond a point of order into debate about other matters. I have moved the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance be concurred in. I will hear the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that I think this House should agree and concur in the report of the finance committee which was issued on June 22 last year. The reason I say that is because it was one of those rare occasions when all three political parties, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party were in accord. The interest rates at that time, mainly back last April, May and June, were too high, they were hurting this country and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow, should be doing whatever was possible to reduce interest rates.
That was last June, about eight months ago. The bank rate is even higher today than it was at the time we were considering its impact on monetary policy in this country. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you as a westerner who depends on exports of your commodities from Alberta like we do from Saskatchewan, was shocked last Thursday when the Bank of Canada once again raised the bank rate by 30 basis points to 12.59 per cent. That is at the highest level since about April last year. We are right back in the position now where we were eight or nine months ago, perhaps even a bit higher in terms of the bank rate.
I felt I had to do this today for a couple of reasons. First of all, I am shocked at what the government whip said when he talked about a waste of money. If there is any debate that is important in this country now it is the high interest rate policy of the Bank of Canada, which is wasting a lot of money in terms of interest and the national debt, and wasting a lot of money in terms of what ordinary Canadians pay on their bank loans, what small business people pay on their loans, farmers and fishermen, consumers right across the board.
Talk about wasting money. That is an issue Parliament should be dealing with and dealing with promptly, particularly when all three political parties on the finance committee are saying the same thing. A tight money policy by the Bank of Canada, a tight money policy by the Minister of Finance is hurting this country. It is sending this country into a recession. It is creating

unemployment. Because of that, we should be moving concurrence in this particular motion.
I also want to make a comment about the GST and high interest rate policy and why I moved this motion today. The high interest rate policy is extremely relevant to the GST debate. One reason why the government is saying: "In this countiy we need to raise more money through the goods and service tax to help pay off the national debt". Well, one reason for the deficit being a problem and for the national debt being a problem in Canada, is that we have a high interest rate policy that is literally adding billions of dollars per year to the deficit in Canada.
I want to go back to April 26 of last year when the Minister of Finance made his very rushed budget appearance and divulged his budget to the country in the national press theatre after the leak. He said at that time that he fully anticipated that short-term interest rates in this country would drop to around 10 per cent by the time of his next budget in the spring of 1990. Well, that has not happened. Instead, interest rates have continued to stay high. They are about 2 per cent higher than the Minister of Finance forecast.
If you add two points to the bank rate in this country and you sustain that over a year, that will add approximately $3.2 billion or $3.5 billion to the deficit alone because of the national debt. Because of the high interest policy in this country this government is going to have to raise money in another way. They do that in part by a goods and service tax that puts a tax on everything from coffins to diapers for kids, to Big Macs, to haircuts, to taxis and all kinds of services that were never taxed in this countiy before.
The debate this morning is very relevant. I think this House should move in concert and concur in the finance committee report and say it is about time that John Crow come down out of his ivory tower and look at the reality, that high interest rates in this country are hurting the Government of Canada and the population of this country. They are slowing down the economy and creating unemployment. So the debate this morning is extremely relevant.
Routine Proceedings
When this government came to power about five years ago in the fall of 1984 the national debt for the first time in 118 years in this country's history had reached around $160 billion.


Mr. Belsher:: How much does it cost to carry it?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That debt is expensive to carry. In fact, that debt has more than doubled. By the end of this year estimates are that the national deficit in this country will be hitting around double that, that is to say around $380 billion. Here is a government which in five short years has doubled the national debt from $160 billion to some $380 billion. That is a lot of money.


Ross Belsher: How much does it cost to carry that? You haven't answered the question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The answer is around $45 billion this year. That is $45 billion this year because of the national debt.
The debate this morning is extremely relevant I suggest to my friend in the Conservative party. If it cost $45 billion to cany the national debt this year, then surely the House should spend a few hours today concurring in the finance committee report. That committee was chaired by the member for Mississauga, a committee that has eight members of the Conservative party on it. They have said to John Crow: "Look, enough is enough. Roll back the bank rate in this country so we can save money for the Government of Canada as well as save money for a lot of ordinary citizens from one part of this countiy to the other".

Mr. Speaker, the national debt is now nearly $380 billion. In the five years since the Conservative Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was elected in 1984, the national debt has doubled. Five years ago, the national debt was $160 billion.
By the end of 1990, when it reaches $380 billions, the national debt will have more than doubled.
Mr. Speaker, we now have a report by the Finance Committee in which all three political parties said: enough is enough. Mr. Crow, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, no longer has any excuse for a monetary policy that has maintained interest rates in this country at excessively high levels.

February 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly too high. If we look across the border to the United States we find that the Federal Reserve in that country has kept the American bank rate at about 400 bases points lower than we have in this country. That is an historic high in terms of the difference between the United States and Canada. The bank rate in that country is about 4 per cent lower than here in Canada.
Why do we have this historic high? It is almost without precedent that the bank rate in this country is about 4 per cent higher than the bank rate in the United States.
Enough is enough. The Minister of Finance should intervene and say to the Governor of the Bank of Canada that enough is enough, the bank rate is hurting the government and putting people out of jobs. It is hurting farmers across this country as well. The bank rate must come down not by one point but by at least two points in the next few weeks to put our finances in order.
Why don't we as Canadians say: "What we need is a made-in-Canada interest rate policy"? Why don't we have that independence to assert ourselves and have a made-in-Canada interest rate policy that will help this country in terms of our productivity, in terms of our ordinary citizens from coast to coast?
The chairman of the finance committee committee disagrees very strongly with the Minister of Finance. Some of the Conservative members of the finance committee disagree with the Minister of Finance. My friend from Calgary disagrees with the Minister of Finance. He stands very strongly behind the chairman of the finance committee. The member from Calgary is saying: "Enough is enough, let us bring down the bank rate".
Why does this House not speak independently, strongly and clearly for once and say to the Minister of Finance: "Go and talk to John Crow. Take John Crow out of his ivory tower. Show him the real world. Show him how he is hurting this country with a tight money policy that drives up the cost of living for ordinary Canadians and throws people out of work"?
The real interest rate in this country is the difference between the interest rates and the cost of living. Today, it
is running at the same levels that we saw in the recession of 1981-1982. We remember that. We have had members across the way talking about those Liberal days when the bank rate was extremely high, at around 17 per cent or 18 per cent, and the cost of living was running at about 12 per cent or 13 per cent. They are talking about how interest rates really hurt the people at that time. Of course that is true. But the difference between the bank rate and the cost of living at that time was no greater than it is today. The real interest rate today is at the same level as it was in the recession of 1981-1982.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time for action is now. The time to bring down the bank rate is now.
I want to go into some other reasons why that should be done. We have in this country now, if I can be blunt with the House in terms of where I come from, a farm debt crisis like we have not seen for a long time. I have talked to members in the Conservative party from the prairies over the last few days who are getting the same feedback and seeing the same reality in their ridings as we see in ours. It is that many farmers are being foreclosed upon by banks, credit unions and other financial institutions because farm income now is at a level that is much too low.
In fact, there are some municipalities in Saskatchewan where 48 per cent or more of the farmers in those municipalities have received foreclosure notices from banks or other financial institutions. One of the reasons why that is happening is that interest rates in this country are much too high and farmers simply cannot afford to pay the interest, let alone the principal, on the debts that they have incurred.
Surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, this Parliament, if there is any relevancy at all to this place, should be saying; "We agree with the finance committee, the bank rate is too high. Mr. Crow, bring it down and bring it down now".
Interest rates are not the only reasons why farmers are in trouble. Price inputs are too high. The GST which is coming up will complicate matters for farmers in terms of the red tape and the bureaucracy they have to go through. Farm incomes are too low. What a farmer gets for a bushel of wheat today is not nearly as high in real dollars as what a farmer got back in the 1920s, the 1940s and the 1950s.
February 6, 1990

One reason for all this is that the bank rate is too high. One way of helping farmers in this country is by reducing the bank rate and forcing the chartered banks, the credit unions and the trust companies to reduce their rates as well. Of course the Farm Credit Corporation, which is run by the federal government, must also do the same.

There is also another sector, Mr. Speaker. There are many small businesses in this country that now have a problem with interest rates.
Three weeks ago, I was talking to a businessman in Yorkton, in my riding. He told me that sales were doing very well this year, but profits were down from last year. The only reason why profits were down compared to last year's was that now, interest rates were too high. Although he sells a lot in his business and, if I remember correctly, sales were better than they were last year, profits are down because interest rates are too high. This is a big problem for small businesses, for farmers and for practically everyone in this country.

I do not see why this House does not take the proper path and say yes to the chairman and the report of the finance committee of June 22, but say no to John Crow, tell him "interest rates are too high and the government will bring them down now". I suggest that members of the Conservative party get up and say the same thing. The hon. member from Calgary, the hon. member from Mississauga, the hon. member for Cambridge and others are on the finance committee. They and others supported that report last June. It is about time they got up here in the House and Commons and said: "Look, what we need now is action to bring down the interest rates in this country".
In two days, on Thursday, there will be another setting of the bank rate by the Governor of the Bank of Canada based on treasury bills and other things that are currently happening over there at the time we speak. It would not surprise me if the bank rate once again either remains about the same or creeps up a little bit. That again is going to be very difficult for the Canadian economy.
Routine Proceedings
The bank rate is something that I said affects small business. It affects the farmers in this country. It affects people who want to build a house, expand their enterprise or their farm because mortgage rates and other rates remain very high. I suppose most of all it affects the poorer in this country because those people at the bottom of the economic scale are those who eventually will have to pay the greatest penalty when there is a tight money policy.
Why in a country that is so rich do the poor always have to pay? Why in a country that is so rich do the poor regions always have to pay?
We know the problems in Newfoundland right now. We know the problems in Atlantic Canada now. We know the problems in northern Canada and parts of western Canada. When I say northern Canada I include northern Ontario and northern Quebec. We know that the policy of the Minister of Finance and the policy of the Governor of the Bank of Canada is going to hit those regions of our country hardest. It will grind the economies of the impoverished parts of our country to an even slower and slower pace than they already are today.
Should we as a Parliament tolerate that? I think when Mr. Crow decides what the bank rate should be he climbs up on top of the CN Tower in Toronto and takes a look around. That is what he does. What he sees is a fair amount of affluence in Metropolitan Toronto.
One of the members across the way said maybe he should take a real jump into reality and get off that CN Tower. I agree.
I wonder if John Crow has visited Newfoundland in the last two or three years. I wonder if John Crow has ever paid a visit to rural Saskatchewan to see how the farmers in rural Saskatchewan are doing?

Mr. Speaker, if John Crow went to Gaspe, in the province of Quebec, he would know, in fact he must know the unemployment rate there is around 14, 15, 16 or 17 per cent. I wonder whether he went there, Mr. Speaker. I hope Conservative Members will take the same stand I do and support this motion this morning, a motion that was moved because the Standing Committee on Finance agreed that our present monetary policy is a threat to Canada's future.

February 6, 1990
Routine Proceedings

Mr. Speaker, I know that you, as an Albertan, will be anxious to jump to your feet and say: "John Crow, you are hurting this country. Michael Wilson, talk to John Crow and let us have in Canada an interest rate policy made in this country that will help ordinary Canadians from one ocean to the other, from one part of this country to the other". We can do it if we have the will. We can do it if we listen to the finance committee. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, you get up on that chair and you throw off your robes and you make a speech with me. I am sure we can persuade the people in this House to agree. Why don't you give it a shot?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of very quick questions to ask the member. Could he explain to the House, if he is so concerned about interest rate policy, why that was not the subject of debate last Thursday on his party's opposition day? Could he explain to the House why the NDP is so afraid of debating the goods and services tax in this chamber?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple answer to that question. Last Thursday, we were hopeful that John Crow would see the light. We did not think that John Crow would really increase the interest rates by 30 bases points. We had to decide at 11 o'clock the day before, which was a Wednesday, what our opposition day should be. We were optimistic that John Crow would see the light. In fact, members across the way were predicting two weeks earlier when the bank rate dropped in this country that perhaps we had turned the corner, perhaps the bank rate would come down. Then, of course, there was the effect on the Canadian dollar which, I suggest, was a good thing. The dollar started to come down a bit. John Crow panicked, the bank rate went up by 15 points two weeks ago and by another 13 bases points last week.
Now we are in a situation where we have no choice but to move concurrence on the finance committee report, led by the Conservative party chairman from Mississauga, supported by all eight members of the Conservative party who sit on that committee, the four Liberals and the two New Democrats. This is a unique occasion where
all three parties on the finance committee are in concurrence on something of importance to this country.
I am surprised that the whip of the Conservative party would even ask such a question. He, coming from western Canada, should know the impact of the high interest rate policy in his city in his province of Alberta. He, of all people, who has a little bit of political experience, must know of the unrest in the province of Alberta against this current government. He, of all people, knows that in Alberta his party, despite the fact they won all but one seat in the election a year or so ago, are now running not second, not third, but fourth in the polls in the province of Alberta. He, of all people, who has studied psychology a little bit, must realize that one of the reasons, aside from the GST and the general incompetency of the government, is the high interest rate policy of this government. He, of all people, should realize that, but perhaps I have over-estimated his abilities. If I have, I apologize to him.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the member failed to answer the question of why his party is afraid to debate the GST in this Chamber, and I would really like to know.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that one of the things that is relevant to the GST is the high interest rate policy. One reason why the Conservative Party wants a goods and services tax on Big Macs and on many foods eaten at restaurants by ordinary people is that they are trying to pay off the national debt. One reason for the national debt is that we have a high interest policy.
I want a full and free debate on the GST, not only in this Chamber, but a full and free debate of the GST across the country. I publicly challenge the government whip to a debate between himself and myself in Calgary. Let us do that in Calgary. Let us go to Calgary and have a public debate on the merits of the GST. If he has any courage, if he is really a representative of Albertans, he will get up and say yes. So I turn the question back to him: Will you accept a debate in Calgary? We will set a time, place and get ourselves a neutral mediator and away we go. Do you agree?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that I would be very happy to accept that challenge provided I do not have to wait until his speech writer
February 6, 1990

returns from a strike. Can we do it soon rather than having to wait around for the speech writer to come off strike?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is another question or comment. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think you can tell from my speeches that I do not use speech writers, Mr. Speaker. We are not allowed to read speeches in the House, as you know. I respect the rules of the House. I could do like some government back-benchers, I guess, and get up and read a long monotonous speech, but I do not know who would write the speech. I do not know of any speech writers who are on strike now.
I am glad that the member for Calgary will accept a debate. Perhaps we can arrange that as soon as possible, the sooner the better. I am sure his constituents will be very glad to hear that. Let us head out to Calgary and find an independent organization to sponsor it and have a good debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, like all Members of this House, I would love to spend the day having a debate on concurrence in the finance committee's report of last June. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would like nothing more than to see you in full flight, robes off, standing on the chair, as suggested by my hon. friend across the way.
It is very clear that one of the most important things this House should be debating today is the goods and services tax. The debates across this country should start here in this House and we should not carry on as we have been doing.
Therefore, I 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 yea.
Routine Proceedings


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 House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division.
(.Division No. 185)
++YEAS
Members
Anderson	Atkinson
Attewell	Beatty
Belsher	Bertrand
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkam	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Bourgault	Boyer
Brightwell	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Charest
Chartrand	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Cook
Corbeil	Corbett
Cote	Crosbie (St. John's West)
Crosby (Halifax West)	Darling
DeBlois	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Ferland	Fontaine
Fretz	Friesen
Germ	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halhday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Hogue	Horner
Hudon	Hughes
Jacques	James
Johnson	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Loiselle	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timislearning)	MacKay
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Nicholson
Nowlan	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plamondon
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
St-Julien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Shields	Siddon

February 6, 1990
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
Sobeski
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
TUrner (Hatton-Peel)
Venne
Vien
Weiner
White
Sparrow
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Wenman
Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-132
++NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett
Bellemare
Black
Blaikie
Boudria
Caccia
Clancy
Crawford
Dionne
Ferguson
Fontana
Fulton
Gaffney
Gauthier
Hopkins
Hunter
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Laporte
Lee
MacLaren
Maheu
Marleau
McGuire
Milliken
Nystrom
Parent
Peterson
Pickard
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Samson
Speller
Stupich
Vanclief
Waddell
Whittaker
Young (Gloucester)
Alt house
Angus
Assad
Baker
Belair
Bevilacqua
Blackburn (Brant)
Blond in
But land
Catterall
Comuzzi
Dingwall
Duhamel
Flis
Foster
Funk
Gardiner
Guarnieri
Hovdebo
Jordan
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont -Dundas)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacWilliam
Manley
McCurdy
Mifflin
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stewart
Taylor
Volpe
Walker
Wood
Young (Beaches - Woodbine)-88


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


POINT OF ORDER
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have given the Chair notice two days in a row that I would like to propose a motion for an emergency debate according to Standing Order 52.
Yesterday and today I have been unable to propose that motion to you for debate. I just wondered if there would be unanimous consent today for me to at least put the motion for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether that motion will be debated tonight.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's concern that we did not have a normal Routine Proceedings. Yesterday my hon. friend's leader made a suggestion during Question Period vis-a-vis a motion to debate a very important issue in the country to which I believe my hon. member is referring.
We had an opportunity to review the motion and do some thinking on our own. Last evening on television my hon. friend suggested that he could go along with our motion with the change of one word. We have agreed to change that word. I think we are making progress on entertaining a full debate but we are not there yet. We obviously want to have some time to discuss it with our caucuses.
In the alternative, if the Chair wishes to entertain a motion for an emergency debate, the government would not stand in the way of such a motion. We just want to indicate that we are making progress toward perhaps a full debate in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kamloops on the same point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate very clearly that the matter before us in terms of the motion that is being examined is an appropriate initiative suggested by the leader of the Official Opposition and being responded to now by both the government and the New Democratic Party. Those discussions and deliberations are under way.
I do think the issue that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier wants to bring before the Speaker in terms of making a case for an emergency debate is of sufficient importance that I am prepared to say, on behalf of my party, that we would be prepared to give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to put his case now.
February 6, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I sort of divine the purport of the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I do not want to get into the substance but, quite frankly, I am not aware of the wording of the motion which I gather is on a very serious, fundamental, substantive subject. As far as I am concerned, not being involved in these House discussions, I am a little leery of giving consent.
I think the House leader for the government was proper in his initial reply to say that he wanted to discuss whatever the suggestion was with caucus members. All the parties are going to meet in caucus tomorrow. If we then know that it is one word changed or three words changed, or whatever the substance of the motion, then obviously, undoubtedly, we will have a debate.
But until this member knows what we are talking about, I refuse to give consent in a vacuum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, there is not unanimous consent. Orders of the Day.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a point of order.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I just wanted to very briefly make sure that the House understood what it is that you were asking unanimous consent for. It seems that some members were under the mistaken impression that unanimous consent was being sought for the purposes of introducing a motion.
Unanimous consent was being sought by the member for Ottawa-Vanier for the purpose of reverting to the procedure in Routine Proceedings to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, a point under Standing Order 52. Perhaps the House was not quite clear on that, and it would assist if the House were reminded. I hope that unanimous consent can then be achieved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believed that everyone was aware that the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier has risen twice now in the last couple of days in order to bring his motion under Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate. But I can ask for unanimous consent again. Is there unanimous consent?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent. Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Thx Act, the Statistics Act and the Tkx Court of Canada Act, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance; and the amendment of Mr. Ttirner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 7569).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan on a point of order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, if you will remember, on a previous occasion the Speaker ruled that following the speech of hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt the House did have an opportunity for a 10-minute question and answer period. That decision was rendered after the normal scheduled time for the House to have the opportunity to question the hon. member.
I am wondering, Sir, since the member is in the House, if this is the appropriate time to see whether the House has any questions for the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, on the understanding that this in no way affects the rotation in which you will call the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Minister of Justice and Government House Leader.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate, on behalf of the government, that the government is always prepared to debate this particular bill. The hon. member who now sought to have questions put to a member because that member is in the House is the same hon. member who participated in the decision in his caucus to move a motion to concur in a motion and thereby delay debate in the House. I think, once and for all, the New

February 6, 1990
Government Orders
Democratic Party should get its position together as to whether it wants to debate this bill or not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I believe the Speaker at the time did rule that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt would have an opportunity for a question and comment period, provided he was in his seat the next time debate on the bill resumed. Debate on the bill did resume yesterday and the hon. member was not in his chair. Therefore, he loses his opportunity and I will now recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on second reading of the bill on the GST. To begin with I want to make an appeal to the government back-benchers across the way to listen to their constituents. We do live in a democracy, and it seems to me that in a democracy you are morally bound to express the points of view of the people who elected you to the House of Commons.
I know that at times you have to go with conscience on what I would call moral issues, and I speak here in terms of capital punishment, abortion, and things of that nature. However, on a fundamental tax bill, I am sure that members across the way would agree that they should, to the best of their ability, reflect what their constituents are saying.
I see that my friend from Edmonton has already jumped to his feet and he wants to say a few words. His conscience is bothering him. Edmontonians, I know, are speaking en masse against the GST and, for reasons such as this, the hon. member is now running fourth in his riding according to polls that have been taken. I am sure that he wants to get up here and speak on behalf of his people.
It is a long time since I have seen such overwhelming opposition to a government measure as we have seen today. I noticed in the Gallup poll about a week ago that 56 per cent of those who voted for the Conservative Party in November of 1988 are now saying no to the GST, and they are saying no in a very loud, clear, efficient and effective way. I think the time has come when members of the Conservative Party, outside of the two or three
who are very courageous, should start getting up and expressing what their constituents are saying.
Surely the chambers of commerce must know how this affects business in this country. Surely the Retail Council of Canada must know of what they speak when they say it will add millions of dollars per year of extra administrative costs. Surely the farmers of this country must know what they are saying when they say this will add millions of dollars per year in terms of administrative costs and extra book work. Surely the trade unions must know of what they speak when they say that this will drive up the cost of living and make things more difficult for their people. Surely the low-income groups in this country must know of what they speak when they say that this tax will hit hardest the poor people and the low-income people of this country.
Surely members of the Conservative Party in this House who have some intelligence and experience must know that their constituents are saying, "Speak up loudly and clearly against this tax which will hurt the people of this country". We have many intelligent members across the way.
I look, for example, at my friend from Lethbridge who is a long-time member of the House and the Conservative Party. He is a man who speaks his mind and a man who has great admiration for his Premier in Alberta. He has great admiration for Don Getty and tremendous admiration for Dick Johnston, the Treasurer of that province. I know that before this month is out he is going to join other Alberta MPs and will speak out against the goods and service tax because he wants to reflect Albertans in this House. He has tremendous admiration for that Premier and tremendous admiration for the tradition of his Party and, of course, for his constituents. He also has tremendous fear about what the voters in that riding will do if he does not do that. That is why I expect he will be speaking out loudly and clearly against what the chairman of the finance committee calls the gouge and the screw tax in this country.
I know some members of Parliament from Ontario may not feel as strongly. The member for Cambridge comes from a riding where there are a lot more wealthier Canadians. There are exporters and manufacturers and some of those people are in favour of this tax. But I appeal to my Albertan colleagues in particular to get up
February 6, 1990

and defend their Premier and their constituents and what their own party is calling for.
Surely that is a democracy. They know that this is the single biggest tax grab in the history of this country.


Mr. Oberle:: Be truthful.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The member from British Columbia says, "be truthful". That is what he says. I am talking about the people of this country and that they are saying that this is the single biggest tax grab in the history of this country. Here he is criticizing the people of this country. Every single Premier in this country, including his hero Vander Zalm, is saying no to this grief and suffering tax.
Here is the member from Prince George, whose hero is Premier Vander Zalm. Vander Zalm is saying no and yet he is not falling into line. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why does the member from Prince George not reflect what his constituents are saying? They are saying no to this tax. They are saying it is the biggest tax grab in the history of this country. They are saying it is a very regressive tax. They say it is going to throw this country into recession. They are saying it is going to be inflationary. They are saying it is going to be tough on ordinary folk and the poor people in this country.
It is about time that the member from Prince George spoke his mind in this House of Commons, put his job as a cabinet minister on the line and defended the interests of his constituents and the interests of the people of British Columbia. Is it any wonder why the Conservative Party across the way, the 22 per cent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have 14 minutes left in his debate plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.
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.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on January 15 nearly 3,000 VIA workers lost their jobs as a result of the federal government slashing 17 VIA routes across the country.
For the past three weeks, these laid-off workers have been waiting to receive their record of employment, which is a necessity when filing for unemployment insurance. Without this record, workers cannot receive unemployment insurance. Nor can they receive income security, as this is dependent upon the amount received from the UI fund. The legal limit for the provision of a record of employment by the former employer is five calendar days from the interruption of work.
How can these people be expected to look after themselves, much less their dependents, while they are forced to wait for their UI cheques? How can the government allow a Crown corporation to break the law with such blatant disrespect for workers and their families?
VIA has blamed the delay upon Canada Post. This is an unacceptable excuse for the workers and should be unacceptable for the government.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the city of Sault Ste. Marie is under siege. We are called bigots and racists. This debate is about Canadian unity and I ask the media and all politicians to bring the debate to a higher level.
Condemning Canadian citizens does nothing to improve the mood in my community or in the country. There was a demonstration last night in Sault Ste. Marie to protest council's decision. Francophones and others are justifiably offended and justifiably fearful. They are a threat to no one and deserve to be treated with dignity.
Yes, we have problems in our community. Yes, there is divisiveness and, yes, there is tension. Outside interference from whatever source or side at this point is not helpful and will only aggravate the tension. Give us some

time and reconciliation will result. Give us some time and tolerance and understanding will prevail. This tolerance will come from dialogue among all parties. I ask you not to judge.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the murder of at least eight Israeli tourists in Egypt is a reminder of the difficulties of moving beyond hatred and violence toward peace and negotiations.
It is profoundly distressing that terrorists persist in taking innocent lives in the pursuit of destructive political goals. At a time when negotiations between Israel, Egypt and the United States are gathering momentum in the search for a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this attack reminds us that there are forces in the region who view peace and negotiations as an obstacle to their goals.
There can be but one response to such an act, that is to intensify and strengthen our support for the peace process. I am sure that all members of this House join me in expressing our condolences to the families of the victims of this senseless attack.


THE LATE WHIPPER BILLY WATSON
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Whipper Billy Watson, a constituent and a friend who died this past Sunday at the age of 74.
Whipper was a professional wrestler who was a good guy, a five-time world champion, a man who took part in
7,000	bouts over 35 years, whose career ended in 1971 after a tragic car accident.
It is outside the ring where his efforts really took effect. For over 30 years he was associated with the Easter Seal society. I think most of us can picture Whipper hoisting Timmy and Tammy, and often both of them, on his broad shoulders every year.
He was also involved with the Canadian Rehabilitation Council, the Ontario Council for the Disabled, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the Multiple Sclerosis
Society and particularly with the York County Hospital where he was the prime mover in raising funds for the therapeutic pool that has been named after him.
Our thoughts are with his wife, his children, and his many friends. Whipper Billy Watson, a great Canadian, will be truly missed.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, Regina is the Saskatchewan-Manitoba regional production facility for Switchback. The CBC has recently announced that the children's show, Switchback, has been eliminated as a cost-cutting measure. While I recognize and appreciate the CBC's significant effort in trimming its fat, I do not understand this decision.
We are a country that is as strong as its regions. While regional CBC people were asked for their proposals, I am afraid that the question begged the response given. It seems to me that we have cut the limbs off the tree to nurture the trunk. Switchback represents new limbs. It is inappropriate pruning.
Switchback was quality children's programming that was watched by a third of the viewing audience in Regina and more than half in Saskatoon. Has this year-round program been sacrificed so that CBC can continue to focus coverage on one-time spectaculars?
What other CBC programming is available to this new generation of TV viewers? I hope that this decision is not irreversible and that reconsideration can be given.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, this government has been trying to convince everyone that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have found the solution to their own sad record of mismanaging this country's finances.
The goods and services tax is a complex system that is going to confuse Canadians and cause horrendous difficulties for small business people. It is without a doubt a plan to perform the biggest tax grab in Canadian history. All the rhetoric in the world conjured up by this
February 6, 1990

government and its back-benchers will not justify nor clarify this confusing system.
The government has not guaranteed that the 7 per cent rate will not be raised after the tax is implemented.
The Minister of Finance promised the GST would be visible; instead, it is hidden. He promised the GST would be fair to middle and low-income Canadians; it is not. He promised that small businesses would be adequately compensated; they are not.
The GST is the key element in the government's strategy to redesign the Canadian tax system in a way that favours corporations and the rich at the expense of almost everyone else.


REAL ESTATE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a dramatic development in the real estate business. "Paul Legault buys the Permanent, the largest MLS real estate brokerage firm in Quebec" headlined an article in the Journal de Montreal on January 11.
Paul Legault, who has headed the Permanent since 1975, is a hard-driving man. He has a keen sense of marketing and innovation. He was the first broker to advertise individual properties on the radio, back in 1976. He also was the first to use video for selling homes and to set up exhibition booths in shopping centres.
Today, he is bringing the Permanent back to Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I knew Paul Legault when he worked on technical surveys for Hydro-Quebec at Matagami in the James Bay area in 1967 and on behalf of Quebecers, I wish to congratulate him and all the real estate agents at the Permanent.


MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity- Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, glas-nost has at last arrived in the land of the free and the home of the brave. The United States of America has
repealed the McCarran-Walter Act which had frozen their McCarthy-type immigration restrictions.
Forty years ago my then fiancee, Alice, working in the weiner room at Canada Packers in Montreal, taking skins off the skinless weiners, was elected to represent her local of the CIO packinghouse workers at their international union convention in Minneapolis. Because of that union's previous embarrassments at the U.S. border, her union directed her to get a visa to the U.S.
She went to the U.S. consulate and found that they suspected her of having undesirable political opinions. They asked her questions about her friends, their doings and their ideas. She refused to answer. They told her sweetly: "Any time you want a visa to the U.S. come back and we'll talk some more. Meanwhile, if you are found in the U.S. you can be imprisoned for a year and fined $1,000." I married her anyway.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Now when Alice goes to visit friends in the United States she no longer will run the danger of imprisonment. The land of the free has begun to open its borders. Congratulations, Alice!


NATIONAL BURNS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday marked the beginning of a very important week in Canada.
Through the efforts of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and the Shrine of North America, in particular its program chairman, Mr. Don Bernard of Sarnia, Ontario, the week of February 4 through February 10 has been recognized as the first annual National Bums Awareness Week, a week which has been endorsed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Bum injuries continue to be one of the leading causes of accidental deaths in this country especially among our children, our elderly and our disabled. Yet it is estimated that 75 per cent of these injuries could be prevented through greater public awareness and better education. More widespread use of smoke detectors, home escape plans, as well as other procedures and techniques are essential to addressing the problem of burn injuries.

February 6, 1990
In light of these efforts, I strongly encourage all members of this House and indeed all Canadians to lend their support in the recognition of National Burns Awareness Week.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, there were two erroneous statements made by the Minister of Finance regarding the impact of the GST on the northern territories and on aboriginal peoples of Canada.
First, the minister claims a comprehensive study was conducted on the impact the GST will have on the Northwest Territories. Not true. If you look at Chart 4 on page 29 of the GST document it clearly shows that the northern territories were excluded from analysis. That is because there are no gains to be presented.
I challenge the minister to explain how he can state in the House that the Northwest Territories' economy will grow if the GST is implemented when he has not even looked north of 60. He does not know the cost of living in the north and he does not care.
Second, the minister states on the one hand that aboriginal people will benefit from the tax because they will be exempt under Section 87 of the Indian Act. On the other hand, the government states that this exemption raises several questions of interpretation. It has been the experience of aboriginal people that when their rights are left to the interpretation of this government they always lose.
We, as citizens of this great country, have the right to express our displeasure when government creates programs that will have negative impacts on the majority of Canadians.
* *


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the world was stunned by the news that a bloody massacre had been perpetrated against innocent Israeli citizens in
the Suez region of Egypt. It is no less an outrage that Egyptian lives were also lost.
I join with others in the Parliament of Canada in condemning these brutal, terrorist activities against blameless citizens. Rather than impede the process of a peaceful settlement, which was no doubt the intention of the murderers, hopefully it will reinforce the urgent necessity of bringing all parties to the table so that the lives of future generations of Jews and Arabs alike may be spent in harmony and peace.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in December 1986 then Trade Minister Pat Carney and the Conservative Government sold out the Canadian softwood lumber industry by agreeing to the softwood lumber tariff. Since then provincial Ministry of Forests officials, especially from B.C., have had to travel to Washington, D.C., to present our forest management plans for American review.
The Minister of Forests should confirm whether Canadian officials are attending these meetings and table in the House today the 64 directives the Americans have issued to the Canadian government on the tariff. The forest community must know what specific steps are being taken to end this punitive tariff.


RIDING OF CHAMBLY
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, if we go by the most recent opinion polls in the Chambly riding, it would seem that the NDP is a few days away from having a Quebec caucus. Although the New Democratic candidate is trying as best he can to distance himself from his party's policies, he is a member of that party and some day will have to accept its position against the Meech Lake Accord.
Before running under that banner, he would have done better to remember the unfortunate lesson of his Quebec predecessor in the NDP, the former member for Terrebonne, whom I know very well and who only lasted 10 months in that party. Ten months after joining the
February 6, 1990

New Democrats, he had to resign, sincerely and bitterly regretting having joined a party controlled by extreme left-wing elements who in fact were opposed to recognizing Quebec's distinct character and culture.
The New Democratic candidate in Chambly, instead of hiding his allegiance to this party which despises Quebec's interests, should right away dissociate himself and stop lying hypocritically to the voters of Chambly whom he is misleading by promising to defend their interests and those of Quebecers within a party which develops its policies to suit the Ontario labour unions, anti-Meech sentiment and anti-Quebec and anti-French feeling.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, all Nova Scotians welcome the news that the town of Canso may be spared closure of its fish plant in the immediate future. However, the announcement of an agreement has raised some eyebrows in Western Queens and Shelburne Counties where plants in Port Mouton and Lockeport have already been closed for several months and where some workers have already exhausted their UI claims.
Similarly, plants have permanently closed in Shag Harbour, Woods Harbour and Bear Point. These people do not understand why governments in Halifax and Ottawa felt it was so urgent to allow Canso to jump the queue, as it were, and why responding to impending closures in Canso and St. John's was more urgent than actual closures in southern Nova Scotia.
I urge the government to now increase its efforts to complete and announce aid packages, including community development funding for Western Queens and Shelburne Counties as soon as possible.


CANADA POST
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on February 1, Canada Post implemented its commercial freight rates in a manner that increased the costs by 40 per cent to Canadians living in the north. In communities such as in northern Quebec and in the Northwest Territories, consumers will have their cost of
Oral Questions
living increased in some instances by as much as 20 per cent.
The Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations Committee adopted a resolution last week asking the federal government and Canada Post to extend the moratorium on any increase in Canada Post northern commercial freight rates for a further nine months.
The committee also asked Canada Post to undertake meaningful consultation with the people of the north to make sure that the people of those communities are not mistreated in the manner in which they have been by Canada Post in the past.
My colleagues in the Liberal party join me in asking the government to heed the advice of the parliamentary Committee of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Ttirner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The legislation bringing in the government's new sales tax is the most massive change in our tax system since the introduction of the personal income tax in 1917. This new tax will take billions of dollars more out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets.
This bill is 323 pages. It is full of complex mathematical formulae. It is full of complicated descriptions of what new services are taxable and which goods are zero rated, in other words exempt. It is full of legislative jargon which needs to be fully debated by this House and fully understood by Canadians. Yet the government is planning to rob Canadians of that opportunity by cutting off debate and invoking the heavy hand of closure to stifle debate in this House of Commons.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Why will the government not allow a full discussion of this legislation? Why is his government even considering the use of what the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada once said when he was on this side of the House, and I use his words-I could not do better-when he called closure "one of the

February 6, 1990
Oral Questions
most repugnant and most destructive devices ever perpetrated on the democratic process".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Will the Prime Minister consult his seatmate and prevail upon the House Leader to open up debate so that Canadians can have the full picture on this sales tax?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's concern for debate.
On Wednesday, January 24, it took three votes by the NDP to introduce Private Members' Bills. That wasted Wednesday, January 24.
On Thursday, January 25, we moved to Orders of the Day.
On Friday, January 26, it took one vote to dispose of committee concurrence, another vote to dispose of "that another member be heard".
We have had dilatory tactic after dilatory tactic.
Today, I offer to the House the opportunity to debate this fully. I offer once again the opportunity to debate this fully. We are prepared to extend hours this evening if my hon. friends in the opposition parties want to debate this tonight. I suggest to them that they join with us in extending hours tonight so that we can end debate.
[Translation\


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has had a change of heart. He is much more tolerant this afternoon.
Liberal members alone have collected over 400,000 signatures of people who object to the new sales tax. Add to this figure the signatures collected by NDP members and even by Conservative members, those people across the way who are afraid to present this petition here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians object to this tax for a number of reasons. It is a clear contradiction of the promises made by the Prime Minister during the last election. There is no collaboration with the provinces. It means double taxation, two sales taxes, no visibility, no simplicity, no neutrality!
Mr. Speaker-


An hon. member:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether you rose because of me or because of that ruckus opposite!


An hon. member:: Because of the ruckus!


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the right hon. member that he was the reason I rose. Perhaps you would like to put your question.


John Napier Turner: You maintain your customary composure, Mr. Speaker.
Why-and my question is directed to the Prime Minister-why is the government so anxious to have this bill rushed through the House? So it can rush it to the ad people and media manipulators, to try and fool Canadians?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are ready for the debate this afternoon. Are you?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are ready, if the minister will withdraw his notice of closure. If the minister will withdraw that, then we can talk some business.
I want to say to the minister and through him to the Prime Minister that although he is the House Leader, the Prime Minister is still the senior member of the House.
We have had less than she hours of debate on this measure, a measure which will revolutionize the tax system in this country. Yet this government does not care to listen to the thousands of Canadians who have talked to their members of Parliament. Their members of Parliament deserve to be heard in this House.
The government does not care to listen to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have taken the trouble to sign petitions, delivered again to Your Honour as Speaker of this House.
If the government proceeds to use this measure of closure-and it has given every indication that it will-then it will be the eleventh time since December 1988, since this session of Parliament began, that it has invoked the Draconian measure of closure, of stifling debate.
February 6, 1990

That is unprecedented in the history of Canadian Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: Will the Prime Minister, now that he has had a briefing from his House leader, give us and all Canadians the assurance that we will have a full opportunity to debate in this House what is a revolutionary tax measure?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of sales tax reform, my right hon. friend seems to suggest that it is a bit of a surprise for him. It has been recommended in five major studies for the government, going back to the Rowell-Si-rois Commission in 1940.
A new sales tax was discussed in the White Paper on Taxation in June, 1987. From 1987 to 1989 the House finance committee carried out studies. A sales tax reform paper was issued with the budget of April, 1989. Draft legislation was tabled in October, 1989. There were revisions to the GST proposal in December, 1989. Legislation was tabled on January 24. Since that time the Opposition has been engaged in dilatory procedural tactics.
But if the Leader of the Opposition is ready to drop his vexatious and dilatory actions, then we will extend hours and begin debate immediately, tonight, tomorrow, tomorrow night.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance continues his losing propaganda war with these latest pamphlets-slick, biased and incomplete-dealing with the GST. He will not listen to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions against the GST.
Since the government is sending out nearly two million of these booklets-and there are four or five to each of the kits-I want to know from the Minister of Finance how many Canadians have requested the pamphlets with which the minister is inundating the country.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's leader has just made the point that there have been a number of petitions
Oral Questions
submitted to the Speaker expressing some concerns about the GST. Surely, my hon. colleague would like to see those people receive a copy of these brochures.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Surely the people in the small business community who have expressed some concerns, some interest and some desire to understand how the GST will affect them will be quite interested in receiving a copy of a brochure which sets out, in a good amount of detail, how the GST affects them, how they should register, how they should collect it, how they will recover the GST from their purchases and how the GST will improve their cash flow from what is the case.


Mr. Marchi:: Come on, Mike, even Brian's laughing.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will complete his answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition parties have made my point for me. On pages 18 and 19 there is a very clear illustration of exactly how the GST will improve the cash flow of small businesses in this country. That is precisely why we want to get this information into the hands of the opposition, as well as into the hands of the small business community-


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the
80.000	businesses represented by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business do not quite agree with the minister.

My question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, is that we now know that the propaganda campaign is still on. We know that it is going to cost millions of dollars. Does the Minister still intend to speak taxpayers' money before his bill has been passed by the Parliament of Canada? And now, as a result of this propaganda campaign, will we have an army of tax collectors, the
4.000	new employees of the Department of National Revenue who will go to get the tax from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers? Do you still intend to hire 4,000 tax collectors?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member ignores in his question is the fact that there is already a tax in place

February 6, 1990
Oral Questions
that collects $18 billion from the Canadian consumers today. The GST will replace that tax.
My hon. friend talks about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I have letters from members of the CFIB who have listened to the rhetoric of then-president-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -but they have not heard about the information that is in this document. They are interested in knowing right away about this document, about the ways that the GST will affect them, how it can help in their businesses and how it can affect their record keeping-all of those matters which are important to its implementation.
These people want to get the information so they can plan and prepare so that they can be ready for it when January 1, 1991, comes around and the GST is implemented.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On the front page of today's Montreal Gazette, there is a photo of 775 seniors lined up, at 7:30 a.m. yesterday, to receive food from a food bank. Seven hundred and seventy-five seniors! Mr. Speaker, this is national disgrace! And at the same time, the Minister is trying to convince seniors that the GST is good for them. Seniors deserve to live out their old age in dignity, not in food bank lineups. What is the Minister prepared to do for senior citizens?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that I am quite safe in saying that those 775 senior citizens to whom the Leader of the New Democratic Party refers will be better off after the GST than they are today.


Some hon. members:: Elear, hear!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would like to ask my hon. friend whether she has taken the time to tell senior citizens that food in food banks is not subject to tax.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Basic groceries are not subject to tax. Meals on Wheels is not subject to tax. Meals in nursing homes are not subject to tax. No tax will be charged on health care, on dental care, on residential rents, on prescription drugs, nor on medical devices.
All of that, plus the fact the GST credit will help those very people is the reason that I say they will be better off. They will be receiving the GST credit four times a year, by cheque. Seventy-five per cent of senior citizens will be better off after the GST than they are today.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Canadians will look forward to seeing the headlines tomorrow and will rejoice when they see that food banks will not be taxed by this government.
Let the minister tell the over 15,000 old age pensioners who go to food banks across this country every month that they will be better off under the goods and services tax. Let him prove that the increased inflation caused by the GST, under the minister's own admission, will not hurt pensioners and those on low incomes. Let the minister prove that the poor will be better off with the goods and services tax.
Will the minister now withdraw this tax and stop trying to convince Canadians who don't believe it that this tax will be good for them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated in income tax reform how we took 850,000 off the tax rolls so that they were paying no tax whereas previously they were. We are following this very same approach with sales tax reform.
I have listened to my hon. friend say on a number of occasions that senior citizens will not be better off. I have demonstrated in the brochures and in the technical paper that I have produced in connection with the GST that these people will be better off.
Those figures were not produced by me. They were produced by public servants who are working in the best interests of this country and who are doing this work to the best of their ability.
Those figures point out that 84 per cent of senior citizens will receive the credit. If the hon. member cannot prove that that is wrong, then she should not
February 6, 1990

Oral Questions
continue spouting this incorrect information which is leading senior citizens astray.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister attend the next food bank for senior citizens in Montreal and explain his views to them.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The minister refers to the brochure-a brochure which cost taxpayers $1.3 million-sent out to businesses and ensuring small businesses that they will have, and I quote, "lower operating costs, improved cash flow and a more competitive edge".
I suggest that the minister is not going to have any better luck explaining his position to small business than he is to senior citizens.
My question is simple. Has the government taken into account the expected lost revenue in its budget preparations? Has it told small business that the goods and services tax means lost business?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to one particular item. She says that it will not improve their cash flow. She is referring to the part in this document which shows that it will do that; that it will improve then-cash flow.
If she disagrees with that, if she can produce the figures to show me that that is the case, that shows me that this is wrong, then I would like to see those figures.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Is the Minister aware of the status of the trucking industry in Canada at the present time which is engaged in an absolute fight for its very existence, a fight brought about by high costs, regulatory structure and because of the total Canadian tax structure?
How can our trucking industry compete for contracts under these conditions? Will he now admit that present government policies have created conditions which are forcing the Canadian trucking industry to move to the United States in order to compete?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is wrong, first because since deregulation, the trucking industry has experienced considerable growth. He also ought to know that the provinces now have more responsibilities and broader jurisdiction in the trucking sector, that there is co-operation with the provinces, and that we are trying, both through the highway safety code, the legislation and the agreements we have in the trucking sector, to help the industry continue to develop. In any case, I can give the hon. member the assurance that especially since deregulation, the industry has experienced considerable growth in this country, Mr. Speaker.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ about who is understanding the trucking industry the best.
In the last two months Ford Motor Co. of Windsor has given $50 million out of $55 million worth of business to United States trucking firms.
The owner of the fifth largest Canadian trucking company is in my riding, Canada Transport of Belleville. He has moved 250 jobs in the last two months to the United States of America because he cannot compete under the present conditions in this country.
What has the government done and what is it going to do to keep the Canadian trucking industry in Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will maintain what I said before.
The trucking industry in Canada has known since 1985 about the developments. We have had rationalization in the industry, which we know very well. We are once again working with the provinces.
I should add also that the trucking industry under the GST will be a clear winner.

[Translation\


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister promised that before April 19 this year, he would grant letters patent so that American Express

February 6, 1990
Oral Questions
could start Canadian banking operations. Does that promise still stand?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, given the enormous amount of work that has been undertaken over the past year, particularly in preparing financial institution reform, I am afraid it cannot be in place before American Express receives its licence.
That means, of course, that American Express will be in a position to offer certain services that other banks might momentarily be prevented from providing, but for a very short period only.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on February 3, the Minister of Finance promised Canadians that we would have this new financial legislation in place. His promise is right here in his press release. He said that we would have this new financial legislation in place before American Express would be allowed to operate as a bank in Canada.
My advice to the Minister of Finance is, take your American Express card and never leave home without it, because you have given up your credit with Canadians.
Why has this minister kept his promise to American Express? Why has he broken his promise to Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member get his lines from the member for Gander-Twillingate in the future.
The specific question that the hon. member has asked relates to what I said about a year ago. Our intention was to get the legislation before Canadians before the mid-year, I believe is what I said.
As my colleague has stated, a considerable amount of work needed to be done to get together financial institution legislation. The legislation needed a great deal of reform because, in some cases, the existing legislation is 65 or 70 years old. That has taken time. But we are working on it, and hope to have the legislation before the House at an early date.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, you will recall last summer that the government spent about $800,000 on an ad in daily newspapers about the GST, and the minister appropriately had his knuckles rapped for spending taxpayers' money in that way.
Now we have another fancy brochure advertising and promoting the GST to the small business community in this country.
Does the minister consider it appropriate that he should spend $1.3 million of the taxpayers' money? Is it proper to spend $1.3 million of the taxpayers' money on promotion, propaganda, on a fancy pamphlet before a law has been passed in the Parliament of Canada? Is that appropriate, or is it not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite appropriate to inform Canadians, in this case small businesses, of the importance of a particular issue that they will have to deal with on January 1, 1991.
The legislation is before the House today. My friend is well aware that this is a very important initiative for Canada, for the Government of Canada and that we are proceeding with this legislation.
This is information which small business people have been asking us to provide for them. It is consistent with the direction which the finance committee recommended, following the return of the committee from New Zealand, where they learned from the New Zealand experience. The committee recommended that we provide full information to those who are affected by the proposed tax. That is the basic reason why we are providing this information.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the bill has not passed the House yet. It seems to me that it is rather arrogant to anticipate what this House may or may not do. Advertising is advertising, promotion is promotion.
I would like to ask the minister once again, how can he justify spending the taxpayers' money on partisan promotion of a tax that the people of this country do not want. How can he do that?
February 6, 1990


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friend of what the Finance Committee report of March 15, 1988, stated: "-to publicize the details of the new tax and the relevant social policy transfers". This brochure is publicizing the details of the new tax that we propose to bring in on January 1, 1991.
We also have a brochure which publicizes one of the key social policy elements, the GST credit, which improves the position of many senior citizens and low income people in this country.
This is information for which Canadians have asked. We are responding in a responsible way by providing that information.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, last night two Calgary journalists for CFAC television were held for several hours by the Israeli army after a raid on a village in the occupied West Bank.
Another Calgarian, a citizen of Palestinian descent, was also picked up by the Israelis. This man, Jamil Qasqas, was escorting the two journalists as they interviewed his family in the village.
I would to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has any information regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Qasqas? Is he, a Canadian citizen, still being detained by the Israelis? What has External Affairs done to secure the release of Mr. Qasqas?
Finally, I would like to know if the minister has had any communications with the Israelis regarding the detainment of the journalists, Brenda Finley and Wayne Borowiec, and what their status is in Israel today?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and am pleased to report to the House that, as a result of interventions by the Government of Canada in Israel, the three persons named are now free.
I understand that Mr. Qasqas is on his way, or will shortly be on his way back to Calgary. It may be that the two journalists in question will remain in the area. They had, from the beginning, access to the consular services
Oral Questions
of the Canadian Embassy. We are naturally seeking a fuller report from Israeli authorities as to the circumstances, but the three are free.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In his absence, I will refer it to the acting minister. It is in regard to his so-called environmental agenda for Canada. It is a mystery to Canadians and to the minister, it seems.
Canadians are getting tired of polluted promises. The minister has hailed his five-year plan as the most dramatic environmental reforms in Canadian history, and yet the energy minister two weeks ago in Calgary told oilmen: "Don't worry, don't be nervous, you have nothing to fear. There will be trade-offs". He said that the action plan is not the final word.
Will the minister meet the real needs of the environment and not the self-interest of his political colleagues?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, the Minister of the Environment is working on an action plan that has been supported very fully right through from the Prime Minister and other members of cabinet.
In Calgary approximately two weeks ago when the Minister of the Environment could not attend for personal reasons, I said that there would have to be trade-offs. I think anyone who has looked at environmental issues, who has looked at reduction or stabilization, for example, of C02 levels, knows there are trade-offs. In fact, if he takes a look at some of the papers coming from the Ontario government, he will find that the trade-offs that are being examined not only have to be examined, but have to have a public debate, and that is why the action plan is coming forward.


Rex Crawford: Instead of consulting with environmental groups and the public, the minister is working in shadows. Canadians wonder why clean air, clean water, and safe land are such a secret, such a mystery, so confidential and classified.
Will big business dictate the environmental policy of this government, or do the people have a say?

February 6, 1990
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I am happy to confirm to my hon. friend that his comprehensive and, I believe, quite impressive work in bringing forward a major action plan is proceeding along course.
I met with the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association on Friday and indicated to them, as we have to other groups including environmental lobbies that, while we will be consulting with them, it is the government's intention to follow through on a commitment of sustainable development which moves the cause of the environment to the top of the national agenda, but which does not cripple development in Canada which means jobs for Canadians.
It is perhaps for this reason that Mr. Shevardnadze, the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, following the commentary of former Prime Minister Brundtland, stated:
Canada was one of the first to place questions of environmental protection on the international agenda and has achieved remarkable successes in this area. Therefore, we attach great significance to and regard as an encouraging beginning the environmental accord signed with Canada in Moscow.
The international leaders recognize it. I urge the hon. gentleman to read and stop complaining.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance concerns the impact that the goods and services tax will have on disabled Canadians.
While the minister proposes not to tax wheelchairs themselves, he would like to tax all repairs on them to tires, seats, and brakes. Why should handicapped Canadians be asked to pay tax on what are clearly essential needs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pointed out quite clearly how we have tried to identify certain things that are used by disabled people. That is why a number of medical
devices have been made tax free, and I am pleased that she acknowledges that.
With regard to the specific question that she has asked, it is very difficult through the tax system to draw distinctions between repairs to certain types of equipment and repairs to other types of equipment. That is very difficult to do, but I appreciate her sensitivity to that issue.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.
Now that he has confirmed that he would like to tax repairs to wheelchairs, will he also confirm that he would even like to tax grandmothers for their hearing aid batteries, or would he rather that they not hear about the evils of the GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member understands that hearing aid batteries are taxable today. She should acknowledge that when she asks a question like that, rather then trying to get some cheap political benefits from the type of question that she is asking.
We have made it clear that hearing aids are not going to be taxed, glasses will not be taxed. Other forms of medical devices, prescription drugs, and medical services will not be taxed. Therefore, in a number of areas we are responding to the sentiment that she is expressing, but we are trying to do so in a way that recognizes the problems that people have without getting cheap political gain for it.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications and it is about cable TV rates.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that Canadians are paying too much money for cable television. Cable profits are now about 32 per cent on fixed assets. That is about twice the amount that phone companies get because phone companies are regulated by law.
Will the government bring in a law which will regulate the rate of return for cable companies like we have done for phone companies?
February 6, 1990


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it so happens that the CRTC is holding public hearings on this issue because many Canadians feel that cable TV rates are too high.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I could go over to Elull, but I am not going. I want to ask the minister a question.
The fact is that cable rates are increasing enormously and phone rates are either frozen or they have dropped.
By refusing to have rate of return legislation, as we in the NDP advocate, is the government not sending the wrong signals to the CRTC, or is it simply a matter that the government is not listening to ordinary Canadians, the government is not heeding them, the government is not caring about them, and the government refuses to protect them with strong legislation on cable?


Marcel Masse: 
PUBLIC WORKS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Given that the Daly building has been recognized as one of the most important historical buildings in the nation's capital, given that the decision was made to preserve the sterling and rare Chicago style of architecture, and given that the National Capital Commission has already wasted millions of dollars waiting for the developer to come up with restoration plans, the question is why has the NCC now approved a plan that will virtually eliminate or destroy any authentic traces of what it was trying to preserve in the first place?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot debate the aesthetics of architecture with my colleague opposite. I appreciate the question. However, I understand that some of the modifications that have been made, particularly with
Oral Questions
respect to windows, are in the name of energy conservation. I will attempt to find out more details for her.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The National Capital Commission has lost $2.5 million yearly on the Daly building in rental revenue. The developer has tied up the NCC for $1 a year for a good number of years. The central chambers in the 489 Sussex Drive buildings remain vacant. Lost revenue defies the spirit of fiscal restraint.
In tight fiscal times, how can the minister justify prime real estate remaining vacant?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my information, and I stand to be corrected, is that in fact a satisfactory lease has been entered into with the developer for the Daly building and that revenues have been secured.
I will attempt to get more information, but I do not accept prima facie what my colleague has said. I understand that revenues have been secured and that a lease has been signed.
He *	*


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There is a debate proceeding currently in the U.S. Congress about a cold war provision of U.S. immigration law which has been used for decades by Americans to prohibit many law-abiding Canadians from entering the United States on the alleged grounds that they are subversive.
I want to ask the minister if he is prepared to make representations to the American administration to help promote the repeal of this section which really has no place in the laws of a great democracy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the more difficult challenges I have had to face in this office was when the United States tried to keep Farley Mowat out. That was not an issue that receded quietly. I made representations then on behalf of Farley Mowat to try to get him into the United States, successfully. I think that the relevance of that law, if it ever existed, is now passed and I certainly would be pleased to act on the suggestion of the hon. member.

February 6, 1990
Privilege


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree that this cold war measure diminishes the image of the United States in the eyes of Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be concerned about image but I am not. Nevertheless, I believe the Americans would do well to get rid of this regulation, and I intend to urge them to do so.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Since the minister met on the weekend with his provincial counterpart, could he inform the House whether the Quebec Minister of Transport gave him assurances, or whether the minister himself made concrete proposals to ensure that the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region will not lose 11 of the 25 million dollars set aside for the Alma-La Baie highway, which must be spent before March 31, 1991?
Furthermore, if work on the Saint-Bruno-Jonquiere section cannot start on time, what did the provincial minister say he would do to avoid losing this money, half of which is being paid by the federal government?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Saturday, I had a meeting with the Quebec Minister of Transport who gave me the assurance that, in the case to which the hon. member referred, the monies invested by the Government of Canada would be spent within the required period, and that he would make the necessary representations to the Quebec Environment Minister, Mr. Pierre Paradis, to deal with the problems they are facing at this time.
I can assure the hon. member that the federal monies will be spent within the required period.


PRIVILEGE
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the proceedings of the House this morning and from Question Period. This is the first opportunity I have had to draw it to your attention.
This morning and during Question Period the Minister of Finance drew our attention to the document:
TPS, Taxe sur les produits et services, renseignements a Vintention de la petite entreprise.
I asked, through the pages, for a copy of this document since it was referred to so many times this morning and by the Minister of Finance. The pages could not obtain a copy for me. After other attempts the pages finally did find a copy. They could only produce a copy for me in one of the official languages.
I thought that all proceedings in this House, all documents issued by the Government of Canada, have to be produced in the two official languages. How can this government on the one hand pretend to sign a resolution honouring the two official languages of the land and yet not produce a document in the two official languages for the members of this House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a document entitled, GST, Goods and Services Tax, Information for Small Business in the English language. The other side:
TPS, taxe sur les produits et services, renseignements a Vintention de la petite entreprise.
It is in both official languages. If my colleague would like to have copies in French and English, both official languages, all he has to do is ask and we will get him any number of copies that he can send out to his constituents.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I did ask for the document in the two official languages. This is all the pages could give me. It is in one official language only. The Minister of Finance says: "Turn it over". I did turn it over. It is still in the one official language. I can read, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance cannot.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Parkdale-Eligh Park. While I do not think it is a question of privilege, I think it is a matter of good management and courtesy to ensure that copies of this particular document are available to all hon. members in this place.
I think some of the difficulty may be, if I heard correctly earlier today, that some were published in French only, some were published in English only, and some were published in the two languages.
However, the hon. member has raised a matter which concerns the Speaker. I shall look into it and I will try to satisfy the hon. member.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX BROCHURE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a related question. We found out this morning via the press that the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance had sent out 1.8 million copies to small businesses across Canada. Members of Parliament have yet to receive copies in our offices.
Could the Minister of Finance explain when he had copies of this goods and services tax information booklet sent to the offices of members of Parliament? I wonder if he could explain when that was done.


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: I guess the Minister of Finance was preoccupied. The Minister of Finance sent the brochure out to over one million small businesses some time ago. I was wondering if he could explain when he had it sent to members of Parliament so we would be aware of what the Department of Finance had actually done.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, these pamphlets have just gone out to small businesses. It was done through the Department of National Revenue. I am not quite sure precisely when they went out. If my hon. friend would like more copies of the document-
Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: I don't have any yet.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -we will make sure he gets as many as he wants.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has also indicated the desire of hon. members to have copies. The minister has responded, and I am sure the minister will co-operate with all hon. members.


John Napier Turner: On the second or third printing.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has an intervention, which of course is always welcome. Perhaps it needs no reply.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park and I think the matter can be rectified among members on both sides of the House. If it is not, I invite hon. members to raise the matter further with me.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Thx Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 7569).
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that Orders of the Day have been called, I want to indicate the desire of the government to debate this very important bill, Bill C-62, on the goods and services tax.
In order to give all members of the House a full opportunity to debate this particular bill, I want to indicate the willingness on the part of the government to extend the debate this evening until twelve o'clock midnight in order to allow as many members as possible to participate in the debate.

February 6, 1990
Government Orders
I wonder if my hon. friends opposite are of the same mind.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we on this side have been trying to get the government to do this. Yesterday we moved such a motion and the government refused to proceed with the motion. The government had 15 members of its party stand up to stop this from happening. We are very happy that indeed the government is going to give us a chance to debate the GST, this terrible tax.
I have been reading some comments by the government Whip yesterday when he said it was time to listen to each other, to engage in vigorous debate on behalf of democracy and on behalf of good decision making.
We could not agree more. We will be here and we will debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government was not interested in returning to the House of Commons until well into the month of January. We would have had lots of time if it was genuinely interested-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: With your consent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, but the government had not indicated that it was interested in having a lengthy debate on certain kinds of legislation.
If the government were serious in its request, is this the way to deal with tax legislation that will have an effect on people's lives for generations to come, to try to run legislation by exhaustion late into the night?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: You are driving us crazy with votes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Good, that is the point. I want to make it very clear to my hon. friend, the government House leader, that we are in no way going to co-operate to try to facilitate the passage of this legislation. Unlike the Liberals who are presumably prepared to facilitate debate, to vote the legislation in the House of Commons, we want to stop the legislation and we are not going to make any deals whatsoever.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Manley:: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the member rising on the same point of order?


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, it is on the same point. I think the reference by the NDP to co-operation from the Liberal Party in the interests of advancing the GST is totally unfounded. What we hear from our constituents again and again is that the behaviour in this Chamber is not worthy of parliamentarians.
I suggest that the kind of antics that have been carried on down there are very unworthy of this Chamber. We need to debate the substance of this bill which is demonstrably wrong. It is a bad bill, it is bad tax law, but we do not need to do it by acting like buffoons.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Point of Order.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Point of Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Consent has been sought and there is no consent. Therefore we just carry on with debate. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor.


Ross Harvey: Point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Edmonton East and then the hon. member for Nickel Belt on a point of order.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, just for the information of the hon. member and all other hon. members, my constituents are not terribly concerned about how much we debate the tax bill in this House. My constituents want this tax stopped.


John R. Rodriguez: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is passing strange to see the Liberal Party quite willing to jump in with a suggestion made on the floor of the House to cut off debate at midnight tonight, from ten o'clock till midnight.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We are not cutting it off; we are continuing it.


John R. Rodriguez: They want to go until midnight. That is the proposal that the Liberals are prepared to agree to. We have said: "Let's have the debate on regular time". This is the time of the House of Commons for debate, not to come in during the dark of the night-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.
February 6, 1990


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, instead of shouting, perhaps we could listen to reason.
We have had many important topics debated in this Elouse until midnight and until one or two in the morning. I am thinking of the debate on China. I am thinking of the abortion debate, et cetera. Here is an opportunity for us to debate this matter at length. The reason the Liberal Party wants to debate this matter is to convince the government to kill this bill completely, to kill the GST, but we have to do it with full debate.
We cannot understand the reasoning of members of the NDP who on the one hand want more time to debate and on the other hand when it is given to them they do not want it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There has been no consent. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor on debate.
He has 14 minutes, plus 10 minutes of questions and comments.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is veiy simple. We want to kill the bill. We want to axe the tax.
I am surprised the Liberal Party wants to co-operate now with the government across the way by putting up more and more speakers, by wasting more and more of their speakers. Why don't they practise good tactics and hold some of your people in the background for a while and force the government to withdraw the bill?
I suspect what they are doing now is looking at the polls, seeing them at 48 per cent, and dreaming and assuming they are going to win the next election. They want this matter through as fast as possible so that once they are the government of this country they will have a GST.
There is not a single Liberal in the House who will get up and deny the fact that they would like to see this bill through. Once it is through and they form the government, they will keep the GST. Is there a single Liberal candidate running for leadership of that party who has said: "If I become Prime Minister of this country, I am going to get rid of the GST"? No, not a single Liberal candidate. That is not an issue in the campaign.
We all know they want the Conservative Party to get the tax through the House of Commons, take the flak
Government Orders
and lose the election. All of a sudden they will be the government of this country, they will keep the tax and they will increase it from 7 per cent to 8 per cent to 9 per cent to 12 per cent. That is exactly what the Liberals will do.
The member from Newfoundland across the way is nodding his head. I can hear him from hear. He agrees. That is exactly what the plan of the Liberals is; that is why they want to co-operate with the government. I am making it very clear that we want to kill the tax. We want to stop the tax. We will do whatever we can to make sure it does not go through the House.
We already see all kinds of signs of Liberal governments co-operating with the federal government. Mr. Nixon, the Treasurer in Ontario, has now that said he will collect the federal sales tax in the province of Ontario. That is a Liberal Treasurer, a Liberal Minister of Finance. That is co-operation in the biggest province in this country. We see all of a sudden how the Liberal benches have fallen very quiet.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, said practically the same thing two or three days ago about collecting taxes, including the GST, in the province of Quebec. We are seeing co-operation between the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, and that is why we had this co-operation in the House of Commons this afternoon.


An hon. member:: Liberal or Conservative, what's the difference?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In the House today we had a few questions about this fancy brochure, the propaganda brochure which has been circulated to over a million small business people by the government across the way. It spent $1.3 million circulating this advertising and propaganda.
That is not the only brochure that the government has circulated. I would like to know how much money the government has spent on propaganda and brochures on the GST in the last few months. I have here a little brochure entitled Questions and Answers about the GST. How many of these were circulated? Who did they go to? How much did this cost the Canadian taxpayer?

February 6, 1990
Government Orders
We are talking about brochures and leaflets about a bill that has not even passed the House of Commons. It has not been passed by Parliament, yet taxpayers' money is being spent to talk about something that is not even law, a hypothetical thing.
Another brochure on the goods and services tax is entitled Information for Small Business. That is the second small business brochure that has been circulated in the last few weeks. Another one is called The GST in Summary. Again, how many copies of this brochure have gone out in the last few weeks or months to the Canadian people? What did this brochure cost us?
Another one is entitled The Goods and Services Tax. This small brochure goes out to barbers and hair stylists. How many of these have gone out to barbers and hair stylists across the country? How much did that cost the Canadian people, particularly in an industry which will lose money because of the 7 per cent tax on barbering and hair styling in Canada.
Another one, which I suppose went out to some low income people in this country, is entitled Information on the GST Tax Credit. Once again, how many copies and to what people did that go? Here is another one entitled The Goods and Services Tax on Farmers and Fishermen. I look at this brochure and I wonder again how much this has cost the Canadian people and who received the brochures.
Another one is information on housing. Again, what did that cost us for information on a bill that has not even passed the House of Commons. Here is another one with information for convenience stores. Once again, who did this go out to? We already have this great big brochure on the tax for small business and there is another one here for convenience stores. Again, how much did that cost and who did that brochure go out to?
Another one is to self-employed trades people. Who did that go out to and how much did it cost? There is one more for the GST and pensioners.
Finally I have here a brochure entitled The GST Credit: The Government's Plan which were included in the income tax returns sent out to the people of Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is only a bill. It is not the law of the land, yet the government is spending all kinds of money.
Since the purpose is to kill the bill, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


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 nays 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 lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member, a point of order by the government House leader.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He has not even asked for one yet. I have one on the vote.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you have noticed, I am sure, that there are over 50 Liberal members of Parlia-
Govemment Orders
ment who do not want to play these childish games that the NDP are proposing-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -by abstaining from voting. We want to debate this bad legislation. We want to debate it democratically. We want debate to proceed.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. government House leader.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Canada now have had an ample demonstration of the NDP's refusal to debate. They are making a mockery of this place.



Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Therefore, I wish to give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming the debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee of Finance of Bill C-62, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate be not further adjourned.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


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 Dartmouth-Tourist Industry; and the hon. member for Delta-Charitable Organizations.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, be now read a second time and referred to
[Stage Direction]
February 6, 1990
Government Orders
the Standing Committee on Finance; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p.7569).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will now enter into questions and comments to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, now that the government has once again given notice that it plans to introduce a motion of closure for the next day, I want to simply indicate that at that time I will plan to argue the fact that moving closure at this point is not only irresponsible but unconstitutional.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my friend for Yorkton-Melville when he was making his presentation to this House before he sought to adjourn the House.
He started off by saying that they were attempting to kill the bill and axe the tax and that they would do anything to see that the bill does not go through the House.
He then went on to lay out the brochures and called the brochures advertising and propaganda.
I would ask the hon. member this. If the information in the brochures is incorrect, would he please point out to this House and to all hon. members where the information is incorrect? He called it propaganda.
How can it be propaganda when people are seeking information right across this country about the goods and services tax? Does he not feel that we have a responsibility to get this information out to our constituents as quickly as possible so that they understand the implications of the goods and services tax and how it will affect them? Is it not the duty of every member in this House to inform his constituents and to inform the country?
I would ask the hon. member if he could show the members of this House, if that information is incorrect, where it is incorrect? I do not have a closed mind. I would really like to know how that hon. member can
point out in the brochures what is wrong with the information that we are giving.
Obviously the New Democratic Party, the party of which the member for Yorkton-Melville is a member, has decided that it is not even going to discuss the goods and services tax. Members of that party have closed their minds to it. That is the ultimate autocratic position. It is the classic example of a party which knows that it will never, ever form a government in this country. It will never be in power and can never expect to be in power. Thus it can be totally irresponsible.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this bill since August. I was on the committee that travelled this country for several weeks, including when we went into the province of Alberta. We have discussed the bill.
The specific answer to the question about propaganda is that if he checks the most recent brochure he will see one of the headings is "Competitive Advantage". Under that heading it is argued that business in this country will have a competitive advantage.
I suggest that in many cases that is not true at all. We heard in our committee from representatives of many small business people who said they will have a competitive disadvantage. I refer specifically to the tourist industry, the fast food industry, the clothing industry and the footwear industry. All these industries have warned us that they will not have a competitive advantage but very much a disadvantage.
As a matter of fact, when it comes to tourism and restaurants those two industries are among the two most price-sensitive industries and businesses in this country. An increase in price, or a perceived increase in price- whatever it may be, we can argue that point-will be enough, in their opinion, to drive people away. We had representatives of the tourist industry before us in the Railway Committee Room before Christmas who made that very point in a very clear and effective way about how they think it would affect their industry.
I would suggest with great respect to my friend for Athabasca that it is propaganda when you have something that is misleading in a document. This does not give tourism, for example, a competitive advantage. That
February 6, 1990

is a misleading statement that is just not true according to the industry.
He can challenge the industry and say: "Look, they were not telling us the truth. They weren't levelling with the House of Commons." But that is exactly what they were saying to us.
The same thing applies to fast food. We had the fast food people saying to us that they are also a very price-sensitive industry, that if kids have to pay 7 per cent on a Big Mac there might be fewer kids buying Big Macs and that their industry will be affected in a negative sense by the bill before the House.
I think that is a specific answer to his question. I am glad that he raised that question. I think that that part of the brochure at least is something that is propaganda and is not factual.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville represents an agricultural riding, as I do coming from Souris-Moose Mountain. Yet the member failed to point out the net benefits for agriculture in the GST.
I want to lay those out for him right now. If a farmer buys a new tractor the end user's certificate is in place as it always has been. However, if he buys a battery, a chain, a ladder, a jack, a hammer, lumber, posts, wires or staples-all of these things-he can claim the 7 per cent back, which he has not been able to do up until now. Most of those items are taxed at 13 per cent.
I make the point that an average farmer will have a net benefit in the GST of $1,500 to $2,000. If he buys a half-ton truck there is a $2,600 benefit on a $20,000 truck.
There is definitely a net benefit here to agriculture. Agriculture is exempt but the member has failed to point that out to the people of his constituency.
I thank you for the opportunity to do this, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I refer my good friend for Assiniboia to the hearings of the finance committee in October when representatives of the Federation of Agriculture appeared before us. They said that the GST would add several millions of dollars per year to the costs
Government Orders
of farmers because of the additional administrative burden. That is what they are saying.


Mr. Siddon:: They didn't understand it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The member from British Columbia is saying that the farmers did not understand it. I do not want to challenge the farmers' lack of understanding or anything of that sort, but that is what the people from the Federation of Agriculture had to say. It seems to me that they would probably be experts in this because they are farmers.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Spread the truth.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Somebody wants me to spread the truth. I am saying to you what they said to us, and I know that farmers know of what they speak. I just wish that the Mr. Know-it-all over here on the government benches would listen to the farmers.
The member for Assiniboia knows that for the ordinary farmer all the extra bookkeeping is going to be a burden. The red tape is going to be a burden. That is what the farmers have said to us.
I know the zero rating of many of the goods in terms of agriculture. I also know a recommendation in the bill that is there now that was not there before states that the farmer will have a certificate for big-ticket items. I know those things are in there.
I suggest in closing that there is no guarantee that the 13 per cent tax that already exists is going to be passed on to the farmer in its entirety. We do not know that. There have been many cases in the past where the raw material price has gone down, such as in crude oil in the Middle East, but the saving is not being passed on to the consumer at the gas pumps.
You cannot tell me that the entire $18 billion of FST and MST now is going to be passed on to the consumer, whether it is to a farmer, a small business person or a home builder.
I suggest that the farmer will not be better off. If you listen to your constituents most of them are convinced that they will be worse off.


Mr. MacWilliam:: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions for the member. I think they should be clarified for the people of Canada. First, the Minister of Finance has repeatedly stated that the GST is revenue neutral. He has also stated that the tax is to be implemented to replace the manufacturers' sales tax which is not serving the manufacturing sector well.

February 6, 1990
Government Orders
If we have a choice between two taxes that are supposedly raising the same sums of money, why should we opt for a tax which affects most Canadians directly and deleteriously?
The second question to the member is this. Most Canadians believe that the level of the goods and services tax will be raised soon after the tax is implemented, as it has been in virtually every other country where it has been implemented. Is there anything in the current tax proposal that will prevent the raising of the 7 per cent level of the goods and services tax once it is implemented? I think Canadians want to know this.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The answer to the second question about raising the tax is quite straightforward. There is nothing in the bill to prevent it from being raised.
In fact, the Minister of Finance has said many times that he cannot guarantee it. As sure as day follows night, as the years go on, the tax will go up. It takes only a very simple amendment to raise the tax. It will go up from 7 per cent to 8 per cent or 9 per cent. I doubt if it will go down.
One reason why the government wants this is that it is a relatively easy way to raise a few extra billion dollars whenever it needs money. It just takes a little old amendment, Mr. Speaker, and you can raise the tax by one point. That will create revenues of around $2.5 billion. That is an awful lot of dough and it is a very easy way to do it. That is why this tax must be stopped now, must be killed now. If it is not killed now, it will not be killed in the future.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, just to comment on the raising of the taxes. The manufacturers' sales tax was raised from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent during the life of this government. I did not get one letter concerning that increase because the people of Canada did not know that it was being raised. I say to the hon. member that if people know that the tax is going to be raised, it sure is going to put a stop on governments moving in that way.
I would like to go back to tourism operations. I would ask how the hon. member, with his comments in answer to my previous question, can square the idea that in the tourist industry all of the input taxes that go to make up the tourist industry are going to be rebated to the tourism industry. I think there is a legitimate debate on
whether he is correct or whether I am correct. I would acknowledge that.
I would like to say that the biggest single thing against the tourism industry is that party's position on eliminating the entertainment deduction allowed now to people across Canada when they are entertaining business people and so on. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that that will have the most devastating effect on restaurants and places of entertainment more than anything else. I would like to see how he can square that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not think it matters whether the hon. member for Athabasca is right or I am right on tourism. The fact of the matter is that the tourism people came to our committee and they said the tax would hurt them. It would hurt their businesses.
I understand that a great number of letters have been received from Americans who say that because of this tax they will not come here any more. I assume that people who run the tourist industry know their industry well. They know what impact the tax will have on their industry. I think we should take their advice and not argue about who is right, you or me.
As far as entertainment is concerned, right now under tax law the business community is able to write off 80 per cent of its entertainment expenses. That cost about $1 billion last year. I believe we could save a lot of money by making sure that Mr. Conrad Black cannot always write off his champagne and his caviare when he is entertaining the member for Athabasca.
I do not think that serves any purpose. That is one way that money can be saved. It is not only caviare and champagne that can be written off, there are other kinds of services as well. I sometimes question the value of those services. I am not saying that Jack is involved there but I question some of these write-offs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to be able to stand and finally participate in a debate in this House on this very important economic policy.
February 6, 1990

Like all members of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware that the goods and services tax is a part of two other economic proposals this government has worked on and put forward in the last five years. Clearly reform of the sales tax is an essential part of tax reform that was undertaken initially in June 1987. That was part of a very clear and well defined economic policy laid down by the government in 1984 in its paper provided to this House in November of that year on limits to economic growth.
What we are seeing with the goods and services tax is an attempt, not only to rectify a tax system today that is hurting Canadians in all parts of this country and in all walks of life, but also to implement a system that is fair and productive and will help Canadians over a period of time to become stronger and more competitive, more able to create and maintain employment in this country. I do not think there is any member of Parliament in this House who would dispute that that is something all of us should be thinking about and should be focused on.
I would like to talk a little about some of the economic benefits of this tax. I would like to talk about some of the things that this tax does, particularly for my part of the country, particularly for the Atlantic provinces, that we all would agree needs whatever assistance we in the government and we in this House can provide.
If through the reform of the sales tax we can provide some economic growth, we can ensure that the economic growth and economic investment we so badly need is not denied us because of a tax system that is 65 years old, a tax system that nobody else uses, a tax system that penalizes production and restricts growth in the economy. That sort of a tax system must be replaced, if we are going to see real economic growth, real regional development, and the creation of jobs in this country when we need jobs more than at any other time.
We are well aware of the negative parts of the old federal sales tax. We know that the current federal sales tax distorts economic decision making, reduces productivity and, therefore, reduces the real incomes of Canadians.
What this tax does today is favours imported products. It favours goods of like nature imported from another country. Not only does it do that, but it quite clearly
Government Orders
hinders the ability of our exports to compete against exports of other countries in the international market. We are a country of exporters. If we want to be able to compete fairly and compete properly, we must ensure that our tax system does not hold us back.
We all agree that any tax system is something we do not like, but surely to heaven we do not need a tax system that says to an exporting country that the things it ships out automatically have a 65 per cent to 70 per cent higher effective tax rate than the things it is competing against. The people to whom we sell what we produce are not going to buy something that has a tax rate much higher than what they are competing against. It makes absolutely no sense.
We are dealing in an economy that is integrated around the world. We cannot deny that we live in an economy that is interdependent. We cannot put walls around ourselves, as our friends opposite would have us do. We cannot live and work in a little cocoon. It will not work. If we are going to tell the people of this country and our constituents that we can do that, we are not being fair or honest with them.
What we are doing with this tax is trying to address some of those inequities so that we can deal properly with the future of this country and create jobs when we need them.
As we try to promote trade and competitiveness, as we try to produce more goods, products, and services that we can export, we cannot have a system that allows for goods imported into the country to be taxed at the border, which is what happens today. The federal sales tax is applied at the border. Therefore, a Canadian good, something that is produced in this country and is taxed at the manufacturer's level, the tax on production, is at an immediate disadvantage, because anything that happens to the import after it is imported is not susceptible to tax. Across this country we have seen plants closing because of this tax.


Mr. Funk:: Why did you keep raising it, if it was so bad?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: We cannot continue to have businesses subject to tax on tax. Any business that buys a good that has a federal sales tax on it, uses it in its production and sells it at the next level where again it is taxed is subject to a tax on tax, which affects the consumers of this

February 6, 1990
Government Orders
country and holds back the ability of business to produce, to expand and to grow.
Where of all places do these policies have the most benefit and why? It is interesting when we look at the figures on growth in the economy that we see the greatest growth in the economy is in the prairie and the Atlantic provinces. Why does this happen?


Raymond John Funk: Just like free trade.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: It is because our economies in the prairies and the Atlantic are very capital intensive. They use machinery and big pieces of equipment. We need to bring those together to be able to extract and develop our raw materials. As well, those economies, because of the nature of this country, are based on export. What we see because of taxes on this sort of equipment is a constricting or a restraining of the economy to the tune of about $9 billion a year.
Whoever you are, whatever side of this House you sit on, if we can see an increase in growth in this economy of $9 billion a year, it is going to affect every one of our constituents. It will make their lives just that bit better. What we will see is investment in those areas that is being constrained today.
My friends opposite say: "What about free trade?" If you combine the effects of the changes in the goods and services tax with the benefits of free trade, we see growth in the economy of something approaching $30 billion a year, and that is the equivalent of 5 per cent.


Raymond John Funk: You don't even know what you are talking about any more.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am talking truth to my constituents. I do not keep them in the dark. I do not tell them to listen to what the NDP says and not anything the government has to say. I do not deny them information so that they do not know what is going on and constituents of mine and yours cannot make an intelligent decision because you are denying them the information and denying them a debate in this House.


Raymond John Funk: Make a motion to withdraw closure.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: How come you guys keep promoting socialism and eastern Europe is changing?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Come on, give me a hand here, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly like to thank my colleague from Manitoba for all his help.
What so many businesses and industries in this country face today is a tax on inputs, a tax on the goods, the products and the equipment they use to carry out their business. One of the great benefits of the goods and services tax is that we will see the tax on inputs eliminated through the input tax credit. What we hear is that that is businesses. What about people?
We should remember that businesses are people, that businesses are people who work in our communities, that businesses provide jobs that create opportunities and provide services. Businesses provide growth. Today, small and medium sized businesses in this country are facing a total mishmash under the federal sales tax. What we see is 75,000 different companies paying this tax. Remember, Mr. Speaker, businesses do not pay tax. We see 75,000 companies collecting this tax. Virtually the same amount will collect under the goods and services tax. They do not pay it; they collect it. Consumers pay the tax. Consumers are paying that tax now. My constituents and your constituents are paying that tax.


An hon. member:: Who is the consumer?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I really cannot hear the hon. member who is on debate. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: With four different tax rates and 22,000 special deals, we have a tax system that nobody understands. We have a tax system that distorts decisions in the economy, that distorts the realities in the economy, and that hinders the ability of people to conduct business and therefore consumers to get the benefits of a competitive economy.


An hon. member:: Maybe you can learn how to grow cucumbers.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: The problem is not growing cucumbers; it is selling cucumbers.
As we face some particular challenges in the economy in Atlantic Canada, as we look at a fishery that is going to demand attention from all aspects of government, from the economy, and from all parts of our society, as we look at a forest products industry that has a great opportunity to expand its horizons to export across not only this country but around the world, as we look at a growing and developing minerals industry particularly in my province, as we look at some opportunities for oil and gas development and as we look at the opportunities to develop the hydro resources, we see some excellent examples of how the goods and services tax as opposed to
February 6, 1990

the federal sales tax can assist the development of those businesses.
Today, any purchase that is made of a taxable item by a company is susceptible to the tax. For instance, it is important for people to realize that in the future a paper mill can receive the input tax credit on everything it buys to manufacture paper. That is not only the wood that goes into the chippers. It is the chemicals that go with it, the machines, the light bulbs to keep the place going, the typewriters. Anything used in that business will be a tax credit. What we are not seeing is tax on tax. We are not seeing tax produced so that someone else can pay tax on it. What we are seeing is an acknowledgement that the tax is paid once and only once through the system.


Raymond John Funk: Let's hear more about the light bulbs.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: The light bulbs are going out.


Ms. Hunter:: I don't think they were ever on.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: One thing that we hear a tremendous amount about is the question of spending. All of us hear that the tax would be more acceptable if the government were to cut spending, that instead of raising taxes we should attack spending. I would like to spend one or two minutes addressing that question. I think it is important to keep reminding Canadians of the effort that has been made to reduce spending in this country.
Since 1984 we have reduced the deficit by some $8 billion. In 1984-85 spending was $16 billion higher than revenue. Now it is $8 billion less than revenue.
Spending by the federal government in 1989-90 on government programs will have grown by 3.6 per cent, which is lower than any provincial government in this country and lower than any government in Ottawa in the last number of years. In 1984-85 some 19.5 per cent of the economy was comprised of government spending. In 1989-90 it is 16.1 per cent. If we carried on the way it was operating before we would be $22 billion higher or 21 per cent. By 1993-94 we will not have to borrow and we can start buying back things like treasury bills.
Government Orders
One of the most important parts of the goods and services tax for my province and my constituents is the tax credit, the system whereby we acknowledge that Canadians in certain circumstances may have been hurt by the goods and services tax if we did not take direct and specific action to redress that. The way of doing that is by enhancing and developing the sales tax credit.
In 1986 the credit was $50 for an adult and $25 for a child with incomes below $15,000. In 1990 it is now at $140 for an adult and $70 for a child with incomes less than $18,000. In 1991 it will be $190 for an adult and $100 for a child with an income of less than $24,000.
For single individuals there will be $100 extra and for single parents one of the children can be claimed as an adult. What effect does that have, remembering that it will be paid four times a year in advance of the expenditure being made? There will be 88.7 million families and individuals in this country who will benefit from the sales tax credit.
Families with incomes less than $30,000 will be better off under the goods and services tax than they are under the current system. That is where this system is fair. That is where this system addresses the needs of Canadians. That is where this system says to Canadians who need the help that we will give that protection and that help.
I am convinced that this tax, as controversial as it is and as controversial as it will be, is in the best interests of my constituents and I think the constituents of every member of this House. It addresses the realities of Canada in the world in 1990. It will help Canadians be competitive and productive in the next decade. It will protect Canadians who need our help and protection. It will make this country a fairer and a better place in which to live in 1990.


Mr. Barrett:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate before closure comes down and this tax is rammed down our throats.
I want to ask the member a few questions. He stood in this House and explained to us how wonderful it is going to be for those people who get a rebate. Now think about it. I want to tell the member that there are a lot more people in this country who would rather not pay the tax

February 6, 1990
Government Orders
at all than pay the tax and get some of their money back and expect to feel grateful for that.
That is the kind of convoluted logic of somebody who is trying to get a cabinet post rather than fight for the people in Newfoundland who are going to have this tax piled on to 12 per cent in Newfoundland.
I do not want to miss any other province in this country, but I want to spend a little time in Newfoundland.
The hon. member says that the government has the support of the citizens of Newfoundland to shove another 7 per cent down their throats. With high unemployment in that province, this disastrous government with its free trade policies and its fisheries disaster will give them the gift of a 7 per cent tax. They will get a free form so that they can ask for some of their money back.


An hon. member:: Shame.


An hon. member:: Isn't that wonderful.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, This is the kind of guy who insults the intelligence of every Newfoundlander with that kind of speech.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Don't be silly.


David Barrett: ''Don't be silly", he says. I will come to you in British Columbia in a minute. Just give me a minute.
I want to move to the fact that I am shocked and dismayed. I want to ask that member: Do you speak for the back-benchers from Alberta? They have been deathly silent on this matter. I do not include the Chair. The Chair has other responsibilities. All other back-benchers from Alberta are yet to open their yaps over this tax because they are scared to death as to how they are going to explain this tax to Albertans. They have never had a sales tax. They voted Tory, and now they are getting a sales tax.
Do you know who is laughing about this, Mr. Speaker? The Liberals are laughing. They know very well that when they read the polls, they think are going to be re-elected, and that the Tories are doing their dirty work for them by passing this tax right now.
I warn the people of Alberta that the speech by that member is the kind of speech made by the Tory-Liberal alliance that we are witnessing. It is nothing but a
Tory-Liberal alliance addressing itself to the same service of the same constituency, the rich, and the hell with the rest of the people in this country. That is what it is.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: Those Liberals are laughing at the Tories from Alberta. They are laughing at the Tories from Newfoundland, and that member speaks without recognizing that he is serving the cause of the Liberal party. He is a back-bencher and does not realize that there is a tacit coalition between those two old line parties to ram this tax through.
I have seen many bright young men and women come into politics who are called one-timers. They are described as those earnest young people who come here and support a government. They were brought in under the American expression of being swept into office with the flotsam and jetsam of a huge majority. That member is part of the flotsam and jetsam that came in with a new majority. He will be out in the next election, four years of his life sacrificed for that tacit coalition to serve special interests in this country, and he will not even get a pension.
I am a social worker. Do not come to me when you are down the tube, looking for help. It is your own fault. You are over 21. You should have known better than to get tangled up with that gang over other, even if the hon. member did work for the former minister. It is his own fault. I have enough of a case load without worrying over him.
It is the Alberta back-benchers who I am worried about. It is getting so bad that they do not even go home on the weekends. Those who do go home on the weekends in Alberta do not give anybody their phone number. If they are recognized on the streets, they say they are thinking of leaving the caucus.
Two members have actually served notice that they may speak against this bill. They have to do it quietly. They think they have a chance to get into cabinet. They are trying to balance their position on the GST and their ambition. Just think, one of them could succeed the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What an ambition!
I want to know whether or not every single backbencher from Alberta supports this legislation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes or no.
February 6, 1990


David Barrett: I will not be the first to go to Alberta and report their answer, but I may be the second. There is not a single provincial government that endorses this, unless it is Social Credit in British Columbia, and they do not know from day to day what the heck they are doing anyway.
As for Alberta, Don Getty has got all of these guys on a separate list, under the list known as the H-I-T list, including my good friend from the tar sands, who will be in bigger glue and bigger tar if this goes through. I challenge him to get up along with that member-


Jack Wendele Shields: Point of order.


David Barrett: Wait. Wait, I will give you your chance. There is no point of order.


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


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I was challenged to state my position, whether I support the goods and services tax legislation that is now going through the House. I absolutely, positively do. I have absolutely no reservation whatsoever on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will let the hon. member have another 30 seconds in order to put a question.
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order because I do not support the GST. I am from Alberta. I am trying to represent the views of my constituents as well as the province of Alberta.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has 20 seconds to put his question.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, two words: Goodbye, Jack; hello, Alex. One of them is going to last and the other one is going down the tube. Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to you to guess what is happening. I speak for the west. We are opposed to this tax no matter what the government says.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. I do not know whether to say: "social worker, counsel thyself". Talk about insulting Newfoundlanders. One thing the hon. member should know is how to pronounce 'Newfoundland'. It is about time he, as a former premier, recognized that.
Government Orders
If you are going to talk to me about insulting my constituents, if you stand up here and say to my constituents you are going to put on a new tax, my constituents know damn well there is a tax in place now. For you to stand in this House and pretend there is no tax and all of a sudden we have a new 7 per cent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I think it is procedural precedent in the House to direct the comments through the Chair and not to other members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that is what the hon. member intended on doing.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. The hon. member, of course, is absolutely right.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is getting awfully close to five o'clock. The Chair does see all these things happening, but I just do not like to get involved in the debate. I am sure the hon. member realized what he had to do. I knew he was going to get to the point of saying "Mr. Speaker". I appreciate the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap bringing it to the attention of the House. If any member has any other complaint to bring to the Chair, I would appreciate hearing it rather than just sitting back and not saying anything.
The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, a number of members clearly heard the member make a reference to the Chair and I ask that he withdraw it.


Mr. Samson:: Mr. Speaker, if I made any comment that offended the Chair or any of the other members, I certainly do withdraw the comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Now, where were we. Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend opposite has suggested that I purport to stand in this House and suggest to this House that every one of my constituents support this tax. I said quite clearly that this tax is controversial. I would be an idiot to stand here and suggest that all of my constituents support this tax.

February 6, 1990
Government Orders
I am willing to say two or three things on that though, Mr. Speaker, quite briefly. First, I support this tax and I defend this tax. I have defended and promoted this tax for three years.
Second, come good or bad, I am willing to let my constituents make their decisions on this tax, based on discussions in this Elouse of Commons and based on the reality and truth of this tax. If it takes my colleagues opposite to block that information they get from my constituents, I am prepared to wait until this tax is in place, until this tax has an opportunity to operate. I will let my constituents judge then as to whether this tax is good or bad. Then and only then will my constituents judge me, not the hon. member who comes along and pats us on the head, like the great former premier.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Bye, bye.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Bye, bye, fair enough. When that hon. member is back giving counselling, I will be in this House referring colleagues to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow one short question for the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Island.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to travel with the hon. member opposite, and I know he has a good sense of humour. That has been well demonstrated in his address this afternoon, especially as he relates to the talk of fairness in this GST and the "economic growth" that this is going to promote. I think this speaks a lot for his sense of humour.
We are talking about the relative merits of the manufacturers' sales tax. I think it has already been made clear in this House that no one is in favour of the manufacturers' sales tax. I think his tactic of putting the major focus of his debate on the manufacturers' sales tax is a means of avoiding the real issue. That real issue is tax reform.
When we are talking about tax fairness, I would just like to ask him how he can talk about tax fairness when over the last 40 years we have seen a real shift from taxing corporations to taxing individuals. In 1980, the tax was 69 per cent for individuals and 30 per cent for
corporations. The projections for 1990 are 79 per cent for individuals and 21 per cent for corporations. We are talking about fairness in the tax system. How can he talk about fairness when this government is bringing in this kind of "tax reform"?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I know other members want to speak on this. My colleague from Calgary is next on our side. I know he would certainly like to address the comments of my friend from British Columbia. He and 26 of his colleagues support this tax.
The whole point of this, of course, is to replace the manufacturers' sales tax. That is a position held by all parties in this House, that the manufacturers' sales tax must be replaced. If we want to deal with the question of tax fairness and redressing the balance, in June 1987 this government came forward with a tax reform that recognized quite clearly there was a problem. Individuals were taking too much of the burden of income tax. The immediate effect of phase one of tax reform was to immediately shift $3 billion of that burden away from individuals and into the corporate sector.
More than that, it eliminated some of the huge loopholes for businesses. It took away some of the tax shelters that businesses had taken advantage of needlessly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Algoma.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think there might be unanimous consent in the House to entertain a motion that the member from Calgary Northeast now be heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Algoma has the floor on debate.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be very interesting to hear the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. I am sure that every member of this House will want to be here tomorrow to hear him.
We would not want to break the stride of his speech, because we will hear from one honest Tory. He is listening to the people. This performance we have just seen from the hon. member for St. John's East shows that he obviously had a very weak case. That is why he thumped the desk so loud and spoke so loud.
February 6, 1990

We know the hon. member for Calgary Northeast will speak very clearly and concisely. He will not have to scream and yell because his case will be perfect. He will know exactly what he is talking about. Even though we did not grant permission for him to speak now, we will certainly hear from him tomorrow.
It will be very interesting to be here next January because no area of our country will be hit harder by this tax than Newfoundland. They already have a sales tax of 11 per cent, the highest in the country. It is the most regressive kind of tax. By this time next year there will be another 7 per cent added to that unless the Tories listen to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast and withdraw the tax. They may well do that because they know his arguments are right. They know that the people are with him not only in Calgary Northeast but throughout Alberta and throughout the country.
I do not think that the hon. member for St. John's East will be nearly as confident next year at this time because his people in that constituency and in that province will bearing the most onerous tax burden they have ever had to bear. Not only will they be paying 18 per cent sales tax on every meal they buy in a restaurant, it will apply to practically every good and service in that province. No province will be hurt more.
We are not talking about just one new regressive tax because during the last five years we have had a succession of regressive taxes; some 25 cents a gallon on gasoline, massive taxes on liquor and all kinds of nonprescription cosmetics; 31 different new taxes in the last five years. It would be very interesting if we could replay what we have seen this afternoon about the third or fourth week of next January and see how the hon. member for Athabasca, the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Calgary Northeast react.
There may be a draft movement by then to make the hon. member for Calgary Northeast leader of the party. It could well happen. He may be the only member who could be elected. Obviously, if he is the only member who can be elected he will be the leader of the Tory party.
The poll that was just published reinforces exactly what the member for Calgary Northeast has been saying, that the vast majority of people are opposed to the sales
Private Members' Business
tax. They are definitely opposed to the 7 per cent sales tax. In fact, 79 per cent are opposed to the sales tax; 16 per cent are in favour of it and 5 per cent have not heard of it.
It is amazing, because of all the issues I have ever seen come before Parliament in the last 20 years, I have never seen so many petitions as the ones on this issue. It is unbelievable. There were never so many petitions on any of the controversial issues which came before Parliament. This government is clearly moving against the wishes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 27, 1989, consideration of the motion of Mr. Anawak:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment, education and health needs of aboriginal youth.
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the private member's motion of my colleague with regard to the situation which is facing our aboriginal people. In fact I wish, for clarification, to read the motion which I think would be deserving of the support of all members of this House, namely:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with Aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment, education and health needs of Aboriginal youth.
That particular motion and, indeed, its substance I think can be concurred in by all members of Parliament. If one has taken the time to examine the situation of the aboriginal young people in this country, one would quickly recognize that their particular needs cry out for special initiatives by the Government of Canada.

February 6, 1990
Private Members' Business
From a health perspective I wish to lay before you some disturbing facts which reaffirm my desire, as well as that of my colleague, for the Government of Canada to initiate leadership on these very important issues.
In 1977, the number of hospital admissions of native people for infections and parasitic diseases was about seven times higher than the national average. The mortality rate among native infants was two times higher for natives and four times higher for Inuit than the national rate. The mortality rate was almost three times higher for native children ages one to four years than for non-native children.
A glaring fact which ought to be shared with members of Parliament is that in 1981, 50 per cent of native people were in the labour force and the average income was two-thirds less for natives than for non-natives.
According to an article published in 1989 entitled "Nutritional problems of native Canadians, mothers and children", fluoride is not present in the water supply of most native communities and must be given to combat dental problems which are rampant in some areas throughout their communities.
I could go on and on with a litany of facts which would support my thesis, namely, that there are major and serious social and economic problems being faced by aboriginal people in Canada, so much so that those particular problems demand an immediate and effective comprehensive response by the Government of Canada. It is not sufficient at all for the Government of Canada to say that because of budgetary restrictions, because of the fact that it has linkages to provincial jurisdictions, the Canadian government is somewhat paralysed in providing a comprehensive response. If that is what the government of the day holds, it seems to me that it has fallen by the wayside in terms of living up to its responsibilities in meeting the needs of Canadian people and, in particular, our aboriginal people.
Special initiatives to combat the educational problems with regard to aboriginal youth ought to be a priority for any government. It ought to be a priority for every government; federally, provincially, and, yes, even our own municipalities in the respective areas of this country must bear some of the responsibility. What we hear are responses from the Government of Canada which would
suggest that there may be a problem and, if there is a problem, we do not have the money nor, more important, do we have the will to ascertain the answers to provide a comprehensive response.
So there is, first, the lack of financial resources. Second and more important, there is the lack of political will to evolve a comprehensive response to the many facts I have laid before the House on this occasion and previous occasions, particularly during debate with regard to the child care situation in this country. It is irresponsible of the Government of Canada not to exercise its jurisdiction, its legislative authority and its political will to try to come up with a comprehensive response.
There has been a clear example of this broken promise and lack of leadership with regard to child care. There are many native communities throughout this country that desperately require new spaces in order that native children be given high quality child care. The government's response is that it was to provide upwards of $60 million to try to address that particular situation. However, in April of last year the Minister of Finance, aided and abetted by the Minister for National Health and Welfare, axed $60 million from their budget.
I have travelled to the native communities across this country, albeit not as often as I have wished to. In fact, I have been in my colleague's constituency. In those communities you see the need. This is not a need just written on paper. It is not a need that is theorized, if you will, by the academics at Mount St. Vincent University in Halifax, or the University of Toronto, or in Winnipeg, Calgary, or Vancouver. This is a real need, a people need. The response is: "We have no money. There is no political will. We don't have a response. I'm sorry."
These kinds of answers emanating from the front benches across the way leave Canadians with very few options. One immediate effect of not addressing the real social and economic problems of our aboriginal youth is for people to lose hope but, more important, to lose hope and faith in those institutions that they have supported over the years.
Are we paralyzed as a Parliament? Are we so ineffectual in terms of bringing the largesse of the treasury benches of the Government of Canada to the particular needs of aboriginal youth? Are we so concerned with our own personal pay cheques, our own personal well-being, that we cannot see beyond our own borders to other
February 6, 1990

communities and other Canadians who are in need of financial help and special initiatives, some of which can be resources of the Government of Canada redirected from other government programs?
Are we so ineffectual as a Parliament? I would hope not. I would hope that government members would seize this particular opportunity and support the substance of the motion and thereafter have the ministers responsible, namely the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, be accountable for their dismal effort to date in responding to the social problems which are rampant in native communities across this country.
I speak of child care as one example. There are many other examples in terms of our aboriginal peoples to which I am sure every member will want to allude and, indeed, discuss in a fuller context. But let it be said that they were the first people and they, too, have rights. More important, we have an obligation as a Parliament to respond to those rights and those needs and thus far we as a Parliament, and I include members on this side, have been ineffectual in responding.
I realize that my time is somewhat limited and you are giving me the traditional wave to curtail my remarks. In conclusion, let me say that I support both the mover of the motion and the substance of the motion. I call upon my colleagues opposite, who are few in number today, but many of whom are aware of what is contained in this particular motion, to realize the intent with which it was moved, that being a sincere, honest, genuine belief that special initiatives are needed for our aboriginal youth, and to respond in kind. That is the kind of intention which is expected of members of Parliament who take the oath and take their seat in this great Chamber.
I call upon them to support this motion, as do I and all of my other colleagues, to make sure that it passes but, more important, to ensure that both legislative and administrative decisions be made to obtain the very laudable objectives contained in the motion of my hon. colleague.
Private Members' Business


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak on this very timely topic today. The motion before us calls upon the government to "consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment, education, and health needs of Aboriginal youth".
Like my hon. colleague, the member for Nunatsiaq, I believe these issues to be serious and pressing, and none more so than the health needs of our Canadian aboriginal peoples, the old as well as the young.
I will not begin my remarks by suggesting that the government is content with the health conditions of many aboriginal people. The fact is that it is not. There are simply too many indications that aboriginal people have not yet attained the same level of health and well-being shared by most Canadians.
The facts certainly suggest that there is cause for concern, but they also suggest that there are significant opportunities for bringing about positive and lasting change.
If we look at the registered Indian population in Canada we see that there has been a dramatic decline in infant mortality rates in recent years. This change has come about through better neo-natal and post-natal care and hospital deliveries. Yet this improvement has not been enough to alter the fact that the infant mortality rate of our native population is still twice that of the over all Canadian population. If we consider aboriginal youth, some 54 per cent of status Indians are under the age of 24. This compares with a figure of 38 per cent for non-native Canadians.
What then of the living and health conditions of our aboriginal youth? While aboriginal youth can now expect to live longer compared to 15 or 20 years ago, the life expectancy of an Indian male is still only 63 years compared with 72 years for the average Canadian male. For aboriginal women the figure is slightly better at 72 years compared to 81 years for the average Canadian woman.
The more telling statistics have to do with the incidence and causes of Indian and Inuit youth deaths and suicides. It is a deplorable fact that the highest rate of accidental and violent deaths occur in the 15 to 29 year old age bracket. Similarly, the highest number of Indian suicides are among the 20 to 24 year olds, which is five times the Canadian rate for this age group. In the case of

February 6, 1990
Private Members' Business
Inuit youth, suicides in the 15 to 24 year age group are also radically higher than the Canadian average.
There are undoubtedly a number of issues and causes behind these grim statistics, but there can be little question that people who have a reasonable measure of confidence in the future are unlikely to choose to end their lives in violent fashion, particularly in the prime of their youth.
These desperate actions do suggest that education, employment and economic opportunities have been insufficient in too many cases to offer aboriginal youth reason to hope for a better life and a better future. This has to change and this government is committed to ensure that it will indeed change.
In a minute I will be speaking about some of the programs and initiatives which are helping to deal with aboriginal health problems. But the fact remains that the most significant aboriginal health problems are not linked to any disease. They are linked to fundamental economic, social and environmental factors. It will only be through structural change and adjustment in these areas that significant and lasting improvements to the health status of aboriginal peoples can be achieved. This means ensuring that Indian and Inuit communities assume a greater role in the design and delivery of their own health care services in the broader context of self-determination.
Toward this end, the Government of Canada is moving on a number of fronts. First, there is a wide array of federally-funded health services for treaty and for status Indians. As of 1989-90, these services totalled more than $478 million. They include community health services, dental health services, environmental health and surveillance, non-insured health benefits, the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program, hospital services and capital construction.
These services cover the spectrum of promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative health care. They are responsible, in no small measure, for the significant progress that has been made over the last few decades in improving the health status of Indian and Inuit people.
As I said earlier, the government is determined to work closely with Indian and Inuit communities to put into practice the concepts of community support and
self-determination in health services. It is for this reason that Health and Welfare Canada established and funded program transfers which enable Indian communities to assume responsibility for planning, organizing and implementing their own health services. Five transfer agreements representing 28 bands have been signed to date and others are in the works.
Another example of the government's commitment to promoting aboriginal self-determination in the field of health services is the Indian and Inuit Health Careers Program. Again, through Health and Welfare Canada, this program is helping to correct the under-representation of native people in health care delivery. The program encourages and supports Indian and Inuit participation in the pursuit of post-secondary health careers.
As well, more than $5 million have been channelled to post-secondary institutions as developmental funding to address the special needs of native students in such career fields as nursing, health education and health administration. These and other health related initiatives have a direct and beneficial impact on the lives of some 274,000 on-reserve status Indians in Canada.
In all, the health services provided both directly and indirectly by the Government of Canada serve the needs of approximately 440,000 treaty and status Indians.
The very size and diversity of our original population, the isolation, and the very different cultural needs of many communities make the design and delivery of health care services a challenge of significant proportions. In large measure, that challenge is being met, but as I said before, no amount of health care, no matter how well designed, funded and delivered, can address problems that arise from social, economic and environmental conditions.
We must take steps to stop the high rates of violent death and suicide among aboriginal youth. These young people must be able to look to the future with a sense of hope and a legitimate expectation, not only of a healthier but a better life. To bring about this change, we must be prepared to move with all possible speed to help Canada's aboriginal people attain the self-reliance and self-
February 6, 1990

sufficiency through which lasting economic and social progress can be achieved.
This is the government's objective. We are pursuing self-government at the community level and we have put in place the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy which will put into the hands of aboriginal people the means to effectively manage their own business enterprises, economic institutions, job training and skills development. We also have an established program to help young Indians and Inuit acquire post-secondary education.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, the government is not content with the state of aboriginal health but neither is it content to continue to use methods and approaches which do not address the fundamental issues or support long-term solutions. We are committed to seeing that the cycle of aboriginal poverty, lost opportunities and unrealized human potential is broken once and for all. We are confident that we will succeed. That is the legacy which this government pledges to aboriginal youth and to all aboriginal people.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to speak ahead of him in order that I may return to the legislative committee.
Indeed, I am pleased to speak to this motion which is of vital importance to Canadians and which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment, education and health needs of aboriginal youth.
What is the situation for native Canadians? The situation for them, particularly the aboriginal youth, is that they are economically disadvantaged. There is discrimination, they are in poor health, social services are inadequate and hence, they suffer cultural isolation. As a consequence, they feel that they are second-class citizens.
It is particularly important that we focus on the youth because the native problems are magnified for them. They encounter tremendous obstacles, such as completing their education, finding a job, trying to handle or prevent pre-marital pregnancies, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide and problems with the justice system.
Private Members' Business
Only recently we have seen the report of the royal commission on the Marshall inquiry when Canadians have been told that, in fact, racial discrimination towards aboriginal people does exist. It is a sad state, Mr. Speaker.
The second reason why we should focus on the aboriginal youth is because the birth rate for native people is higher than for non-native Canadians. As a consequence, the aboriginal youth constitute a significant proportion of our native population. Therefore, their needs become greater and I should say quickly that their needs are truly urgent.
As a result of all of these things, we can anticipate increased family tensions and one does not have to quote any more statistics, because if there is higher unemployment for them, alcohol abuse, and drug problems, obviously the suicide problem will impact on the instability of the family. This must be addressed and must be addressed with initiatives, as indicated by the motion proposed.
The three specific areas that we are trying to address with this particular motion are health, education and employment. It is known that poverty, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and geographic isolation would magnify any health problem any Canadian citizen would have. Because these problems are high among our native youth it should follow that they face these problems much more than the non-native Canadians.
The problem of their nutrition is also important. Just a few days ago my colleague from Nunatsiaq indicated to this House how, with the GST, the prices of food would increase in his part of the country. When the cost of food increases it should follow that access to them could be hindered and that would lead, or could lead, to malnutrition.
A University of Toronto study recently indicated that Indians on two northern Ontario reserves are twice as likely as an average Canadian to have a physical disability such as hearing, speaking and even seeing. This is as a consequence of poor living conditions and inadequacy of medical treatment and specialized medical services.
At one time the federal government agreed to transfer health care services to native control, but it was only a partial solution because the transfer of control was mainly administrative and the determination of the level

February 6, 1990
Private Members' Business
of services that ought to be provided for native people was not given to them.
The second area is education. It is known that the schools are lacking in research. Not only are the schools lacking but the equipment for these schools is lacking. As well, the number of qualified teachers and teachers familiar with the cultural, language and sensitivity of native youth is absent.
On many reserves schools offer education only to a grade eight level. How can we expect them in the future to be as good as we are? That ought to be our challenge as we ought to provide for them as good an education as any other Canadian across the country. When the drop-out rate is very high, when only about 7 per cent of them-those between the ages of 20 and 24-are able to attend university levels, there is something wrong with our system in this country.
The availability of the services and the availability of opportunities ought to be open to all. Since education is a necessary tool to break the cycle of dependency, when that education is not attainable, then the dependency of our native population will continue to be present and that, of course, does not speak well for our country.
Hence, aboriginal people need a fully-integrated aboriginal education system that would care for and teach native children from a native perspective. Universities must be established throughout and should be made accessible to them. Do they have to travel far to obtain a university education? I think we can make universities reach them rather than their trying to reach universities to make the situation a more positive one.
The second point I would like to raise is that of employment. The opportunities for them, of course, are limited. Inherently, if one has a lesser level of education the opportunities will be less for them rather than having a greater level of training. So again, there is the vicious cycle. In fact, most recent equity reports have told us that the representation of natives in the employment force is not as much as we would like it to be. In other words, they are under-represented in employment and this is even true in the federal service where the federal government truly can have an immediate leadership role.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the native population and the native youth, in particular, are suffering in the areas of health, education and employment. It is vital for the government to develop special initiatives to respond to these needs. These needs must be developed and carried with full participation of native Canadians, otherwise the initiative may not see its full productive fruition.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to thank my colleague from Nunatsiaq for introducing this motion for debate. I think it is a critical motion and one that the House should take seriously. I hope that it would take it more seriously given the number of speakers we have here in this House.
In winding up his motion, the member has indicated that special initiatives are required and that those initiatives should be taken in consultation with the native people. It is veiy important that we recognize that the solutions to these problems require special initiatives and that they cannot have any hope of success without consultation with the native people of Canada.
In introducing this motion back in November the member outlined a number of statistics that most of us as Canadians should find absolutely intolerable. These statistics related to infant mortality and the fact that infant mortality among native newborns is twice that of children in the whole population. He went on to tell us about a whole series of problems with respect to tuberculosis and respiratory diseases.
The member for Delta has just indicated that suicide is a serious problem among young people in native communities all across Canada, not simply in the north, but on Vancouver Island, the area of Canada I serve. The suicide rate among native children is extremely high, especially among native young men. Something must be done. Nothing can be done about this problem unless it is done in consultation with the native people themselves, keeping their particular experiences in mind.
I would like to point out that when native communities examine the problem of suicide they are able to come to conclusions which best reflect their culture. Having developed that view of the problem, they are also able to
February 6, 1990

develop solutions that are more effective in their communities.
I would like to mention just one example. In communities in the Shuswap area of B.C. and also in the Cowichan area of Vancouver Island, native parents and communities were trying to find out what was causing suicides among their young people. They found out that suicide was related to a whole series of family problems, resulting from the system of residential schools that the Canadian government had imposed on Indian children. The government took the children away from their parents, put them in residential schools, and when those children came back they had lost all sense of how families operate, how to parent children, and of what the relationships are between children and parents in terms of things like incest taboos or the right to discipline children. They simply did not have that ability because the residential schools had been effective in destroying it.
Some communities in British Columbia, in order to deal with the family break-ups and the suicide problem, had to put families back together again and teach Indian children the whole concept of what an Indian family was all about. In effect, that concept had been destroyed in the Indian residential school system that Parliament had imposed on them for generation after generation.
What I am saying is that the solution to these problems are going to have to come from native communities themselves. They simply cannot do it without the resources being provided to them.
The member also mentioned low levels of education. Again, we are dealing with the same problems. I have had experience teaching native children in schools on the Queen Charlotte Islands and on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I know the problems we have in co-ordinating between the public school system and the kind of education that native children are looking for and require. The public school system across Canada has failed native children and native communities. There has to be changes in that system in order to make it possible for native children to succeed in the school system and to see that the school system works for them.
The same is true in the employment area that my colleague who introduced this motion mentioned as well. I live in a community where we have a fairly high level of unemployment in the native communities of my riding. That has not always been the case. I can recall visiting
Private Members' Business
with families on the west coast of Vancouver Island who, when the fishery and processing facilities were all located on the west coast, native people had a high level of employment in those industries. Native people were considered the best workers in the industry. They did well financially and it was only when that employment was centralized in cities like Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Victoria, that their basic employment was taken away from them.
The issue is not that native people are incapable of working or incapable of the nine to five regime as organized by European society. They are extremely capable and effective workers. The problem is that our society does not hire them. I think it is important to reflect on the fact that there is no teeth in the employment equity legislation tabled in this House. There is nothing in that legislation to require companies that come within the federal jurisdiction to employ their required quota of native workers. They simply do not do it because they are not required to do so by the full sanctions of the law.
The same is true of federal government agencies whose employment equity programs operate under Treasury Board guidelines. This government does not even enforce its own guidelines on its own agencies. As a result, according to the Commissioner of Human Rights in this country, there is only one government agency that lives up to its employment equity requirements and that is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. All the other departments of government, including Indian and Northern Health Services and entities of government that serve native people in this country, do not live up to their employment equity guidelines and their affirmative action requirements to employ native people in their departments.
We have to impose sanctions on those organizations to make them do the job we have instructed them to do in terms of affirmative action. It simply is not being done because the political will is not being expressed by this government or this Parliament in terms of native people. That is why I think it is important to deal with the motion put forward by my colleague.
Native people in Canada are marginalized people. We live in a country which was virtually taken over by immigrants. Now, native young people see themselves in a country which they once could look at as their own and see themselves as people who are isolated and marginal-

February 6, 1990
Private Members' Business
ized. That kind of feeling is very destructive of the self-esteem and aspirations of native children.
It is possible for my children who are seventh-generation descendants of Irish and Scottish immigrants to look at Canada as a country that offers them more hope than their native neighbours who, to this day, claim legitimate ownership of this country. This is a problem still not resolved. Why does that happen? It happens because Parliament has not tried to resolved the unfinished business between Canadians and the native people of Canada so that we can live in this country as equals and that our children can look forward to a future of equal benefit to both of them.
What we need in this country is exactly what the member for Delta was talking about when he was talking about self-determination. The way we are going to succeed in having native children complete the education process and go on and become successful in the education system is to have native education systems. We will succeed when native children can go to school and learn from native teachers, learn aboriginal languages, and see their language, their school system and their teachers as being among the best in Canada and among the best that any other culture can offer. Then going to a native school is going to be perceived as something to do if one really wants to succeed.
When is native health care really going to serve the native citizens of our county? When the health care service is delivered by natives, administered by natives and oriented toward serving the community needs of native people of Canada. That is when it is going to be successful.
This Parliament has to realize that in order to be successful some of the power that we arrogate to ourselves or that the Department of Indian Affairs keeps to itself is going to have to be devolved and restored to those native communities that originally had those powers when they had their own right of self-government.
It is worth while that the member for Nunatsiaq has presented this motion for debate in Parliament. I have made a suggestion that was based on a proposal made to the aboriginal affairs committee by the Assembly of First Nations. I think that Parliament should take this suggestion seriously. It is that Parliament should be prepared to
declare the 1990s the decade of aboriginal people in Canada. We have seen decades named similar to this before. We have seen the Decade of Women. We have seen the Year of Women in the Family declared by the United Nations.
Canada and this Parliament should take the step to declare the 1990s the decade of aboriginal people, setting as our objective the resolution of the unfinished business that exists between us and the aboriginal people of Canada. If we establish that objective for ourselves, then native people of this country will have something to look forward to.
It will be then that the statistics the member for Nunatsiaq talked about will be equalized to the benefit of all of us. It will be then that we will be able to reduce the number of health problems among native communities and be able to increase the educational opportunities of native Indians. It will be then that they will have the same opportunities as the rest of us in Canada.
Employment opportunities will be equal because this Parliament will have established it as an objective and declared the 1990s the decade in which we are going to resolve this problem. I hope Parliament will take this suggestion to heart.


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Anawak), who is to be commended for his interest in the well-being of Canada's aboriginal people.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to coment on the education system for aboriginal people. In Canada, aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people have access to education. This is part of being Canadian. For aboriginal people, education is probably the most precious thing anyone could give them. Why? The reason is simple. The aboriginal students of today are a vital resource, not only for their communities but also for Canada.
We all recognize that a solid education makes the ultimate goals of self-government and economic selfsufficiency attainable. There is no doubt that aboriginal people are also fully aware of this. In recent years, education has become a principal social concern. This
February 6, 1990

interest has allowed aboriginal people to play a greater role in decision-making.
There was a time when the fate of aboriginal people was decided almost unilaterally by the federal government. That time is past.
Their increased participation in the area of education has resulted in improvements, not only in the quality of education but also in the number of graduates.
In order to lay to rest some of my colleagues' fears, Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly describe the current system and outline the government's efforts to meet the needs and expectations of native people with regard to education.
When my colleague, the MP for Nunatsiaq, suggested that new initiatives be considered to meet the educational needs of natives, I sincerely wondered what he had in mind! The federal Government uses not one, but three, school systems to provide primary and secondary educational services for aboriginal people.
These services include federal schools, for which the Department of Indian Affaires and Nothem Development is responsible, band-operated schools on reserves, and schools run by provincial school boards.
In addition to providing a basic curriculum, many of these schools offer courses designed to meet the special needs of native people. These courses are offered from kindergarten right through to the last year of high school.
Furthermore, the federal policy of transferring control of native education to aboriginal people has led to new initiatives throughout the country. During the past ten years, a growing number of bands have taken charge of their school curriculum. Band-operated schools have been established across Canada.
In less than fifteen years, the number of schools located on reserves and run by band school boards has risen from 54 to 262.
In 1976-77, the number of students enrolled in these schools was 3,340. They now number nearly 30,000. These are indeed revealing figures.
It is particularly interesting to note that these schools have experienced an increase in enrolment at the sec-
Private Members' Business
ondary level. The number of students in secondary schools administered by bands has almost doubled in the past five years, increasing from 3,818 in 1984 to 6,839 last year.
Increased participation by parents and the community in the education process has certainly played an important role. However, we must not underestimate the impact of special training programs for native teachers, initiated by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
This initiative made it possible to increase the number of native people employed in band-operated schools.
Currently, about thirty per cent of the teachers in federal and band-operated schools are native.
In addition, thanks to the department's alternative funding arrangements program, bands have greater flexibility in developing academic programs which are better adapted to their local values and needs.
All these initiatives have improved school attendance and student perseverance. It is clear that the increase in the number of students at the secondary level was bound to have a significant impact on post-secondary programs sooner or later.
In the past few years, native enrolment in post-secondary studies has increased significantly.
From 1981 to 1988, the number of aboriginal students at the post-secondary level rose from 5,467 to 15,084.
In less than thirteen years, the budget increased from $4.2 million to $130 million.
In order to continue to meet the growing demands of Indian students, bands, and political organizations, the governement began talks with the First Nations to find acceptable and practical solutions to post-secondary education. Bilateral agreements were signed with six political organizations and one educational organization on a procedure for discussion and negotiation of all fundamental issues. I am pleased that a consensus has already been reached on a number of matters.
As you know, this policy was discussed at great length in the House last April, so I will not dwell on the details of this program.

February 6, 1990
Private Members' Business
However, I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the federal government developed this new program not only to help native people gain access to post-secondary education, but above all to make it easier for them to acquire a degree or a diploma. Post-secondary education is essential in order to enable aboriginal people to achieve their objectives of political autonomy and economic self-sufficiency.
The approach adopted by the current government is already showing encouraging results. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that there is still room for improvement.
However, I am convinced that with the increased participation and decision-making of native bands and councils, the current educational system will have a signficant impact on the entire aboriginal community.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Nunatsiaq again for making us aware of the importance of native people in our country and I hope that our government will have the opportunity in the coming months and years to devote more financial and human resources all the time so that native people, who are full members of Canada, enjoy a better, more abundant life that will not only be a credit to each and every one of us here in the House but also to the whole country to which I am proud to belong. Mr. Speaker, I know that all my colleagues here, and in particular those on the government side, fully support me in this and in the measures that we are putting forward to improve this situation.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague from Nunatsiaq for the opportunity to speak to the motion that he has brought forward dealing with aboriginal youth. The motion clearly states that what the government should consider is the development of special initiatives, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment, education and health needs of aboriginal youth.
These are areas to which we can all truly relate and understand in light of many of the concerns that we face these days with our aboriginal youth across Canada. These concerns are not isolated to various regions. They are pervasive concerns. They go from coast to coast to
coast and from community to community, from family to family and from individual to individual.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the leader of our party, stated that one of the key elements of success for any society is to make an investment in education. In the aboriginal communities we have come a long way since the early 1950s and the early parts of this century. My leader said: "Education is the best investment we can give to start to combat unemployment."
Our Prime Minister has said from time to time that the best social policy is a job. These two go hand in hand. We need to pool our resources and our efforts.
I consider this to be a non-partisan issue in that it concerns the future of Canada. If we were able to deliver from the onset a series of programs and initiatives that would help the aboriginal communities, a large portion of the costs of social services and programs would not necessarily be needed.
I want to refer to a number of experiences I have had. In the last week I was in Washington, D.C., when the President of the United States gave a state of the union address. In this address President Bush made a commitment to the youth of the United States to go forward with resources and initiatives that would help them train for a technological age which would better equip them.
What we have to do with the aboriginal community and the aboriginal youth is not to marginalize them to various sectors of training. We have to throw open the doors and make available education of every sort and every type. Aboriginal people may want to train for a particular career or a particular job, and that should be available to them.
I had the opportunity in December to tour my constituency and to visit a number of residential schools where I met at least 50 teenagers who were in their high school years'. These are the future leaders of my particular area.
I am sure that across Canada there are many such youths. These people are not people who are ridden with social malaise. These are not youth who are ridden with social problems. These are youth who have an optimistic future and who, given the opportunity, given the resources, given every bit of effort that we can muster, will be able to make it, not just through high school but to post-secondary education. I had the opportunity to speak
February 6, 1990

to these young people. It does well for these young people to see models who come in contact with them.
I want to say that we have to give encouragement in our own communities. I say that because I am an aboriginal person. I have three children. I come from a family of 15 surviving children. My family has benefited greatly from education.
I think one of the truly great experiences that we can offer to our aboriginal youth is to help them to broaden their horizons. I think how that can come about is through some very simple ways. One is that the government makes the resources available because education is a definite investment. It is a good investment which has positive results for the government and for the country as well. I think what happens is that when you put money into programs for students you are bound to come out with something that is going to help not just that student or that individual but that family, that community and that region.
It has been proven in many aboriginal communities that an aboriginal youth who has gained a high school education, who has a college or a university degree, is an individual who gives back to his community in spades.
I also want to say that there are a number of concerns which plague us. One of the areas that we have to think about is health. In the health area we have to think of essentials. Every student needs a place to sleep, a place called home. Every youth needs proper nutrition. Every young student needs proper child care. Every student needs to be protected and to have a home to go to, to be able to have quarters in which to study. These are things which we may not think about but they are veiy important.
We also have to be daring in our initiatives. We have to be risk takers. What we as the leaders in this country have to do is to put resources where we will produce results. These results will show in the area of the people having gained excellence in a number of areas such as the arts, music, if possible, and education-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
It is before six o'clock. I know that there is a disposition on the part of members on this side of the House to discuss the goods and services tax. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow the sitting to
Adjournment Debate
resume following the late show for the purpose of discussing Bill C-62 until midnight.
We would be prepared to give unanimous consent so that we would have the opportunity to discuss the bill. I think there might be a disposition on the part of the House to allow that.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a result of a question that I asked in the House on October 2, 1989.
At that time I raised serious concerns about the devastating impact that the goods and services tax would have on the Canadian tourism industry, especially in Atlantic Canada.
On that particular day I asked the minister about the negative impact on Atlantic tourism, one of the few industries in Atlantic Canada that has not been devastated so far by this government's policies. The response I got that day from the minister responsible was absolutely incredible. The minister responsible indicated to me that there was nothing to worry about, because what was going to happen was that foreign tourists coming into Canada were going to have an exemption. They would not have to pay the tax, so everything was going to be fine and good and there was no problem in Atlantic Canada, especially in the tourism sector.
It is obvious that the minister simply does not understand his portfolio. If he understood his portfolio, he would not have given that answer. In my home province of Nova Scotia the economic value of tourism is at least $760 million a year. I believe those figures that we put together were from May 15 to October 31, 1988, so we are not even talking about a full year here. The value for three-quarters of the year in the tourism industry in Nova Scotia was $760 million, one of the largest indus-

February 6, 1990
Adjournment Debate
tries in Atlantic Canada, one of the largest industries in Nova Scotia and one, thank goodness, that was doing fairly well. We have a lot to attract visitors there.
What the minister opposite failed to realize was that in Atlantic Canada, in Nova Scotia in particular, of
1,222,000	who visited that province between May 15 and October 31, 1988, fully 74 per cent or 903,000 of those visitors were Canadians.
The incredible response that I received in the House to my question on October 2 was the minister basically saying that for the first time in history this government was going to treat foreigners better than Canadians. He said that if you come from the United States of America, the government will not tax you, but if you are part of the 74 per cent or almost one million Canadians who are seeking a seaside holiday and choose to come to Nova Scotia to enjoy it and to spend money in my province, you will be taxed.
It was absolutely shameful for the minister to stand up and think that he was delivering good news. It certainly showed that he knew very little, if anything, about his portfolio. He certainly showed that day that he knew nothing about the tourism sector in Nova Scotia.
The tourism industry and its representatives in Nova Scotia have spoken against the goods and services tax. They spoke against it when it was proposed by this government. They spoke against it when the finance committee met in Halifax, when it was at that point a proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax. Since that period in time, the government has lowered it to 7 per cent and thinks that everybody is going to swallow that. Government members like to stand up and state that the tourism sector, or the restaurant sector, are really in support of the GST as long as it does not affect them, or as long as the rate is low.
Quite clearly, they do not even read the the press. They have not even read, or if they have, they have not understood, what has been said at the finance committee hearings. I refer to the Chronicle Herald of Saturday, January 20, 1990, where the headline states: "TIANS drops GST support". The Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia stated:
'As far as prices are concerned, there is no question the GST will be devastating to the tourism industry", Gordon Harmer, the group's chief executive officer, said Friday in an interview.
He also stated:
The national group predicts the GST will rip $1 billion out of Canada's tourism industry and force at least 25,000 people out of work.
Yet when I asked my question in the House of the minister who should have been responsible for tourism, he stood in his place and told me that things have never been so good. He said: "Don't worry about it because the people who are coming from the United States are not going to be taxed".
What I have said in this House before is that this government's goods and services tax is going to absolutely cripple and devastate the tourism industry in Nova Scotia and across Canada. What the government is going to do with its goods and services tax, this brilliant piece of Toryism, is drive Canadians who are seeking a seaside holiday state-side. The only people who will benefit from the 7 per cent goods and service will be some of President Bush's buddies in Kennebunkport. When Canadians are considering a holiday and want some Atlantic seaboard hospitality, they will go to Maine where they do not have to pay a 7 per cent tax. That is exactly what they are going to do.
With the figures that I have put forward in the House tonight as a further elaboration of my question, surely the minister or the parliamentary secretary will be able to give me a better answer. Surely to goodness since October 2 they have had an opportunity to check the facts. Surely to goodness since October 2 they have had a chance to check the record and to consult with some people in the tourism industry. I look forward to their response today. The only reasonable response is for the Conservative Government to drop the goods and services tax because it knows that nobody in this country supports it, and that the one growth industry that it has not been able to cripple so far is the Atlantic Canadian tourism industry.
I look forward to a veiy positive reply from my colleagues on the opposite side of the House. I am sure that the logic and the facts that I have just given them would show any reasonable individual that the goods and services tax will be devastating to the tourism industry in Atlantic Canada, in particular in Nova Scotia, and that
February 6, 1990

no Canadian government would ever support a tax or a policy that would give foreigners in Canada preferential treatment over Canadians.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear that the hon. member opposite is so sensitive to the tourism industry. Certainly, as one who has been involved in that industry for the past decade, both as a publisher and as a volunteer in promoting the industry, I was interested in hearing his comments. I am even more delighted to set him straight on a couple of the errors that he made in his discussion.
First, I would like to emphasize that the federal government recognizes and remains committed to enhancing the important role of tourism in our economy. In this context, we believe that the GST will be a vast improvement over the present federal sales tax which restricts Canada's economic growth. The new tax will help Canada compete in the world economy, and people in the tourism industry will appreciate that.
In collaboration with representatives of the tourism industry, the minister has undertaken extensive consultations with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, regarding the effect of the GST on the international competitiveness of the industry. I am happy to report that, based upon the information provided in the recently released technical paper, these efforts have resulted in provisions that reflect consistent application of the underlying principle of the GST which is designed to improve the competitiveness of Canada's export industries. Among them, we include tourism, which is an export industry.
Thus, purchases of goods and accommodation by foreign visitors will be eligible for a rebate. The GST rebates to foreign visitors have provisions that are not available in other countries with similar taxes and that is a distinct advantage to our tourism operators here in Canada.
For example, Canada is the only country in the world with a value-added tax to offer a rebate on accommodation. International passenger transportation, both inbound and outbound, and inbound air travel purchased in the U.S. will be exempt from the goods and services tax. More people coming into the country and spending
Adjournment Debate
money help support our economy. Also, cruise ship operations to points outside Canada will be included. In addition, public and private sector attractions will be treated equally.
Measures have been put in place to ease the administrative burden on small business. Businesses with annual sales of less than $30,000, which includes very many small tourism operators along the border, will be able to opt out of the GST system entirely and an administration fee will be available to small businesses that will also be allowed to remit the tax less frequently than other businesses. These measures, I believe, demonstrate clearly the government's recognition of the importance of the tourism industry in the export sector.
It is also important to note that the Conference Board of Canada's projections indicate continuing growth in the tourism industry. The initial impact of the tax may be a slight decline in the rate of that growth, however, the industry will continue to grow to provide jobs for Canadians and revenues for the private sector and governments. Once the tax is in place and the over-all economic benefits from a more efficient tax system are felt, the tourism industry will grow more than it would have without the GST.
A number of studies undertaken by Tourism Canada, for example, have indicated that Canadian tourism prices are generally considered to be competitive to prices in the United States and other jurisdictions, especially when the total package of goods and services bought by tourists is considered.
A recent survey indicated that in the United States lodging, meal and domestic airfare costs are higher than those in Canada by 36 per cent, 20 per cent and 17 per cent, respectively. Tourism Canada is currently conducting a major new travel price value perception study to evaluate price as a factor in the influencing of travel to and from Canada. My colleagues would be pleased to make this information available to interested members when the study is completed in the fall of 1990.
With respect to travel in Canada by Canadians, I believe that it is important not to overstate the significance of the GST. Even relatively small fluctuations in exchange rates will more than offset any incentives under the new tax to travel abroad. It should not be

February 6, 1990
Adjournment Debate
forgotten that Canadians travel in their own country for a variety of reasons, to visit friends-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would love to hear the hon. member for another few minutes, but her time has more than expired.


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on the question I asked last week of the Minister of National Revenue. It is based on the fact that each year 5 million Canadians claim charitable gifts of $2.5 billion to Canada's 60,000 registered charities on their income tax return.
Canadians from all walks of life give millions of hours of their time as volunteers to these organizations. All Canadians benefit immeasurably from the work of the charities sector. Charities include welfare agencies, hospitals, universities, colleges, religious groups, and a myriad of community organizations established to assist those in need in every part of the country and to address such issues as the environment and the advancement of aboriginal peoples.
Throughout Canadian society, charities play a vital role in providing service in all facets of life, often delivering a more responsive, effective and economical service than could be provided through government action.
Historically, the federal government has recognized and supported this important contribution of charities by the granting of special tax status to charities. Charities are exempt from tax on their income, and donors may claim a tax credit or a deduction.
It is axiomatic that all charities rely on the goodwill of the public to accomplish their works. That this goodwill exists can be seen from the time and the money given freely by the people of this country. Canadians are justly proud of the vitality of the charities sector which reflects on the health of the country as a whole.
To my mind, the key to preserving a healthy charities sector is in maintaining that sector's credibility with Canadians. Only by sustaining this credibility will charities be able to continue to rely on the public to respond generously to their appeals for support.
It is regrettable, though perhaps not surprising, that on the relatively infrequent occasions when an individual associated with a charity steps outside the law, widespread media attention is paid to the issue. Too often the public reacts against the sector, rather than the individuals involved. On these occasions, it is unfortunate that the whole of the sector is harmed by the actions of the few. When these kinds of reports threaten to erode public confidence in the sector as a whole, this is a very serious matter for all Canadians.
I should stress that, to my knowledge, there is no widespread abuse by registered charities. But it does seem to me that the special tax treatment of charities must be justifiable to all taxpayers who must pay for the special tax concessions provided charities, because they in turn must shoulder a larger share of the tax burden.
I would therefore ask the Minister of National Revenue to let us know whether the government intends to ensure that public confidence in the sector is not eroded by the actions of a few charities such as we have seen in the last few months and which have been so widely published in the media.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for putting the question and congratulate him on the interest that he has demonstrated for this very important sector.
In answer to the question at the end of his statement, that is why we are conducting a review. As I pointed out in an answer to a question in the House just last week, and I will quote part of it: "There are some 60,000 charitable organizations across this country, the great majority of which are very legitimate organizations and benefit society as a whole.The hon. member is correct in saying that over the past months and the past couple of years there have been a few who have taken advantage of some loopholes and have abused the system at the expense of the majority of the others. Therefore, as recently as last November I advised my officials to begin a comprehensive review of the whole system. We are now in the process of consulting with interested individuals and organizations across the country with a view to eliminating any abuse that may in fact exist. Our objective is to make the system fairer, simpler and better for the majority of legitimate charitable organizations in this country."
February 6, 1990

This review then is intended to improve the system while maintaining and improving the credibility of the majority of charitable organizations across the country that contribute so much to our society.
Some of the things that we are looking at in the review, because we have been asked quite specifically as to what we are looking at, is to look at ways and means to open up the reporting from the charitable organizations so that there cannot be the abuse by a few individuals within certain organizations at the expense of the majority of the others.
The other area that we are looking at is to make the system clearer and simpler, as well as the definitions and regulations. All of this is being done in consultation with the representatives from the sector and those consultations are ongoing today.
It is my hope and my wish that by this autumn we will have a discussion paper for the public to look at, hopefully with some recommendations that I could bring back to my cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance so that if there are any amendments to the Income Tax Act that have to be put, we would be able to do so in consultation, obviously, with the department and with cabinet as a
Adjournment Debate
whole. The timing in that area is to look at the early part of next year.
I am very sensitive at the same time to the special problems facing charities which rely on volunteers and limited resources. I will personally ensure that these are fully taken into account in the course of the review. The aim of the review is to ensure that the administration of the tax law contributes to the effectiveness of the sector without increasing the paper burden on individual charities.
Finally, I wish to reassure charities that the government continues to be committed to a strong, charitable sector and the objectives inherent in the present tax measures. The review that I have initiated is directed toward providing a simpler, fairer and more effective administration of the income tax measures in place to assist charities. Improvements will be made for the benefit of all legitimate charitable organizations and for Canadian society as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is 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 6.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 7,1990