1990-04-09

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing measures to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act to include coverage for producers who feed their own grain to their livestock.
And on the amendment of Mr. Funk (p.4792).
['Mr. Speaker, in the 1990 budget the minister announced that the crown corporation, Canadian Patents and Development\nLtd. would be wound up and its functions dispersed into 14 government departments.\nWhat the minister ignored was that other departments have said they do not want or need this additional burden. The minister received a submission that showed the cost of such a dispersal would be three times higher than the cost of letting CPDL handle the work.\nHow can the minister justify this costly action during times of budgetary restraint and so-called deficit reduction? CPDL has played and continues to play an invaluable role in the transfer of technology. It has generated economic benefits and direct revenue to Canada.\nThe dispersal of CPDL will erode the expertise it now provides and cost the Canadian taxpayers three times as much money for the same service. Obviously government fiscal mismanagement has found another target and the government has shown once again that dogma is more important than common sense.']
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand today and speak on this private member's motion. I must say, as in the case of a good many other motions which have come before this House, this is an example of how effective the idea has been.
The hon. member for Mackenzie is to be heartily congratulated for having brought this matter to the attention of the House. In spite of the fact that the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act pretty well cover the whole sector of grain growing in our nation, and although they have been effective in giving some kind of stability to the grain growing people of Canada, there always has been a deficiency when it comes to those who grow grain which is used on the farm for feeding cattle, poultry or pork.
I was going to say that that has been a serious oversight, but that would be overstating the matter. The fact of the matter is that it is high time that this situation is addressed because in Canada we are so well aware of the need for secondary industry. What the two acts have done is, in a very serious way, hamper the development of secondary industry in agriculture. They put the person who did use the grain on his farm at a disadvantage in so far as other producers in the field were concerned.
This motion goes a long way to alleviating that situation. I understand it has the support of all parties in the House. I think it is a very progressive thing for the Parliament of Canada to be doing.
As I was saying, this motion establishes more firmly the concept of secondary industries within the primary industries in our nation and will go a long way toward doing several things. Hopefully, in so far as the stabilization of the rural economy is concerned, it will help to stop the exodus of people from the rural areas into the cities and should go a long way toward stabilizing the rural populations of our nation in general. The reason for that is it will provide stabilization for the secondary industry and some growth in it as well.
The production of pork, chickens and cattle by the smaller producer will give a stability to these people as well. It will also provide an incentive for people to get away from growing grain only and back into a more labour intensive situation. Again, as I said before, this will help to reduce the depopulation of our rural areas.
There had been some concern expressed in so far as the administration of the program is concerned. I understand that was one of the reasons the concept had not been introduced more rapidly than it has been up to this point. There have been demonstrations in a different context, primarily with the administration in the province of Alberta, in a roundabout way, of getting the Crow benefit to farmers, something which my party and I do not agree with. The idea, the concept, the certainty introduced by the member for Mackenzie that the

April 9, 1990
Private Members' Business
program can be administered is there. It is something which we should all recognize is possible and will work well. Proof of that has been that it is going to be copied, if it has not been already, in the province of Saskatchewan and in the province of Manitoba as well. It may not be too effective to list a great number of the organizations which have supported this idea, but we could certainly include the Canadian Pork Council, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, the Prairie Pools and many other organizations which are almost too numerous to mention.
It is very gratifying that we now have what looks like, almost without question, the support of the House of Commons. Certainly Canadian agriculture will be taking a more stable step forward with the passage of this very important motion introduced by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Mackenzie.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo and then the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: For a minute, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was going to have the hon. member's riding, which is a very rich riding-I probably wouldn't mind it-but mine is rich as well in the great agricultural traditions of Canada. I am delighted to represent my riding. It probably has more pork producers, dairy producers and chicken producers than most other ridings in Canada.
I rise with pleasure to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Mackenzie, as amended by the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. It doesn't make the changes that have been suggested here this afternoon. It simply proposes that the government consider changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act to allow payment for grains grown on the farm and fed to livestock on that farm.
I support and have supported this principle for many years. Four years ago the mover of this motion and I sat on the agriculture committee when we made a different recommendation which I will read into the record in just a minute.
I support this motion even though I believe it is a little late. It is late because the need was seen five years ago when grain prices first dropped. Payments to the grain farmers were very large at that time and the pork,
chicken, poultry and beef producers were not allowed access to these very large payments.
They saw support going to people who grew their crops on the same type of land right next door to them. They sincerely wanted part of that type of support. But now the five-year average for the crop is so low that the issue is only one of principle. Perhaps in the future if it occurs again in the same set of circumstances, the changes that are suggested here today will have impact and in that light I am delighted to support the motion.
It is too late, as well, I believe, simply because the government has already moved to cover most of the areas concerned. I hope I will have some time later to mention the amount of discussion that has taken place on the safety net proposal. These are discussions that involve many groups and farmers to the point that the agricultural community is almost "discussed out". The farmers hardly have the energy to keep up to the many discussions. The motion comes almost after the fact because we have already moved in this particular area.
I am sure that some of the effects of low grain prices are helped through the stabilization programs that are in place in the red meat sector. But they do not make the wide changes that are built in, which occurred in 1985 and 1986. The farmers like to consider themselves as having two enterprises, the first a grain-growing enterprise and the second a livestock enterprise. I can understand their concern.
Perhaps I could take a moment to add that some of my farmers believe that if they got their subsidy or help in the grain industry, instead of through the red meat industry, then somehow American farmers would not see the stabilization for pork, which has been high in the last little while, as a countervailable item. Somehow they would see it as similar to their deficiency payments and their target prices. Therefore, it is thought, they would not introduce countervail actions.
On the other hand there is also the thought among beef farmers that if we do stabilize grain, then the Americans will indeed see that as a countervailable subsidy which could create the possibility of a countervail action.
I want to go on record as saying that I believe it does not matter how the subsidy arrives in a farmer's hands. If our good, efficient producers can sell a product into the American market and appear to be displacing their producers, then their producers will start a countervail action regardless of the method by which the subsidy is given. Indeed the only solution that is going to stop the countervail program, something which is off the topic
April 9, 1990

here today, is an agreement to net out subsidies which can and will, I hope, be arrived at under the free trade discussion.
About four years ago the mover of this motion, the member for Mackenzie, and I sat on the Standing Committee on Agriculture. At that time we passed a motion which reads: "It should be only for the final products marketed that the producer receives market production under the WGSA or the ASA. In the case of livestock producers, they face the livestock market but not the grain market risk. Treating livestock producers as grain producers means the grain may be covered in the raw form and again as it goes into the final product''.
You will see that while the government did not move to fulfil the area I wanted, it did follow the direction of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the direction of the member who moved this motion in this session of Parliament. I am very pleased that now, through the safety net proposal, we are moving ahead to consider a different form of support.
What are the problems if we follow this motion? As I said before, it is just a suggestion about future action. One problem will be that we go to production records. We are not talking about sales any more if we are dealing with home-fed grains. We have to figure out how much grain is grown on that particular piece of land, the land base that surrounds almost every livestock operation in Canada. It is a matter of how to get those records. We simply do not have them. We would have to go to regional records. The very good grain producer, the man who produces the big crops through good management, perhaps with better land, would be hurt because he could not get as much stabilization as he should be getting. The poor producer would have a benefit because he would get more than perhaps he should because of his production.
As well, we have the matter of increased costs. We have the costs of getting these records. We have the costs of paying for the stabilization of this home-fed grain. It has been suggested that it is about 20 per cent, which is perhaps high. But it is a significant amount of
Private Members' Business
Canadian grain that is fed on the farm and there would be an increased cost to the government.
There would also be increased costs in the Western Grain Stabilization Act, as it is now established, to the farmer since he pays a premium for this coverage.
In our red meat stabilization program there is a factor built-in. In the case of red meat it is the market price of grain. I believe there is a compensating factor. It is not adequate, but there is some compensation paid in the red meat programs. If we introduce stabilization to home-fed grains, it has always been my belief that somehow we would have to separate these out. I have not been able to work out in my mind how such a separation would occur.
There is another effect concerning the stablization of home-fed grains. In my riding there are many dairy producers. Their cost of production is worked into the price they can charge for their products. So the cost of growing the grain is built into the cost of the very excellent milk, cheese and butter that we buy. Indeed, if the dairy farmers of Ontario, and I am sure those across Canada, were to receive stablization of home-fed grains it would reduce the cost of production and end up reducing the market price of their product. Thus stabilization of home-fed grains is of no advantage to the dairy producers of Canada.
This government has done a lot to help the grain farmers of western Canada. In 1985, we introduced interim stabilization payments in the spring so that they could have help early in the crop year, if a payment were judged to be due in the fall. We have extended the coverage. Nine new crops were brought in in 1988. We made it easier for farmers to rejoin the program. We wrote down a very large deficit in the program to help the grain farmers. This has resulted in a very large increase in participation which was, indeed, the reason why we undertook all of these measures.
Later, in the last five years, we noticed that the stabilization payments were now doing their job to help the farmers simply because we have had a long term of depressed prices. Before 1984, it seemed that we would have one product down while other products were up. Stabilization in the one product would help to smooth

April 9, 1990
out the waters. Now it seems that all product prices are low.
You are indicating, Mr. Speaker, that I have come to the end of my time. I appreciate the opportunity to get a few ideas on the record. I had many more. I am delighted that I and most of my colleagues to whom I have spoken are in favour of this principle, although we feel it is probably too late because the government has already acted to consider it.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a few short remarks on behalf of my colleagues. As the House knows, we on this side are happy to support the member for Mackenzie on his motion.
What encourages me about this particular motion that we are all supporting today is that very few times do we have a motion in the House which receives support from all sides.
The last couple of weekends I have been travelling in the rural areas of Ontario. As I have said previously, we must begin putting the business of agriculture to the veiy top of the agenda in the House.
Less than an hour's drive outside Toronto young farmers are moving into the city. One can see thousands and thousands of acres that are being abandoned. They are pleading for support and that we all get together. We should apply the all-party support we have for this motion to many other issues that we debate in terms of agriculture in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
['Agreed.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.30 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.30 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2. p.m.

Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in Canadian history. Today is the day that the Government of Canada will bring in closure on the goods and services tax, a tax that will hurt big business, small business, senior citizens and everyone in this country. Eighty per cent of Canadians deplore this tax.
For weeks the Minister of Finance has said that there are absolutely no alternatives to the goods and services tax, when repeatedly we have offered him the single tax as an alternative. It is more fair, it is revenue neutral and it will enhance productivity. We implore the Minister of Finance to do an analysis of this study.
For those Canadians who want a constructive alternative to the goods and services tax, please read the Toronto Star this Saturday where you will find full details.


NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION WEEK
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this House will wish to commend the Government of Canada and the government of the Province of Ontario today for their demonstrated dedication to conserving what is one of our planets most precious resources, the soil.
In launching National Soil Conservation Week, the federal and Ontario Ministers of Agriculture announced a $22.2 million agreement to promote the careful management and protection of soil, to prevent its physical and chemical deterioration and to ensure its long term preservation for agriculture and the environment.
April 9, 1990

The cost of the programs under the agreement are shared equally between the two governments. Ottawa's contribution goes to providing more extensive knowledge of soil conservation, technology and practices, and to increasing the awareness by farmers of existing problems and the solutions which are available. Ontario's share goes to the existing Land Stewardship Program, providing grants to encourage rural conservation practices that will improve food production, soil resources and quality of water.
We want to congratulate the two ministers, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, and the Hon. David Ramsay for the high priority they have committed to conserving our precious soil for future generations.


POVERTY
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, study after study, report after report, all point to the same thing; the extent and depth of poverty in Canada is a national disgrace.
Last week a Statistics Canada report noted that the poor in Canada are at risk. Put simply, poverty is a health hazard. Nearly one million children in Canada are poor. In Ontario, 200,000 people depend on food banks and half of these are children.
But what action do we see by governments, both federal and provincial, both Conservative and Liberal, to alleviate these problems? We see the Tory federal government refusing to take the lead and raise the federal minimum wage as a means to redress the most basic need of the working poor-more money.
We see the Ontario Liberal government cut the $1.4 million Emergency Shelter and Assistance Program which helps feed the poor and the homeless. Without it, more will go hungry. It is time governments, both Tory and Liberal, stopped shirking their responsibilities, buried their deceptive rhetoric and took concrete action to assist this country's poor.


THE FORESTIER D'AMOS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the president of the midget AAA provincial circuit in Quebee announced last Saturday that the board of governors, by a majority vote of 6 to 2, had withdrawn the concession held by the Outaouais region and granted it to the Forestiers d'Amos, starting with the 1990-91 season.
The Amos delegation, with President Pierre Simo-neau, Guy Nolet and several other sports enthusiasts, was responsible for this success.
Since 1977, the Abitibi region has been trying to get a midget AAA provincial league club. Finally, being a remote area was no longer a barrier, thanks to the president of the AAA midget league, Denis Baillarge, to Jean-Louis Carignan and to the governors who believe in hockey and in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region.
Mr. Speaker, I say three cheers for Pierre Simoneau, Jean-Claude Babin and the mayor of Amos, Jean-Paul Veilleux, for the excellent work they have done. Long live the Forestiers d'Amos\


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the opposition's doom and gloom projections and their quick-fix solutions, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have received an explicit endorsement of their interest rate policy over the last two years. In the report, Zero Inflation, the Goal of Price Stability, the C.D. Howe Institute argues that the monetary policy can achieve stable inflation. According to the institute president Thomas Kierans, the goal of price stability is "the only way to go".
In addition, all of the five contributing economists agree that a 5 per cent inflation rate is too high and it should be moved downward to the range of 0 to 2 per cent. Perhaps their most significant observation is the argument that the benefits of reducing inflation, including lower interest rates, higher productivity and the elimination of distortions and inequities caused by inflation, outweigh the cost of living with it.
Mr. Minister, Mr. Crow, keep up the fight and in the end we will all enjoy the benefits of having inflation under control.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
April 9, 1990
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, it is totally unacceptable that a minister of the government, in this case the Minister of the Environment, should suggest that Canada must choose between Quebec and Newfoundland. Such a statement is divisive and confrontational and should be categorically rejected.
All our provinces are valued, needed and loved, and the Prime Minister should make every effort to bring them together and to resolve the differences among them. Surely there is room for honourable compromise on such important constitutional questions.
Now is the time to build bridges, not walls, and this requires leadership from the Prime Minister and his ministers. In this respect the Prime Minister should call the provinces together as soon as possible to resolve this constitutional impasse. If the statement by the Minister of the Environment is not government policy, then the Prime Minister should repudiate it. If it is government policy, then the government should resign and call an election.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, like most issues around here, the GST is getting blown out of all proportion. A recent article in a weekly newspaper in my riding stated that the GST would cause senior citizens to lose their homes and not be able to eat. How absolutely absurd.
The GST is simply replacing one tax with another tax very similar to those used by many of the most prosperous countries in the world, countries like West Germany, England, Scotland, Japan, Belgium, Denmark, France and on and on, including Sweden which has some of the most progressive social programs in the world.
I believe that our economy is in urgent need of repair and, unfortunately, the steps required to repair it are not going to be popular. One of these steps is to make sure that our business community will be competitive and one of the ways to do that is to have a competitive tax system similar to those of our competition.
I believe that it is not our God-given right to have one of the highest standards of living in the world, and that we can only have it if we earn it. I also believe that in the years to come it will be even more difficult to earn it because of the growing international competition.
Yes, we will have change and that will be bad enough, but let us keep it in perspective and avoid the hysterics.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Official Opposition, I know my party is firmly committed to regional development. What I do not know is how committed this federal government is to regional development.
Last week the finance department of Prince Edward Island was informed of adjustments to equalization payments which would amount to a loss of $13.6 million, affecting the 1989-90 revenues. The provincial finance minister was informed of this loss on the last working day of the fiscal year, March 30, two weeks after he had tabled the provincial 1990-91 budget.
I urge this government to improve its contribution to regional development in Canada and not adjust its funding commitments at the last minute, causing increased economic difficulties to those already in need.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak today concerning the cutbacks to veterans' programs contained in the February budget. I believe that the failure of the government to preserve the dignity of veterans is the greatest possible indictment of a government that has lost touch with the people.
I feel deeply about these cuts, in part because I have the honour of representing in this House the residents of the Rideau Veterans Home, but also I think because my father spent most of his adult life receiving a war veteran's disability allowance. DVA was one of the first acronyms that I learned in my civil service household.
April 9, 1990

We are often told that the deficit is a mortgage on our children's future. But can it be said that our children are really better off when we take nickels and dimes out of the pockets of the men and women who served in the armed forces in Canada's wars?
Most of the veterans are old, many are infirm and most, as my father would be if he were alive, are reluctant to make a fuss or to be seen to be begging.
On their behalf I urge the government to leave the veterans alone and restore the cuts to programs announced in the February budget.


WOMEN'S CENTRES
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with the women from the St. John's Women's Centre in Newfoundland. That is the longest serving women's centre in this country and it is now in danger of closing because of this government. I have met with the women in Vancouver who have occupied the Secretary of State offices.
New Democrats are meeting with women from Quebec women's centres. We have spoken to women's centres in the Yukon, Alberta, and in Ontario. The message that we are getting from coast to coast to coast is this: women are angry at this government.
Compare that to this government giving $161 million to Boeing, compare it to spending $14 million to advertise the GST, compare it to an increase to CSIS of $33 million. We see increased military spending by this government. When you compare that to the $1.6 million to continue the women's centres is peanuts.
A total of 30 people now have criminal charges against them for protesting the cuts. Instead of arresting people and hiring extra security at the Secretary of State offices, instead of making the women of this country compete for a tiny little pool of project funding, reinstate the core funding. Reinstate it now.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this month marks the first anniversary of the government's Labour Force Development Strategy, the biggest effort in many years to increase federal government's help to Canadian workers.
Soon we will be able to mark another anniversary, the one of the introduction to this House of Bill C-21. Since the bill first came to the House it has been much debated, widely reported and often misunderstood. Lost in the bafflegab has been the very nature of this bill.
Bill C-21 provides $350 million per year for training UI recipients, more money for training social assistance recipients, increased allowances for those taking training, a major increase in the Community Futures Program, more money for training and adjustment of older workers and added funds for the valuable industrial adjustment service.
It is time Bill C-21 was law. It is time for Canadians to receive the benefits of Bill C-21. It is time the arrogant Liberal hacks in the Senate respected democracy and allowed this bill to become law.


CHILLIWACK MUSIC FESTIVAL
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday evening I had the pleasure of attending the final concert in Evergreen Hall. My spirits were uplifted by the beauty of the music and the beauty of what it represents. Indeed, there were individual winners but I believe that every competitor, every musician, was an equal winner. The dedication and commitment that these musicians reflect is encouraging to say the least.
A festival of this nature brings out the best that a community has to offer. It is a time of celebration. It is a time to celebrate the harmony that music brings to our personal lives, and indeed it is a time to celebrate the harmony that we bring to our community.
My congratulations to the Chilliwack Lions Clubs, to the organizers of and participants in the Chilliwack Music Festival for providing us with the opportunity to realize the harmony that exists in all of us in our community.

April 9, 1990
Oral Questions TRAINING PROGRAM


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the world is changing. Waves of freedom are rippling through eastern Europe and Barrie is playing a part.
For the people of the Baltic republics to pursue their dreams they must have the right economic tools. That is where Barrie comes in. Two local landscaping businesses are breaking new ground.
Timberline Nurseries and Brookdale Treelands have obtained work visas for a group of seven Estonians whom they will be training over the next six months. This is a first. It means that seven individuals will bring home valuable skills that will make them not only entrepreneurs, but also pioneers in their new exciting market, and they will leave with a better understanding of Canada.
The government is responding to the challenge of change. We are working hard to help rebuild the economies of eastern Europe and we welcome the co-operation of Canadian small businesses.


WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians I want to congratulate Ed Werenich on winning the world curling championship.
The people of Scarborough are especially proud of our long time fire department employee for bringing such honours to Canada. With steady shot making and the support of a talented rink, Ed defeated Scotland 3 to 1 in the final game. This is Ed's second world title and the second consecutive victory for Canada.
Congratulations to Ed Werenich and to his rink, John Kawaja, Ian Tetley and Pat Perroud. You have won a great victory for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN PATENTS AND DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the 1990 budget the minister announced that the crown corporation, Canadian Patents and Development
Ltd. would be wound up and its functions dispersed into 14 government departments.
What the minister ignored was that other departments have said they do not want or need this additional burden. The minister received a submission that showed the cost of such a dispersal would be three times higher than the cost of letting CPDL handle the work.
How can the minister justify this costly action during times of budgetary restraint and so-called deficit reduction? CPDL has played and continues to play an invaluable role in the transfer of technology. It has generated economic benefits and direct revenue to Canada.
The dispersal of CPDL will erode the expertise it now provides and cost the Canadian taxpayers three times as much money for the same service. Obviously government fiscal mismanagement has found another target and the government has shown once again that dogma is more important than common sense.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In Quebec City on Friday, it was reported that the Minister of the Environment said: "We can now imagine a scenario where English Canada will have to choose between Quebec and Newfoundland."
These were discouraging words for Canadians who, I am sure, believe that every federal cabinet minister has an obligation to speak in a way that shows that he or she believes that each and every part of this country is valuable and needed.
Is it the policy' of the government that Canada should ever have to choose between these two provinces? Was the Minister of the Environment speaking for the government when he used the words he used in Quebec City last Friday?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful if the Leader of the Opposition quoted the Minister of the Environment fully. The Minister of the Environment went on to say,


April 9, 1990

and I am quoting him directly: "Nobody thinks Newfoundland should leave Confederation."
That is the position of the Government of Canada and all Canadians.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not given a direct answer to my question as to what he has to say about the words that the Minister of the Environment in fact did use.
What constructive result does the Prime Minister think can come out of the special committee that began its work today on the proposals of Premier McKenna, if he allows his senior ministers to go around the country using the kind of language I have quoted as being used by the Minister of the Environment in Quebec City last Friday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if all the minister said was the quote that my hon. friend chose to use, then obviously my hon. friend would have questions to raise.
However, the Minister of the Environment said: "Nobody thinks Newfoundland should leave Confederation." That is a statement that should satisfy all members of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a third question for the Prime Minister. According to a report today from Canadian Press, an American source involved in the preparations being made for the Canada-U.S. Summit stated that the U.S. President and the Prime Minister of Canada are to discuss the Canadian constitutional deadlock at their meeting this week.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this information is correct. If so, wouldn't it be better to discuss this domestic problem with the provincial Premiers and Canadian legislators here in Canada instead of discussing it with a foreign head of State?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend quoted an anonymous American source with reference to a meeting that will take place with the President of the United States. Canada's internal matters will be discussed with Canadians, not with others.
Oral Questions


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister told Canadians that he would start a campaign to sell the GST. Why spend millions on advertising if the Prime Minister is so sure that once Canadians have a better understanding of the GST, they will certainly support it? Why not set an example to Canadians by allowing Tory members, who ought to have a good understanding of the GST, a free vote on Bill C-62?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, personally, I believe government members would not be here if they were not capable of listening to Canadians. Canadians also tell us a lot about the GST. Almost every day, several thousand Canadians ask us for explanations, because of the opposition. While you were in power, you brought the finances of this country to the brink. You have always been against everything we did to improve the situation. When we talk to Canadians quietly, as I did only yesterday, when I met people who had been upset by members who may have ulterior motives, other than Canada's economic interests, in fact I talked to them for five minutes, and they told me: We did not know that; thank you very much. I am sure that if we work very hard in the months to come, we will be able to reverse the situation.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that this is a money bill so it becomes a question of confidence in the government for all members to your right, Mr. Speaker, to vote in support of the bill.
I want to ask the Prime Minister specifically whether that means that members of his caucus have by consensus supported the GST, or does it mean that the government is forcing the members of the government to support the GST?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some grave doubt as to whether that is a question that goes to the administration of the government. I think it is out of order. The hon. member might find a different way to put it.

April 9, 1990
Oral Questions


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the question is a very simple question. The Prime Minister himself has said that this is a money bill and that it is a question of confidence in the government.
Is the Prime Minister allowing members of the government to vote according to their conscience or is he forcing a vote? It's a simple question.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think I must advise the hon. member that he is trespassing over the line.
The hon. member for Yukon.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Over the weekend and today thousands of Canadians have registered their anger and opposition to the goods and services tax. Today, outside on Parliament Hill we saw yet again working people expressing their opposition to the goods and services tax.
The Prime Minister says that this tax will be good for us. How can he be so right and 80 per cent of Canadians be so wrong? Isn't it time to listen to the voices and votes of Canadians, to stop abusing Parliament and his own back-benchers, and to have a free vote in the House of Commons on the goods and services tax?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the government were choosing to do the easy or popular thing, obviously we would not pursue the goods and services tax.


Mr. Boudria:: You wouldn't be at 15 per cent in the polls.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, says that they would not be at 50 per cent in the polls either.


William Warren Allmand: Fifteen per cent is where you are.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I remind him that I will let him be at 50 per cent in the polls now, and if we continue to do the right thing for Canada-not what is popular but what is right-we will be in first place on election night.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister.
I point out again that Canadians across the country from coast to coast to coast are registering their opposition to the goods and services tax because they know it is an unfair and an unjust tax. They are asking the Prime Minister and the government to listen to their voices.
I say again to the Prime Minister: Will he not listen to the voices of Canadians; will he not listen to the constituents of his members as well and have a free vote in the House of Commons?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks whether we have listened to the voices of Canadians. Yes, indeed, we have. We have listened and read very carefully the reports of five Royal commissions and task forces of the Government of Canada over some 40 years, recommending that the Parliament of Canada summon the courage to rid the nation of a pernicious and very unfair manufacturers' sales tax which kills jobs in Canada and imposes an undue penalty on Canadian producers.
We have listened and analyzed very carefully the objective data of five Royal commissions and important studies and we say in the interest of Canada get rid of this pernicious and unfair 13.5 per cent manufacturers' sales tax and substitute a 7 per cent goods and services tax.
We have listened. We are doing that, not because it is popular, and it is clearly not popular, but we are doing so because it is right for Canada. It must be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly the Prime Minister is saying that there will not be a voice for democracy in this House and a free vote on the goods and services tax.

The Prime Minister claims the GST is advanced. I find that surprising. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that charitable organizations, for instance, work for the
April 9, 1990

public good and that they are indispensable. How can he say a tax is advanced if it taxes charitable organizations?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party referred to a tax as not being very advanced and not very sensitive to social concerns. I may remind her that two socialist governments introduced that kind of tax in their own countries, so it can't be that bad.
We have had long and thorough consultations with charitable organizations, and would urge the Leader of the New Democratic Party to read the technical papers which explain that we have set in place a series of mechanisms so that these organizations will not be penalized far from it by this tax reform.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
From what we have heard so far of the minister's aid package for the troubled Atlantic fishery, the government has decided to focus on getting people out of the fishery.
We see no specific evidence of any increased commitment to scientific evaluation and no new efforts to develop the under-utilized species and thereby remove the foreigners from our 200-mile zone.
Does the minister not think it would be wiser to be sure about the stocks and to be sure that we have fully developed all available species before we tell the people that they must give up their life's work and the traditions of all those communities dependent on the fishery?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is going to put the emphasis on scientific evaluation and on the under-utilized species. I hope that when we do see the supposed package we will see that; that it will be seen that there needs to be a new mesh size for all sectors in the fishery, that there will be new scientific evaluations in the waters around Nova Scotia.
Oral Questions
But for the 2,000 people who met in Digby under very extreme conditions on Saturday, it is not a solution to hear the minister say: "Yes, we agree". We want to see what you are going to do. We do not need money. We want to see that you are going to give a commitment to keep the jobs in the fishery.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear, for the first time in several months, a Liberal member of Parliament asking the government not to throw money at the problem. I thank her for her recommendation.
What the government will do with the situation in the fishery in Atlantic Canada is to devise methods whereby we can assert the federal role in the fisheries and work in co-operation with the fishermen and the provinces to ensure that we can have a viable fishery, ensuring a good income for fishermen and plant workers.
We also want to continue what this government has been working on since 1984, that is, trying to diversify the economy of Atlantic Canada so that our kids in Atlantic Canada can have a bright future there. That is what we are working on.
I can advise the member that my meetings with fishermen, union representatives in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and the leaders of these provinces led me to conclude that we are on the right course. I will continue to listen to them so that I can have their input and develop something that may not be nice for grandstanding on the issue but that will be relevant to the needs of those people.


AIR SURVEILLANCE
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services, I will directed my question to the Prime Minister.
This weekend we learned of allegations that the request for proposals for the $28.5 million east coast air surveillance contract was deliberately written to exclude all other bidders except Atlantic Airways, a company that just happens to be represented by one of the Prime Minister's close pals, John Lundrigan.

April 9, 1990
Oral Questions
How can the Prime Minister justify this apparent sole sourcing of a $30 million contract which brings into serious question the integrity of the entire public tendering process?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, last week I happened to be in Atlantic Canada, in St. John's, with my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, where we advised people in Atlantic Canada of what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would be doing in terms of surveillance.
The Liberal Party may well be interested in trying to find mud in all of this, but the people down there know that twice as much surveillance will take place in Atlantic Canada by those aircraft. That is what the people were very, very happy with.
That this company in St. John's, Newfoundland had the new technologies to ensure that it could become a leader, not only in Canada but world-wide, should be applauded by the hon. member instead of trying to throw mud at it.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is not against additional surveillance, but the Liberal Party is certainly against the awarding of contracts based not on the merit of the proposal but on the political connection of the lobbyist.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I was very patient for the first question, but I am afraid we will have to move on.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Most Canadians are aware that the environmental record of this federal government is extremely poor, particularly on issues like the Oldman River dam and the Rafferty-Alameda.
Since the Minister of the Environment is fully aware that Quebec Hydro is proceeding with James Bay II, or the Great Whale Project as it is known, without federal approvals, why is the minister continuing to duck his responsibilities to put a panel in place which has a credible time frame to evaluate the impact upon the Inuit and the Cree, fish, migratory birds, caribou, whales, methane, and global warming, all those impacts that are clearly in federal jurisdiction, or will the studies be done
after the dams are built as we saw in Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if the member would at least read the newspapers, he would know that as a government we are dedicated to the environment, that we have rejected-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The question was put and the other side listened to the question. The minister is rising to answer it, and I would ask all hon. members to allow the minister to speak.


Lucien Bouchard: We announced last Friday that this government is rejecting the plan proposed by Quebec on the kind of joint assessment that Quebec would like to do. We said that Quebec's proposal does not respect the standards of efficiency and rigour that the federal government would like to have in this assessment.
We stated that we would present a counterproposal, probably this week, where we will state all of our requirements and try to reach a joint assessment with Quebec. If we are unable to reach an agreement on this, the federal government will proceed alone on a separate environmental assessment.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as the minister is aware, Quebec Hydro is busy selling the power from James Bay II, is busy building the roads and is busy clearing the land for the dam construction project for those five river valleys.
Could the minister be somewhat more specific in terms of time frame, in terms of information access and in terms of when exactly a federal panel will be composed? Canadians, and particularly Canadians in the province of Quebec, want to know when the panel is going to start its work. Is it going to be now when the terms of the project can be carefully defined and the information necessary to define such a project can be done before the project is well under way?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has very clear jurisdiction in the area of environmental impact assessment. This jurisdiction is not challenged-it cannot be challenged-particularly in the case of James Bay. However, we must admit that Quebec's position poses a problem, because Quebec would give the commission only about four months to do the environmental assessment. The federal government believes that the commission must be given the time it needs to do a proper assessment that will assure the people of Quebec and of
April 9, 1990

Canada that the James Bay project will have no negative impact. No one is in a position to lecture us on this subject. We are pursuing a national policy so that the requirements of the federal process are respected throughout the country-in the West, in central Canada, in Quebec and in the Maritimes.


WOMEN'S CENTRES
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the Second Storey Women's Centre in Bridgewater has delayed its acceptance of project funding for two reasons: first, because those women do not want to be in competition for small amounts of money with all the other women's centres in the country and, second, because they still have a hope that this government might reinstate the $1.6 million in core funding.
Will the Secretary of State melt his and his colleagues' stony hearts, spend this small amount of money, and save all the women's centres in Canada?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was very clear when I said that core funding was discontinued for the women's centres.
I did indicate that there was increased project funding that was available. I have opened up the criteria so that certain admissible expenses, which were formerly only admitted under core funding, would now be considered under the project application.
I am waiting anxiously to make sure that any application that is received will receive expeditious treatment so that the money can flow. We are anxious to make sure that whatever funding we have available is made available to those who can carry on the very excellent work that they have had to do in the past.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that the women at Second Storey have some hope that the government might change its mind is that they met on Friday with the minister's colleague, the
Oral Questions
Minister responsible for the Status of Women. In Halifax she promised that she would lobby her cabinet colleagues, and in particular the Secretary of State, to meet with representatives of all of the women's centres affected so that they could be certain that they were not in competition with each other for every small amount of money in project funding and so that they could possibly convince the minister how crucial core funding is.
Although the Minister responsible for the Status of Women is not here, can the Secretary of State say today to the women of Canada that he will meet with the representatives from all these centres together and give them some hope?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with representatives of women's centres tomorrow.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Together?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I will be meeting again on Thursday with representatives of women's centres.


Mary Catherine Clancy: But not together.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: As far as I am concerned, I am willing to talk. I would like to continue a dialogue. I would like to make sure that our program, which is available, is there to be effective in helping the women's centres to carry on with their work.


FOOD BANKS
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
On February 14, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was asked to address the current economic crisis in which 1.4 million Canadians, including over one-half a million children, are forced to rely on food banks.
Today, as the Daily Bread Food Bank kicks off its Easter food drive, this government is still doing nothing to help the poor, the homeless, and the hungry.

April 9, 1990
Oral Questions
What is this government doing to end the reliance on food banks? Why will it not take full responsibility for helping to feed the victims of its own economic mismanagement?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very specific question with a very global approach. We are aware that all such prevailing situations are related to social, sociological, economic and political conditions. Our programs are designed to help all classes in society, of course including children, families and women. We are concerned about such issues as health, welfare and our participation as a government. The answer lies in the interest we show in all these programs.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the only growth that this government has had is in the line ups at the food banks. The dependence on food banks has doubled in 1988.
Studies show that between the federal CAP cut-backs, the cruel changes to the UI eligibility formula, and the GST thousands of more Canadians will be forced into poverty. How can the minister justify her answer when she knows that this government's policies will directly increase the number of poor Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my hon. friend who raises a very sensitive and important matter. Since the general question involves poverty, she will be the first to applaud the fact that since the swearing in of this government almost 800,000 Canadians have been removed from the poverty rolls in Canada.
In fact, since 1984 the number of children living below the poverty level has fallen by 259,000, compared to an increase of 283,000 between 1980 and 1984 when her party was in office.
Also, it is probably significant for my hon. friend to note that on Friday morning when Statistics Canada reported unemployment figures, the unemployment rate in Canada has now dropped to the lowest since August 1981. Since this government was sworn in, 1,587,000
more Canadians are working today than when we took over from the Liberals.


TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will be aware at this point in time that there is overwhelming opposition to the GST throughout Canada due to the fact that Canadians perceive that the system is inherently unfair. They point to the fact that there were 93,000 profitable corporations that did not pay any tax in 1987.
Does the Prime Minister not recognize the blatant unfairness of this fact, that these corporations pay no corporate tax at all. Will he at least commit himself and his government to bringing in a minimum corporate tax?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and many colleagues in his party keep repeating this information which is wrong. There is no such thing as 93,000 profit making corporations that do not pay tax and we on this side of the House have changed that.
Due to measures taken during the crisis, a lot of loopholes were built into our fiscal system. We have removed them one by one, and now all large corporations pay taxes.
What he refers to are very often small farms and small businesses that have not been profitable for five years and frequently earn less than $25,000. Would the hon. gentleman want us to tax them and put them out of business? Frequently they are not taxed because they are in remote areas where there is a high level of unemployment. This is a good measure and, like the GST, it is a fair tax.
Yet again there is opposition because the member, instead of accepting his responsibility to help Canadians extricate themselves from a difficult financial situation, does everything he can to mislead the population.


John R. Rodriguez: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, again to the Prime Minister. The minister who has just answered has suggested that we are not giving the figures correctly.


Some Hon. Members:: Exactly!
April 9, 1990

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question.


John R. Rodriguez: The figures that I have provided to the House are the figures from Statistics Canada as we requested them. It was a study that Statistics Canada did for the New Democratic Party in 1987.
The minister said that was before tax reform. In 1988, these were some of the small corporations: Xerox Canada, $74 million, no tax at all; Bramalea Corporation, $33 million, no tax at all; Brascan Corporation, there is a small one, $263 million and not a penny of tax. That is 1988, after tax reform.
In view of the fact that tax reform in 1988 has just created another tax holiday for all of these large corporations, not small corporations, not family businesses, large wealthy corporations, is the minister prepared now to make them pay their fair share-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


Gilles Loiselle: The
great trouble, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. gentleman is that he loves listening to himself. He should listen to me and to us as well.
Perhaps he was away, but I would like to welcome him to the 1990s. He is giving figures from 1987. He does not seem to be aware that we have a tax on assets. Any corporation, not with profits, but with assets of $10 million pays tax. We are collecting billions of dollars from them, but he fails to mention that. He claims again the old repetitions. Canadians understand that these reforms are there to help the economy of Canada and to create jobs. This is what we have been doing and will continue to do.


REFUGEE STATUS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is hardly necessary for me to describe the panic and anxiety felt by many Canadians of Lebanese origin. Is the minister aware of charges made against the Immigration and Refugee Board that it is insensitive and indifferent with respect to people applying for refugee status here in Canada?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the refugee board operates at arm's length from the government. Whereas we established the board, this is a judicial process set up under an arm's length arrangement with that board.
My understanding is that the board is functioning quite well. If there are problems, and if he has a particular allegation to bring to me, I would be happy to ensure that it gets looked into.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that I will be filing complaints with her office in a few days.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Do you not feel that time has come for the government to intervene in the case of refugees of Lebanese origin who are experiencing great hardships? They need understanding and compassion in such trying times.


An Hon. Member:: Good question!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, our government is highly sensitive to the situation of Lebanese people. Because of the on-going war, refugees go to Cyprus or Damascus and apply to come to Canada-
We have set extra people in Cyprus in order to be able to deal sympathetically and effectively with the Lebanese. We are working very hard on their behalf, and we will continue to do so.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of Canadians are saying no to the government. The people are mad, angry and disappointed with the goods and services tax. Never in the history of Canada have so many people said no so many times to a government bill.
There are only two reasonable choices left for this government: either scrap the tax, or call an election. Which one will the government choose?

April 9, 1990
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would call an election, but I cannot out of fairness. They do not have a leader.


Mr. Gauthier:: We beat you the last time, remember?


Mr. Marchi:: That's what Joe said in 1979.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I just want to draw to the hon. member's attention comments made by Mr. Chretien with regard to the manufacturers' sales tax and the commodity tax system. He stated: "It worries me that serious structural problems have been identified in the manufacturers' sales tax. To name just a few, in some cases its burden falls less heavily upon imported goods than upon domestic goods. It falls unevenly upon competing goods which are marketed at different trade levels. It does not currently permit a meaningful appeals system. These problem areas in the law cannot be tolerated indefinitely."
Then Mr. Chretien said: "Before long, I will have to assess the merits of all opinions and make a decision on the best course to follow." That was on November 22, 1977.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, we are ready for an election when the government is ready for it.
We always acknowledged a need for reform in the tax system, but we never called on someone to hit the people on the head with a two by four. That is exactly what this particular tax does.

How can the government continue to ignore the workers, small businesses, seniors and low- and middle-income Canadians who have done all they could to get the government to listen to them? When will the government finally listen to Canadians and withdraw this unfair tax?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, given the demand that my friend makes, one would think that there would be a consistent approach from his political party.
Yet on March 7 in The Globe and Mail Mr. Martin is quoted as saying:
- that he would scrap the 7 per cent tax if he becomes Prime Minister and "if it is humanly possible," but he refused to rule out some sort of consumption tax as an alternative.
On Monday, Douglas Young, the Liberals' finance critic, also said the party would scrap the GST if it came into power, but he was unclear on an alternative.
Thirteen years later, after making the first speech, Mr. Chretien said it would be irresponsible for the Liberals to decide now on scrapping the GST. "We cannot reasonably make a commitment that there will not be a consumption tax".


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
A year and a half after the slaughter of 3,000 pro-democracy demonstrators in Burma, the military government has forcibly relocated hundreds of thousands of its citizens and imprisoned, tortured and even murdered many opposition leaders in preparation for phoney elections.
Petro-Canada, which has signed a $5 million contract with that government, says that none of this is of its concern. Is this the future of a privatized Petro-Canada? Will it prop up oppressive regimes, even those condemned by our government? Or will the government take action to end this arrangement, and do it now?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if that were a practice of a privatized Petro-Canada, that is something that we will have to wait to see. If the accusation the hon. member makes applies to Petro-Canada, it applies to it in its capacity as an agency of the Crown. Therefore, the hon. member cannot be making that argument against the process of privatization.
As a matter of fact, and as the hon. member knows, the contract of which Petro-Canada International is a part is a strictly commercial operation in which it is operating with other companies in the private sector.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the answer we were afraid to get, that profit comes before human rights. That is not a principle we applied in South Africa.

April 9, 1990

I ask the government to take action to make sure that our Crown corporation is not propping up a regime that kills its own citizens and would destroy free elections.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member a categoric assurance that the Government of Canada and Crown corporations of the Government of Canada are not doing the things to which he has referred in his question.
There is a commercial operation involving Canadian companies, including Petro-Canada, with regard to explorations off-shore of the country now called Myanmar. To draw the conclusion that the hon. member draws is inaccurate and I think that even he would admit that he has overstated his case substantially in the House.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, tomorrow it will be one month since the Federal Court handed down its decision on the Oldman dam. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him why he and his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, are ignoring such court order, why they are not conducting an environmental assessment, and when will he and his colleague launch this environmental assessment on the Oldman dam?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will realize, the decision by the Federal Court of Appeal has some pretty far-reaching implications. We are studying the decision and examining various courses of action which will take into account the safety of the people in the area, the safety of the dam and of the structure. As soon as we have finalized our decision, we will make it public.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister realize that every day that goes by, the credibility of his government and of the Minister of the Environment is eroded by this kind of inaction?
Point of Order


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that there would be even less credibility if we acted hastily and did not take all factors into account.


POINT OF ORDER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask your indulgence in explaining to the House certain decisions that you have taken during Question Period.
The members of this side of the House, the Official Opposition, have been trying for some time to put questions of relevance and urgency to the government. The difficulty we have, of course, is that the questions that were put today by the members for Gloucester and Dartmouth were similar in format to questions that were put last week to the minister answering for the government at that time, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I want to refer to Hansard of April 5, at page 10220. When asked if the government would allow a free vote, because that was the essence of the question, the Secretary of State for External Affairs answered:
Mr. Speaker, according to what the Prime Minister said and in keeping with parliamentary tradition, budgetary or economic questions that are of prime importance, or questions on motions presented by the opposition on allotted days are always questions of confidence.
A question was put to the Prime Minister today asking whether or not he would allow a free vote on this question. In our view the question was quite in order. It was a question that was repeated from last week's Question Period. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to explain why you ruled it out of order today. That is the first point.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. The Speaker will always hear a point of order on a Speaker's ruling. First of all, I would like to review the "blues" and I am prepared to discuss it further.
The Speaker sometimes has to make an instantaneous call. I would like to look carefully at what was said. I can say that I felt the question was going beyond the simple

April 9, 1990
Point of Order
question: "Will there be a free vote or not". I felt it was getting into the relationship between the Prime Minister and members of his own caucus.
If I am in error, then I will not be the first Speaker that has been in error. The hon. member has another point.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question about surveillance, the member for Dartmouth was responding to an accusation made by the minister that, indeed, Liberals were against surveillance, which is a lie in itself, because we are not against surveillance. We are for surveillance. We want it improved.
The question asked by the member was: "Why is the government not willing to award the contract on merit, rather than to friends they know?"
The question was quite in order as far as I am concerned. I do not know why you ruled that out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can settle it right now. One could say that that is a marginal line, but it is getting awfully close to accusing improper dealing. There are different ways to put the same question. But the question clearly carries with it the innuendo that there is something improper going on.
Now if I have moved too quickly, I am indebted to the hon. member for bringing it to my attention.


STATEMENT PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Not if it is going to be a challenge to the Chair.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I would not challenge, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: You might not, but that does not mean that the Chair is perfect.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 18 provides:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of
any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person
administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words
against either House, or against any Member thereof.
Mr. Speaker, during statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31, the hon. member for South Shore referred to certain members of the other place in terms that I believe were disrespectful.
I would ask that Your Honour review the "blues". He referred to them as, among other things, Liberal hacks. All hon. members know that the members of the other place, particularly those in the majority in the other place, are in fact very distinguished Canadians who have served their country for many years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: There was another adjective but I would not want to repeat that because it was even more disrespectful. I suggest that the three words together constitute disrespect for the other place contrary to Standing Order 18.
I hope Your Honour would review the words. If they are, in fact, improper words, I would ask Mr. Speaker to ask the hon. member to withdraw them. I am sorry he is not here. He left right after the statement so I have been unable to give notice of the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has undoubtedly had to take up other duties elsewhere. I will look at the "blues" to see whether the hon. member had crossed the magic line or not. I did not take it that the hon. member was being particularly respectful.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, he certainly was not.


QUESTION PERIOD
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek some guidance. At the beginning of my supplementary question this afternoon, basically I was responding to an allegation from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
More importantly, I was not making an allegation. I was merely asking a question based on allegations that are in the public domain by way of a Canadian Press story that appeared in a number of newspapers over the weekend. I seek the guidance of the Speaker, and ask you to review the "blues" and at least privately, if not publicly, indicate whether or not I was in contravention of the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I indicated to the hon. member's House leader that I will certainly do that. I do caution hon. members, though, that merely the repetition of something that might be in the newspaper does not necessarily remove it from the essence of an allegation that might have to be taken in another place.
April 9, 1990

I know the hon. member will bear with the Speaker. Sometimes it is a very fine call. I shall look at the matter and would be very pleased to discuss it with the hon. member. I certainly did not mean to improperly cut the hon. member off. The issue is quite legitimate. I was concerned about the way it was put.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in Council appointments which have been 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.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 3, consideration of Bill C-62, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Statistics Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance; and on motions Nos. 1 to 11, 31 to 36, 39 to 55, 57 to 85 and 90 of Mr. Young (Gloucester) (p. 10156-8).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Skeena had the floor.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to carry on the debate in opposing the goods and services tax. There are a few things I would like to put on the record for the interest of the viewing public and those on the government side who still have an IQ.
I look at one of the charts that is available, and it is worth noting that a working poor family with an income of $20,000 would pay 10 times more in taxes-$695 instead of $70-if the money is raised through the goods and services tax instead of through income tax whereas a wealthy family with an income of $100,000 will pay 40 per
cent less through the goods and services tax than it would pay through income taxes.
I have just a couple of more points before going on to speak at greater length about why the government is 15 per cent and will continue to go down, and why the Liberals-even though they are fluctuating upward in popularity-will soon come plummeting down as well, as soon as they pick Mr. Chretien as leader.


Mr. Duhamel:: You hope.


James Ross Fulton: I certainly hope it is Mr. Chretien who drags the Liberals down again.
Let us have a look at what Dr. Maslove, an economics professor here in Ottawa, had to say regarding the government's so-called tax reform since it took office. The effect of lower rates and other actions during the phase one of tax reform has been examined by Dr. Maslove of Carleton University. Using a Statistics Canada model to assess the effects of changes in the personal income tax system since 1984, Dr. Maslove has determined that the only real beneficiaries of tax reform are those whose annual incomes are under $10,000 or over $114,490. The federal government is losing over $30 billion annually as a result of tax shelters, special grants and incentives to business. It has been observed in this regard that, if the corporate sector's tax share had matched that of individual taxpayers in 1988, Canada would have enjoyed an $18.5 billion surplus instead of a $30 billion deficit.
What we see is a continuation of what the Liberals did when they were in office, only in a much more blatant form under the Conservatives. The Liberals always liked to funnel all of the special tax shelters and grants to certain corporations and to certain very wealthy people, but the Tories have really taken it to heart and are now directing the majority of tax breaks to the extremely wealthy and to those corporations which funnel lots of cash back to the government at election time.
Let us take a look at one of the big concerns that many Canadians have about a GST, that it is simply a wheel waiting to be spun by profligate Tories and Liberals. Denmark brought in a GST in 1967 at 10 per cent and, by 1990, it was up to 22 per cent. It has more than doubled. Ireland brought in a GST in 1972 at 16 per cent and now it is 25 per cent. Look at Great Britain, the idol of all Conservatives-Madam Thatcher and the poll tax. It brought it in at 10 per cent and now it is 15 per cent, a 50 per cent jump. Italy, in the same year, 1973, brought a tax in at 12 per cent and now it is 18 per cent. Again, that is a
April 9, 1990

Government Orders


Ron J. Duhamel: Did a constituent do that to you?
50 per cent jump. The concern that Canadians have is a very real and justified one. That is, if the government plans to bring in a goods and services tax at 7 per cent, and then just as Michael Wilson did with the manufacturers' sales tax, it will take it from 9 per cent to 10 per cent and all the way up to 13.5 per cent.
As Dr. Maslove and other economists have found, the fact of the matter is that this punishes working Canadians the most. The wealthy get a 40 per cent tax break, and those earning less than $20,000 will be probably about the same, if not marginally worse off. The somewhat lukewarm battle put up by the Liberals over this legislation demonstrates what we heard from the Minister of Finance here in Ontario,that the Liberals are just waiting for their opportunity to collect the tax so they can take their cut. We know exactly where the Liberals are coming from. We have seen how few the number of speakers are that they put up, and heard how little they have had to say when they actually rose to their feet. We know in terms of the tax system that is in place, it is the same under the Liberal-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on debate.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in this debate on the goods and services tax. This debate has attracted much attention in the country, many comments pro and con and, above all, a lot of misinformation. What I want to emphasize today is the misinformation about the goods and services tax given to Canadians by various groups including, unfortunately, some members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak although I am not dressed as the Standing Orders require, which the Leader of the Opposition pointed out last week, but I know he understands. With my arm in a cast, I have no choice.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, it's the GST.


Pierre H. Vincent: You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote several paragraphs from an article by Claude Piche in La Ptesse of Thursday, March 29, 1990, entitled: "The GST at a glance"
The first paragraph mentions how Canadians and the Minister of Finance are separated by a wall of misunderstanding.
I hope that most Canadians now know that we have a 13.5 per cent federal sales tax at the manufacturer's level.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You raised it four times.


Pierre H. Vincent: It is a 13.5 per cent tax collected at the manufacturing level. He gave the following example: "A furniture manufacturer sells a chair to a wholesaler for $100. The wholesaler pays $113.50, tax included. Assuming the wholesaler has a profit margin of 10 per cent, he sells the chair to the furniture store for $124.85. No tax is collected on this transaction. If the retailer takes a 10 per cent profit, he sells you the chair for $137.35. The federal tax does not appear on your bill, but you are paying it just the same because it is included in the selling price. That is the present system.
This tax raises $18 billion annually for Ottawa. Mr. Wilson's proposal consists in abolishing this tax and replacing it with the GST". This means getting rid of the present 13.5 per cent tax and replacing it with a tax on goods and services that will be 7 per cent across the board. In the end, the consumer will pay only 7 per cent on what he purchases and not the present 13.5 per cent manufacturer's tax.
He repeated the same example with the new tax, and I quote: "The new 7 per cent tax will apply at all stages of production and distribution. Consider our example. The manufacturer sells the chair to the wholesaler for $100. The wholesaler pays $7 in tax. He does not add the $7 to his cost, since Ottawa will refund the tax when he sells the chair. The wholesaler adds his 10 per cent profit, sells the chair to the furniture dealer for $110 and claims his $7 refund from Ottawa. The dealer will pay $7.70 in GST. After adding his profit margin, he sells you the chair for $121 and claims a refund of $7.70 from the government. You, the consumer will pay 7 per cent tax,


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The GST hurts.

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
which works out to $8.47, on the selling price. You cannot claim a refund. The chair costs you $129.47, and that is the system being proposed by Mr. Wilson".
Mr. Speaker, according to this example, with today's tax of 13.5 per cent the chair costs $137.35, but under the system that will be in effect as of January 1, 1991, the chair will cost $129.47, which means that thanks to the tax change, it will be cheaper in 1991 than it is today.
And on he goes, Mr. Speaker, referring to the GST:
"The GST is regressive in the sense that it is harder on low income people. Both the man on social welfare and the millionnaire will pay the $7 tax on a $100 chair. Had Mr. Wilson not done anything to correct that the TPS would be unfair and scandalous.
But the minister did provide for compensation to offset the GST impact on poor households through tax credits geared to income, family status and number of children. These credits will be paid by cheques on a quarterly basis."
Then he gives examples. This is important, Mr. Speaker, because it is the basic argument in the GST issue. It says here, and I agree: It would be a regressive tax if there were no tax credits. But, as it happens, there are major tax credits. He gives one example: "A retired widow with a $12,000 income will get a $290 tax credit. She would have to spend at least $4,000 on goods and services (other than rent and food)-", and drugs. She would have to spend $4,000 a year to cancel the value of her tax credit, or not to end up a loser "-to cancel the value of that credit. That is highly unlikely."
Again, Mr. Speaker, I quote the article. "A single-parent family made up of a child and a young woman earning a net income of $16,000 will get a $480 credit, or almost $10 a week. To annul the credit the household would have to spend something like $140 a week on taxable goods and services." Again, on goods and services, other than rent, food and drugs. A single parent family earning $16,000 a year would therefore have to spend a $140 a week, on something other than non-taxable basic items to, cancel the value of the credit received.
The article continues: "Finally, a couple with two children with a combined net income of $25,000 will receive a credit of $580.
These examples do not take into account the current sales tax which all these consumers are unknowingly already paying and which will disappear following the reform. Clearly, these households will certainly "make money" out of the GST." Mr. Speaker, it is written right here: Clearly, these households will certainly make money out of the GST.
I continue: "As a matter of fact, if your family income is less than $30,000, you are among the winners. If it is more, you are among the loosers, because you will not be entitled to the tax credit, although you will have to pay the GST just the same."
Because I now realize that my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by saying that the GST is good for the Canadian economy and good for Canadian exporters and importers. It is also good for Canadians whose income is less than $30,000 and who, as I said, will come out winners with this new tax to replace the 66 year old 13.5 per cent federal sales tax.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, let's not kid ourselves about what is happening here. The GST is a tax on consumption. It means that every time you buy anything, you, the individual Canadian consumer, are going to pay more.

Because it is regressive, it will hurt most low and middle income families who can the least afford to pay it. It is a tax which goes against all the promises which this Government has made in terms of tax fairness and which forces all low and midde income Canadians to shoulder the most unfair tax burden in our history.

It is nothing more than the Canadian version of Margaret Thatcher's new poll tax. Why are they rioting in Britain? Why are they saying: "Axe the poll tax"? It is because it is an unfair tax.
I am not suggesting violence as we have seen in the United Kingdom, but Canadians have a right to be outraged. Canadians are upset about the GST for the same reasons Britons are upset about the poll tax-it is an unfair tax.
April 9, 1990



Mr. Speaker, over 80 per cent of Canadians are against this tax. Canadians, by the hundreds of thousands, have signed petitions, sent letters and protested against this tax, just as they did again today on the Hill.

Canadians realize it is going to be a massive change, not only in the way we are taxed but on what we pay federal taxes.
As my colleague from Ottawa South has pointed out, corporations as such will no longer pay a federal sales tax, but people will. It is the biggest corporate tax grab in history, and nobody but the Minister of Finance thinks companies will pass all their savings from this on to consumers before applying the new goods and services tax.
The GST is a tax on just about everything-all goods, all services, with very limited exceptions. Let us look at a typical day under the new tax regime.
Picture this. You wake up, shut off your new alarm clock, a clock for which you paid 7 per cent more. You brush your teeth with toothpaste and a brush for which you paid 7 per cent more. You use soap, 7 per cent more; towel, 7 per cent more; dress children for school, 7 per cent more for shirts, shoes, socks, dresses; hand them their school books, 7 per cent more for the books; get into the car, 7 per cent more for the car; flat tire on the way to work, 7 per cent more for repairs; park the car, 7 per cent more for parking; at work, have a coffee break, 7 per cent more; have lunch, pick up a sandwich, 7 per cent more, bowl of soup, 7 per cent more, cup of tea, 7 per cent more, dessert, 7 per cent more; drive home, stop for gas, 7 per cent more; stop at the hardware store for a can of paint for the children's room, 7 per cent more; a paint brush, 7 per cent more; stop for a haircut, 7 per cent more; pick up a hockey stick, a baseball bat or a doll for one of the kids, 7 per cent more; pick up a pizza or other take-out food for a quick dinner for you and your family, 7 per cent more; after dinner, sit down to write your cheques for utility bills, the gas bill, 7 per cent more, the electricity bill, 7 per cent more, send the cheque to the lawyer who did the legal work for the purchase of your new house, 7 per cent more for the fees, and that is in
Government Orders
addition to the 7 per cent more you paid for the house and you are still waiting for the rebate cheque from the government for half of it. Call a plumber to fix the leak in the bathroom sink, 7 per cent more; sit in your new chair that cost you 7 per cent more; walk across your new rug, 7 per cent more; read a book, 7 per cent more; have a midnight snack, 7 per cent more.
And if all of this is too much for a taxpayer who drops dead, that will cost the taxpayer 7 per cent more, as well, because this tax even applies to funerals-even they are 7 per cent more.
The only way Canadians can avoid paying the tax is to stop eating anything which is not defined as basic groceries by the bureaucrats at the Department of Finance, and that is not very much; do not buy any more clothes or shoes; unplug the phone; unplug the TV; unplug the fridge; turn off all the lights; shut off the electricity; turn off the furnace; sit in the basement; and, above all, do not die.
Every time a Canadian pays this goods and services tax he or she is going to be thinking about how this tax came to be and who imposed it.

Canadians will remember the dishonest way the government tried to bring in this tax. They will remember that the Minister of Finance himself said that this new tax would not cost more than the old one. Before the election, he said that it would be revenue-neutral. After the election, it became a money-maker for the treasury.

Just last Friday in the House the Minister of State for Finance admitted that the new tax had always been intended to be an integral part of deficit reduction. Despite that fact, the Minister of Finance has been telling everybody it was and is revenue neutral. It cannot be both. It just cannot be. No wonder Canadians do not believe anything the government says about the goods and services tax.

Mr. Speaker, before the election, the minister said that the tax would be visible. After the election, he admitted that he could not force retailers to show it on their bills.

April 9, 1990
Government Orders

Before the election the minister said such a tax would be unworkable without provincial involvement. But so far not a single province agrees with this tax. So far not a single province has joined him in opposing it.
Did that stop the minister? It did not even slow him down. Now he is bringing in the tax, without provincial co-operation, even though he said that without it the tax was "unworkable".
Before the election he said the tax would be simple. After the election he still says that, but nobody outside his office believes him because nobody outside his office can figure out why a tax that is supposedly simple needs multimillion-dollar ad campaigns to explain it and why it needs an army of 4,000 new tax police to collect it. It is no wonder the head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business calls it a compliance nightmare.
Before the election the minister said the tax would not be inflationary. After the election he said it will cause an increase of only 1.25 per cent in the cost of living. But most observers say it will be much higher.
Nobody but the minister believes this new tax will not cause a huge increase in the rate of inflation, as well as higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
The government can still withdraw this tax, and it should do that. But, Mr. Speaker, I say to the government if you do not, Canadians are not only going to remember the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance who imposed it, they are also going to remember that they could not have done it without the support of the back-bench Conservative MPs.
Every time they pay this tax those Canadians with Conservative MPs are going to ask themselves: "Did my Conservative MP stand up and say "no" to the GST? Did my Conservative MP stand up for me?"
I want to tell the Conservative members sitting behind the ministers that now is your chance to join with more than 80 per cent of Canadians, and at least two of your colleagues, and say "no" to this unfair tax. Because of the size of the Conservative majority you, the Conservative MPs, are the only ones now who can make sure that this tax is stopped here in this House. You are the only
ones who can save your constituents from this massive and unfair new tax burden.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Conservative MPs something right now. If you do not stand up and save your constituents, your constituents are not going to stand up and save you.
The recent finance committee hearings on this bill did not produce one single new reason why this tax should be imposed. In fact we heard nothing but reasons why the tax should not be imposed.
It is still the same unfair tax proposal. For most Canadians, the GST is still the gouge and screw tax, the grief and suffering tax. For most Canadians GST still stands for "God save the taxpayer". If it passes, they will say: "God help the taxpayer". The Conservatives will need all the help they can get. Indeed, they will not get very much.
I say to all the Conservative back-benchers, the fate of this tax in this House is in your hands. I urge you, Canadians urge you, to join with us and defeat this tax. Listen to what Canadians are saying. Listen to what your constituents are saying. The message is coming in loud and clear from one end of this country to the other.
Conservative MPs, use your vote today and tomorrow to defeat this tax. Strike a blow for fair taxation and say "no" to the GST. Liberals have already said and are continuing to say "no" to the GST.
We ask the Conservative back-benchers to join with us to say "no" to the GST and "yes" to fair taxation for all Canadians.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition I can understand why there is so much indecision on their part in relation to the GST.


Mr. Keyes:: Indecision?


Gregory Francis Thompson: If you look at exactly what he said there is not an ounce of truth in any of his statements made today in this House.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, he went over a list of goods that he claims are going to be taxed under our new GST which is coming in. We are going to support it. What he fails to point out obviously is that there is a hidden 13.5 per cent federal sales tax on each and every one of those goods that he mentioned in his speech. The hon. member has been around this House a lot longer
April 9, 1990

than you, Mr. Speaker, and a lot longer than I. He more than anyone else should know better than to say that to the Canadian people.
Throughout this debate on the GST the opposition has not scored any points with the people back home. The people back home have a fair sense of what is going on, and a sense of fair play. When someone like that can get up in the House of Commons and rattle on in that fashion without coming clean on the goods and services tax, it tells you something about that party and what its members want to do to this country.
That party, if you remember 1979, is the same party that led us down the garden path in relation to the price of gasoline. We had a government in 1979 and a finance minister, Mr. Crosbie, that were prepared to come to grips with certain realities in this country. One of them was simply that if we as Canadians want services and programs from government, we must be willing to pay for them.
In 1979, Mr. Crosbie rose in this House and presented his budget, a budget that would have raised gas 18 cents a gallon, bringing the price up to $1.17 a gallon. That was a budget that the then finance minister claimed to be a budget of short-term pain for long-term gain, but members of the opposition of this House chose to defeat it. In defeating it they defeated the best opportunity that this country has had since Confederation to come to grips with reality.
Now opposition members want to do the same thing with the goods and services tax. But there is one element that these characters are missing this time. They are missing the number of votes required to defeat it, thank goodness.
When we took office in 1984, after having lived through those Trudeau years from 1979 to 1984, we inherited a $200 billion debt. I challenge anyone on the opposition side of this House to dispute that figure. It is there; it is recorded. You can look at it yourselves. It is undeniable.
We have been in power almost six years. On that $200 billion debt, with an 11 per cent interest rate, on average, we have paid interest charges of $132 billion on the debt that the Liberals gave us.
Government Orders
When they left office they bragged. Some of the former cabinet ministers in that Trudeau government bragged that when Brian Mulroney took office there was no way, no way possible that that guy or his party could get re-elected. They said: "We left the cupboard bare. There is no money. There is no room for you people to manoeuvre".
But we have manoeuvred. We have done the things that are right for this country, and we are going to continue to do the things that are right for this country.
I have something to tell the Leader of the Opposition. The members on our side of the House are going to support this tax bill, and we are going to support it for a very good reason. I do not want to mortgage my children or my grandchildren to pay off the debt that we have incurred in this country. We can come to grips with it today or we can come to grips with it tomorrow. But I prefer to face reality square in the face because that is what the people back home put me here for.
In 1986, our government tabled a White Paper on tax reform in this House of Commons. That White Paper, laid before the Canadian people was the goods and services tax, among other things.
In the 1988 election every member of this House, every candidate that ran in that election knew what was coming. The goods and services tax was clearly on the table. It was an issue and part of our platform in 1988.
I ran on that issue, as I did on other issues, and so did the member for Calgary Northeast, as well as the member for Edmonton Southeast, the Kindy and Kil-gour act. Those characters knew the goods and services tax were coming. They knew it very clearly.
Do you know what that same member for Edmonton Southeast did in 1986 and 1987, Mr. Speaker? He sneaked out of the Conservative caucus because we were not high in the polls. Do you know what he is doing now, Mr. Speaker? He is doing the same thing. He came crawling back in 1988 when Brian Mulroney brought this party back up in the polls. He made sure he was on board-

April 9, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would ask the hon. member to refer to other hon. members by their titles or by their ridings.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to live by that ruling.
The point I am making is clearly this. Those same members ran for this party in 1988, knowing that this legislation was coming. They could live with the results of that 1988 election, but they cannot live with reality.
I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this party is going to come back in the polls in 1992 and 1993. I will tell you that when we do, those two characters are going to be on the outside looking in because I don't want them on my side.
I can go back home in my riding and be a popular guy if I want to be against the goods and services tax, but the people voted me here to stand up for what I believe in. I believe that this goods and services tax is good for our country.
The present tax is a silent killer of jobs. It discriminates against home grown products, home manufactured products. I could draw many examples right in my riding where we are discriminated against because of the present federal sales tax.
Since 1935, we have had five Royal commissions report in this country. We designated five Royal commissions to investigate taxation. Each and every one of those suggested that the federal sales tax must go, that it is not a fair tax and it has to be replaced.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Agreed.


Gregory Francis Thompson: I am glad to hear that because the Liberals do agree with us. We have come up with an alternative, one that every single country in the world has moved to. We are the last country in the world to bite the bullet on the FST. The goods and services tax is good for this country. We are going to bring it in. If we have two members here that do not want to support us, it is their fault and they will suffer the consequences.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Davenport.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte does not seem to realize why his party is so low in the polls. He would have perhaps done himself and his party a favour if he had
analyzed a little why the Progressive Conservative Party is so low in the polls these days.
The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte does not seem to be aware of an important fact, namely, that his party since it took power in November, 1984, has increased the federal sales tax by 50 per cent. It was 9 per cent then. It is now at 13.5 per cent.


Gregory Francis Thompson: You left the cupboard bare in 1984. You gave us no choice.


Mr. Caccia:: Finally, the hon. member for Carleton- Charlotte does not seem to realize-


Gregory Francis Thompson: I better leave the Chamber, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Davenport has the floor.


Charles L. Caccia: Finally, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte does not realize how often his speech today will be quoted by his Liberal opponent in the next election.
The fact of the matter is that Canadians are very upset. They oppose the thought of another tax. They have seen, since 1984, an increase in the federal sales tax. They have seen this tax go up from 9 per cent to 10 per cent, and then from 11 per cent to 12 per cent, and from 13 per cent to 13.5 per cent-an increase of 50 per cent.
Canadians know that this type of tax is unfair. They know that it applies the same whether you are rich or poor. In other words, it is a regressive kind of tax.
This is, of course, an ideological point that escapes the mind of the average Conservative politician who insists on using a sales tax as an instrument for raising funds, no matter how it applies.
Canadians, I would submit, want fairness in the tax system. They would like now, at last, to see a tax system that also introduces a degree of discipline in our behaviour in the environment. The sales tax as proposed by this government ignores the environment completely. Actually, it does a disservice to the environment.
On the one hand, it reduces the tax on cars, as has been announced, obviously by virtue of the nature of the general sales tax. But, on the other hand-and now I am quoting two extremes-it should not tax any equipment, any service or any type of initiative that is energy efficient, that is efficient in the use of water and of our natural resources. It applies the same sledge-hammer on everything, without any consideration for the environ-
April 9, 1990

ment to which this government has committed itself on a variety of occasions and, extensively so, by way of the notion of sustainable development.
The government may want to know, rather than being criticized, what the alternatives are that it should have considered, and which it can still consider.
There is a substantial body of work that has been carried out in developing some kind of a carbon tax, a taxation of fuels, a taxation that would be dependent on the amount of carbon dioxide that is released when consumed. It has been developed quite extensively by an organization whose name is the Quebec Union for Conservation of Nature in Charlesbourg.
This tax would be calculated on the basis of $130 per tonne of oil equivalent. Such a tax could generate up to $17.2 billion in revenue. It would even reduce the number of officials in charge of collecting it. This tax would encourage, as a result, fuel efficiency in all industrial applications. It would improve our economic competitiveness. It would lead to higher productivity and a better ability on our side to be effective on world markets.
If that taxation measure is not adequate or interesting enough, the Minister of Finance-and I am glad to see his junior colleague in the House today-could have a good conversation with Professor Rees at the University of British Columbia. Here we see the development of an entropy taxation. Professor Rees argues that instead of subsidies to hydrocarbons, Canada should place a tax on fossil fuels on the economically sound ground that atmospheric capacity to absorb carbon dioxide is a scarce resource for which the consumer should pay.
Of course, this type of tax should vary for different fossil fuels, depending on the carbon content per unit of energy. It would be twice as much for coal as for natural gas. Such a tax would then have the effect of lowering the consumption of hydrocarbons, encourage conservation, reduce carbon dioxide pollution and increase considerably our over all energy efficiency.
If the minister is not satisfied with home grown suggestions for an eco-tax reform, we invite him to look across the Atlantic to Europe, with which he is very familiar as we all know, at the University of Cologne in
Government Orders
the Federal Republic of Germany. Policies have been developed there for a green tax reform which include a carbon tax proposal, taxes on throwaway packaging, taxes on junk mail, and taxes on water consumption. The estimate is that a package of green taxes would produce revenues over the long term of well over $100 billion at the current rate of exchange. I am sure, if the Minister of Finance had a chance to read these papers, he would be tempted to withdraw his GST proposal and go the eco-tax route.
One has inevitably in this debate to raise the question of The Green Plan because it is relevant in its economic instruments chapter to this debate. We find an absence of ideas as to what could be the economic instruments and the taxation instruments for this government if it wants to pursue economic goals.
Unlike other sections of the Green Paper where questions are asked, there is no question asked in the economic investment and instruments section. However, it does ask some earth-shaking questions such as: Should the government emphasize compliance or enforcement in general terms? The paper does ask how regulatory procedures can be clarified and streamlined in general terms.
When we come to economic instruments, I must say to the Minister of State for Finance that his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, needs help very badly and very urgently because this process that has been launched by virtue of this discussion on the environment is so weak on the economic side that it makes you weep in despair.
What can we say at this stage of the debate? We can only repeat that Canadians have seen over the last six years a 50 per cent increase in the federal sales tax. They know that it is an unfair instrument. They know that there are alternatives which would be desirable both in terms of fairness and in terms of progress to be made in the environment.
Therefore we have to conclude that this entire exercise is anachronistic. The government has missed the boat with this kind of approach. Not only that, but it has done itself irreparable harm politically as reflected in the polls every month.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, today, as on many recent days, members of this House have the opportunity to debate the GST bill and, through

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
that debate, bring improvements to this important legislation.
Unfortunately today, as on many recent days, members of the opposition are wasting their time and the time of this House on a carnival side-show designed to demonstrate to Canadians that they are against the GST.
This spectacle of delay and obstruction is telling us other things as well. It is telling all Canadians that the NDP and Liberal Party have again found the basis for a partnership in futility and waste. It is telling Canadians that some members of Parliament will sacrifice not just time, money and their personal dignity in search of a few seconds of TV news, they are also willing to sacrifice the parliamentary process itself.
There are clear rules designed to allow members of Parliament to do our work. Along with our obligations as members of Parliament we receive certain privileges and entitlements. Among those privileges is the ability to slow down the process when there is reason to believe that a government is exceeding its authority or acting in haste. However, the opposition is making a tragic mistake if it believes that Canadians want them to damage or destroy the parliamentary system itself.
Over time the parliamentary system of government has evolved to become the instrument through which the people of this country govern this country; nothing more, nothing less. This is where things get done. The government has a responsibility to govern, but what are the responsibilities of the opposition? Short of forming a government themselves, how do they measure achievement? How do they justify their existence? What are their responsibilities?
Over the past few weeks we have seen a curious fate overtake members of the opposition who have carried their opposition to the GST bill beyond the limits of reason, if not the limits of parliamentary procedure.
Their systematic refusal to deal with the GST bill on its merits has serious consequences for the people they were elected to represent and for the process of parliamentary government itself. Their obstruction may have started life as a sincere attempt to show their opposition, but as the days and weeks rolled by it became more and more clear that they were not refusing to speak out
because of their opposition to the GST but because, quite literally, they had nothing to say.
Time and again we have challenged members of the opposition to present us with clear alternatives to a national tax on goods and services. Time and again they have failed to respond.
The concept of a Canadian goods and services tax has been discussed for several years. In more recent months the GST has passed through various stages by which the ideas mature and develop to become legislation and the law of the land.
It is interesting to note that as Bill C-62 has assumed a more definitive shape in reality the members who oppose this legislation have become less interested in the details of its operation. As various groups-and we have heard hundreds-have focused on its implementation and its impacts, members of the opposition have devoted more of their attention to obstructing the process by which work gets done in this House and in its committees.
The fate which has overtaken these opposition members is irrelevancy. In a very real sense they have taken it upon themselves to serve as road-blocks and obstacles at a time when their constituents need their intelligence and reasoning abilities the most.
By now it should seem clear to even the most sincere opponents of GST that this government has committed itself to a course of action which it believes is right. So far we have not heard arguments that would turn us from this course.
By now it should be clear that this government knows how to listen to groups and individuals who come forward with sound and reasonable advice. Much of this advice is now incorporated in this bill. The finance committee, of which I am member, travelled across this country and heard from groups and individuals from every province and territory in Canada. Over 300 individuals and groups of witnesses read over 1,000 representations to the finance committee on the GST. This all-party finance committee recommended 70 amendments to this bill after listening to Canadians across the country who want to deal constructively with the GST.
The opposition in refusing to deal with this legislation on its merits exclude itself from improving it. By stubborn, blind, across the board antagonism, the opposition
April 9, 1990

is turning its back on reality and is turning its back on the people it represents.
The people do not elect members of Parliament to create confusion. They do not vote for ignorance. They do not vote for delays, obstruction and waste. They vote for leadership. If the opposition wants to give us the monopoly on leadership, then we have no choice but to accept.
One of the few pleasures of opposition is the ability to ignore reality. There is nothing quite as intoxicating as the ability to build a better future by breaking every rule of arithmetic, logic and common sense.
However the great concern of government is economic reality. Look at free trade. Look at the privatization of Crown corporations. Look at the improved management of government spending. These are all controversial issues. They attracted a great deal of opposition but they all got done.
Let us suppose for a moment that this government took the same all for nothing attitude that the opposition demonstrates. Under those circumstances it is quite possible that the measures I have just mentioned and the GST itself would be vastly different from what they are today. This government does listen to Canadians; we listen to all Canadians. When it comes time to take action we act and we act decisively.
Bill C-62 the GST bill is no different. It has changed over time as this government received the benefit of advice from every region and every sector of this country. This legislation is better because Canadians responded on its merits. They did not dream of a world where corporations can somehow pay taxes without raising prices to consumers. They did not dream of a world where personal income taxes can be increased year after year with no impact on the economy. They responded with realistic and practical solutions to the challenge we place before them.
We on the finance committee, all parliamentarians, should be grateful for the people who took the time to appear before the finance committee, people from all across Canada with constructive advice to criticize the bill in some cases but to improve it, to discuss it on its merits, not just to be wasteful and obstructionist like the opposition MPs in the House.
Government Orders
Here we are again today. This is the debate on report stage. Time is running short and soon time will run out. This government knows what it is doing. We have a list of objectives. We are here. We want to get the deficit under control. That is why we have acted to bring government expenditures under control and have introduced the GST bill, Bill C-62.
We want to build an economy that can fight and win against international competition. That is why we negotiated the free trade agreement and introduced Bill C-62. We want a fair tax system. That is why we reformed the corporate and personal income tax system, and that is why we introduced Bill C-62. A great deal of work remains to be done. There is still time for opposition members to abandoned their ill-conceived and foolish struggle and get down to some real work.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, as usual, we are speaking to time allocation or closure, one or the other. The Canadian people have suggested to this government that the time allocated is about two years and a couple of months perhaps. Closure is fast approaching; at the end of that time period the Canadian people will invoke closure against the government.
I appreciated the remarks of the member for Windsor West who spoke of a day in the life of an ordinary Canadian, but I am sure Canadians are wondering about the Liberals since their leadership candidates, the leading contenders, are not quite sure whether they would keep the GST in place. I want to tell the Canadian people that the New Democrats are really the only party that is opposed to this GST.
I do not want to mislead Canadians as did the member for Windsor West. Not all of those products will include the 7 per cent because the MST will be abolished. Nevertheless, when young couples in Canada turn on the lights and their radios in the morning, it will cost an extra 7 per cent. God forbid they should go get an Egg McMuffin, because that is going to cost an extra 7 per cent. Home renovations is an $11 billion business in this country, but now that will cost an extra 7 per cent. That is going to discourage many young Canadians from proceeding.
It has been indicated to us that prices of cars will go down. I do not think Canadians are going to believe that until they see it, and we are not sure if they will see it. Nevertheless, they may have to make the decision to repaint their car, but that is going to cost an extra 7 per cent too. When they go home and turn on their television set, the cable service is going to cost an extra 7 per

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
cent. If they go out for a pizza as a special treat for the family, that is going to be an extra 7 per cent. They should have bought it at the grocery store. That points to the inconsistency of this GST.
It is bowling night, a nice recreation for young Canadian families,and older Canadians as well, but it is going to cost an extra 7 per cent. The bowlers say that the government struck out on this one.
Dad takes kids to hockey. Hockey equipment is going to be taxed by 7 per cent. Mom or dad takes daughter to piano lessons. It is going to cost an extra 7 per cent. Every young child likes milk and cookies at night. This government is going to change that, it is going to have to be milk and crackers because this government is going to tax cookies, believe it or not.
There is an old saying that you cannot avoid death and taxes. Well, this government has ensured that you cannot even avoid taxes upon death because funeral services will be taxed 7 per cent. You just cannot avoid the land of 7 per cent. We know that this government will soon make it the land of 8 per cent and 9 per cent. Where, in fact, will it stop? I do not know. I cannot begin to suggest when it will stop and I am sure Canadians are wondering.
This government is not listening to people. I want to take this opportunity to voice some of the concerns of the individuals in my community of Sault Ste Marie. I have received 18,000 signatures from people who have signed petitions through the small business group in Sault Ste. Marie. I did not want to bring them down here because they would pile up both desks. One thousand bowlers sent in cards. I have 500 petitions that I cannot table because they are not in the appropriate form.
Nevertheless, Mr. Paquin of Sault Ste. Marie took it upon himself to go out there and collect petitions and Pat Lacelle from Wiber Street, Carmen Briglio from Parliament Street, Peter Charette from Lake Street and Jim Belleau from Echo Bay, Ontario, signed these petitions on their own. These were unsolicited petitions saying: "Please, no GST".
What did the bowlers say? Well, they are concerned about recreation but Ruth-Ann Huckson said: "Have
some mercy". Rose Rizzo said: "A person can't even have a good time without (you people) spoiling it." Tanya Van Looy said: "What do you think we are, walking banks!"
Here is one from a nine-year-old, Jeremy King, who says: "I think it's awful when a nine year old has to start paying tax for sports. (It stinks)." Lisa Beaulieu says: "You can afford to go golfing and fly cross country but we won't even be able to afford bowling. You won't be getting my vote." That is what 1,000 bowlers in Sault Ste. Marie said.
I have tabled 1,000 petitions under Standing Order 36 and I have several more that I have not tabled yet, but I will take this opportunity. A whole host of people from Trunk Road; Mary Pritchard, Allan Pritchard, Mary Buck, Ralph Buck, Loretta Armstrong, Candace Bond, Myra Patterson, all said: "Please, no GST".
I received 2,000 responses to my householder. Brian O'Neill from Church Street says: "The most regressive tax instituted in Canadian history. This government may have the authority but it has no mandate for such a tax".
Peter and Terry Lorzi from Wallace Terrace say: "I have a small business with three other people working besides myself. As much as I hate to, I'm thinking of giving it up and working for someone else, the small business person can barely survive these days. It seems very unfair to me".
Dennis Seabrook from Boundary Road says: "Please no GST". Debbie Belsito from MacDonald Avenue says: "I am an owner of a hair salon and like quite a few others, owning your own business is becoming less appealing. I love what I do and I love my country but it scares me to think of where it's going to end".
Gordon and Sandra Root say: "As music teachers we are very disturbed by the proposed taxing of music lessons. The pursuit of a musical education should be applauded and rewarded by the government much as the athletes are-not discouraged by taxation".
Rose and Liela Boniferro of Wellington Street East say: "Please stop. You are destroying the unique character of Canadianism. Never mind, your day is coming".
April 9, 1990

Mrs. Bouchard says: "I am 57 years old and my husband is 60 years old. For the first time in our over 40 years neither my husband or I own or can afford to own a vehicle or a house. My husband is retired".


An Hon. Member:: It will be cheaper.


Steve Butland: It will not be cheaper and Canadians know that.
I received 2,000 householders and 5,000 clippings from fast food restaurants in my community. The vote in my community: 28,000 signatures from people in my community who say "no" to the GST. But I have to be honest with you and the government, Mr. Speaker. I received two letters from constituents who said they were in favour of the GST.
I would encourage the government to take note of this vote in Sault Ste. Marie, and in probably all the other constituencies in this country. The vote is overwhelming. No GST! No GST! Listen to the people.
I have not mentioned individual letters. I have received letters from the New Brunswick Home and School Associations, from veterinarians, funeral homes, underwriters, appraisers, bowling lanes and tax preparers. Everybody says no GST. I encourage the government to listen, to come to its senses. No GST.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I cannot help but feel a bit of sadness, not because of what the hon. gentleman has said, but because of the over-all attitude of the members of the Liberal Party as well as the New Democratic Party. We have a clear example here, through the member from Sault Ste. Marie, of all the problems that these members are creating by choosing to use a major tax reform politically instead of looking at the good of the country.
Instead of saying what he has just told this House, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie should open up the book we have produced to explain the technical papers. He should read and he will have answers for his constituents. His duty is not only to report, it is also to enlighten and explain calmly to his constituents that the problem is not at all what they hear.
The list is long. He talked about music lessons and so on. He knows full well that the impact will not be the one that is feared and he should assist the government in
Government Orders
this reform by explaining to citizens of his riding how this reform will work. They may not like it afterward, but they should at least try to have the correct information. We on our side at least, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, will continue to work very hard over the coming months to explain to Canadians the importance of this reform.
As an example of information that is used in a way that is not always straightforward, I will refer to what the Leader of the Opposition said about deficit reduction. Last Friday, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that there was a lack of consistency between what I said and what my colleague, the Minister of Finance, had said, saying that the GST would contribute to deficit reduction.
I would like to remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that in the technical papers of August last it was written: "The GST will contribute to deficit reduction effort and ensure we can continue to pay for programs".
I go back to the December papers where it is written yet again:

-that the GST will contribute to the government's deficit-reduction effort and help us continue to finance, etc., the programs and services to which Canadians are attached.
So, Mr. Speaker, I note that the opposition members, especially the Liberals, brought this country's finances to a sort of dead end which we are trying to change, modify and improve. Instead of helping to solve the problem that they created, the members of that party systematically oppose for partisan reasons everything we suggest to reduce government spending and to improve economic efficiency.
The Leader of the Opposition just said that the GST was "a tax on consumption", a consumption tax. I gladly agree, because 48 countries have one. This type of tax in itself does not-


M. Douglas Young: How many countries have two such taxes?


Gilles Loiselle: Well, how many countries also have 11 governments?


M. Douglas Young: Don't compare oranges and bananas!

April 9, 1990
Government Orders


Gilles Loiselle: Canada is a federal country and we are used to living with complicated political structures. How many countries have 11 first ministers?


M. Douglas Young: Those countries don't have governments like ours!


Gilles Loiselle: How many countries have 11 finance ministers? It won't kill us! There!
He said this tax would come down particularly hard on people on low and modest incomes. I repeat, we are going to replace a hidden tax that is slowly but surely destroying the economy with a modern tax. However, a consumer tax can be regressive unless it is accompanied by a certain number of measures. That is why we have put in place the best system-compared with all other countries that have this kind of value-added tax-to prevent and correct any regressive aspects of the sales tax, and I am referring to a system of tax credits-


M. Douglas Young: Not indexed?


Gilles Loiselle: Not indexed!


M. Douglas Young: Typical of our friends from Quebec, but we Acadians are used to being corrected this way!


Gilles Loiselle: I believe the past bodes well for the future. In successive Budgets we have always adjusted our credits and we are committed to doing so in future as well.
In any case, there is a tax credit system. We have also eliminated a number of commodities on which people on modest incomes are most likely to spend, such as rent, drugs and food. As a result, we have a system that adequately protects families with incomes of $30,000 or less, so that after the tax reform they will have more money than they had before.
Of course the opposition knows taxes are not a popular subject and I realize that people would prefer not to pay taxes at all, which is a perfectly normal reaction. So they are concerned, and the opposition is playing on that concern and making outlandish statements that have no connection at all with the GST. To hear them you would think companies will collapse under the tax burden. Nobody would make money any more, and meanwhile, it seems, we would make a terrific profit. It doesn't make sense. Why should we want to bring our economy to a standstill when what we want to do is put it back on track?
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said that although we were replacing the manufacturer's tax because it was a bad tax, we increased it by 50 per cent over a number of years. And so we did. We used mechanisms that had been in place for 64 years to collect the funds we needed to carry out government programs. However, we tried to find ways to replace this pernicious tax, and we identified a modem, equitable and fair approach that was not only necessary but long overdue. I believe the government is acting responsibly, and the opposition parties should realize how important it is to continue our efforts to put our financial house in order. They were largely responsible for putting this country's economy in a practically untenable situation in the first place. Since 1984, we have been working very hard to turn the situation around. The goods and services tax is a modem tax that protects people on low- and modest incomes and, I repeat, it is a tax that exists in 48 countries. When people say: Sure, but none of these countries has a federal system of government. If that is the only drawback, let's discuss it, but they go on to mention the rest. It will be 7 per cent more. That's not true. We are removing a 13.5 per cent tax to replace it with a broader tax of 7 per cent. Canadians and consumers will in the end pay the same amount they were paying before. It will be a much more dependable way of collecting the revenues the government needs, and it will protect our ability to provide government programs. All in all, I repeat, this is a necessary, advanced and equitable tax reform, and I am sure that increasingly, Canadians will come to understand this.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the government's proposed good and services tax has sparked a great deal of intense debate in recent months. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this issue that concerns and will potentially affect all Canadians. To state that I have serious apprehensions and misgivings regarding the GST would be an understatement.
I would like to outline some of the more troubling aspects of the proposed GST, with particular emphasis on those aspects that have the most effect on my province. I am convinced that the implementation of the GST will have serious detrimental effects on the citizens of Prince Edward Island and on all Canadians.
April 9, 1990

The government seems determined to implement the GST, despite the fact that approximately 80 per cent of Canadians disapprove of this new tax. It believes this is the time to implement this tax because it feels there will be enough time for people to forget before the next election. Instead of listening and responding to the concerns of the provinces, of businesses and of ordinary Canadians, the government is promoting the GST with an advertising campaign costing millions of dollars.
Canadians have every reason to be upset. Canadians are tired of the tax increases imposed on them since the Conservatives took power. From 1984 to 1988, personal income tax has increased by 106 per cent, corporate tax has increased by 49 per cent, and indirect taxes have increased by 54 per cent, and still there is very little reduction in the deficit.
A study done by the Canadian Council on Social Development says that taxes on the poor since 1984 have increased seven times those that are charged to the rich. Because of increases in personal and indirect taxes, the middle-income Canadian is now shouldering a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Not only are we paying more, we are receiving less. The GST will further aggravate this situation.
No one will argue that the manufacturers' sales tax is a tax that should be retained. No one will argue that this country does not need tax reform. No one will deny that we need a more simple and equitable tax system. But the GST is not tax reform. It is just a new tax, an unfair tax, an inflationary tax, a complicated tax which has all the earmarks of a bureaucratic horror show.
All Canadians will be affected by the inflationary impact of the GST. While the government expects only a 2.25 per cent increase in inflation by 1991, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants predicts that this figure could be doubled as a result of the GST, which means that it will be 4.5 to 5 per cent. This coupled with the ordinary inflation, we will be experiencing a 10 per cent inflation figure by 1991.
Introduction of the GST in the present circumstances will create a two-tiered sales tax system in every province except Alberta. This will be chaotic for both business and consumer. Small business will be facing a
Government Orders
compliance nightmare and consumers will find themselves in a state of confusion at the retail counter.
We were promised a visible tax. Consumers would be aware of how much federal tax they would be paying. The Consumers Association of Canada feels that visibility is an essential principle of any tax change. Consumer awareness lends to greater political accountability, greater reluctance to bump up the tax rate at budget time, and fewer accusations of unfair pricing.
There is little doubt that the GST will contribute to the worsening of existing regional disparities. The impact of the GST will be most harmful in the provinces with the highest provincial tax rates. These high provincial taxes will be imposed after the GST has already been added to the cost of an item. That is, there will be a tax on a tax. Therefore, the proposed new tax system will have a particularly detrimental effect on provinces with high tax rates and those provinces tend to be the ones which already have weak economies.
In Prince Edward Island, there will be a total of 17 per cent charged through the GST and the provincial tax system. The 10 per cent provincial tax will be added to the cost of the item plus the cost of the GST.
Another very serious problem arising from the GST, and one that will further contribute to regional disparities, is the fact that the tax will apply to transportation. Transportation costs are a vital factor for all Canadians, but particularly for those who live in regions remote from the production and distribution centres.
For example, a farmer in Prince Edward Island will have to pay more for farm equipment than a farmer in Ontario because of the increased costs in transporting the finished product from the point of production. Moreover, the imposition of the GST will also affect fuel costs. Even though transportation companies will be able to claim back the GST paid on fuel, the finance department apparently plans to offset this revenue shortfall by raising excise taxes on fuel. This additional cost for transportation companies will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher rates.
Once again, the ultimate bearer of the new tax will be the consumer. It appears equally evident that the consumer who lives in remote and rural areas will suffer the

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
most from the increase in transportation costs. Atlantic Canadians will get it in the neck one more time.
It is time for a change. The government should be devoting its efforts to alleviating regional inequities rather than imposing a tax which will help keep the poor provinces poor.
The effects of the GST will vary from sector to sector. One of the industries that will be hardest hit by the GST is tourism. It is irresponsible for the government to push through a tax proposal that will seriously damage an industry that generates $24 billion in gross revenues per annum, that has created new jobs faster than any other sector, that is Canada's second largest earner of foreign exchange, and that generates $11 billion in tax revenue for all levels of government.
According to the Tourist Industry Association of Canada, the industry will lose $1 billion per year and 25,000 jobs by 1993, if the GST goes through. Moreover, many of the 60,000 small tourist enterprises will be placed in jeopardy.
The imposition of the GST will also raise the price of domestic air fares and domestic holiday tours. Canadians will be discouraged from taking vacations in their own country. This will be extremely harmful, since approximately 70 per cent of total tourist dollars is spent by Canadians in Canada. Tourists will be further deterred from taking their holidays in Canada by the fact that the cost of eating in restaurants will increase because of the goods and services tax.
The effects of the goods and services tax on tourism will be particularly devastating for the Atlantic provinces. About half of the tourists who visit these provinces are from central Canada. These tourists might find that, in light of the GST, a trip to the United States of America might be easier on the pocket-book.
According to the Canadian Tourist Research Institute, Prince Edward Island will suffer more than any other province because tourism makes up 10.5 per cent of Prince Edward Island's gross provincial product.
The agricultural and small business sectors will also be seriously affected by the proposed GST. Cash flow problems will be further aggravated. While many of the goods and services that are being used by a farmer will be taxed and rebated, the farmer will still be required to pay
the tax up front. Farmers will be forced to spend a lot of time and money figuring out the claims system and maintaining detailed records in order to comply.
According to John Bulloch of the CFIB, the ultimate compliance nightmare will be caused by the two-tiered tax system. The GST alone has to be accounted for at every stage of the production-distribution chain. The government's attempts to simplify the accounting procedures are, in Mr. Bulloch's words, "the most complex part of the whole nightmare". This is typical of the bureaucracy. By simplifying things, they make it more complex.
The complexity of the system will add significantly to accounting costs, not only for the business owners and farmers, but also for those who have to comply with a sales tax system for the first time.
For example, fishermen in Prince Edward Island who, for the most part have had their record keeping maintained for them by the large fish processing companies, will be faced with significant administrative costs when the GST is implemented. They will have to file monthly GST returns in order to be eligible for rebates on their purchases. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen in Atlantic Canada says that the fishery sector in Prince Edward Island will be particularly hard hit with high costs arising from the administration of the GST.
Another problem area that I would like to address briefly is housing. Flousing ownership was once regarded as an inalienable social right of Canadians. Past governments have instituted programs to help people save for a down payment. In 1985, this government killed the RHOSP. In 1990, the same government is adding GST costs which will help make home ownership even more unaffordable and will impact negatively on the construction industry. GST will also be added to legal fees, appraisal fees, real estate fees, et cetera, further inhibiting home ownership.
These are only a few of the burdens added to the tax load of Canadians by the goods and services tax. It is a terrible tax: inflationary, cumbersome, unfair and expensive to administrate. The GST is not the answer. I ask the government to withdraw it. Since Atlantic Canada is especially hard hit, I ask the Conservative members from
April 9, 1990

Atlantic Canada to live up to their responsibilities to the people of the region and join us in killing this odious tax.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with firm resolve to speak as an Alberta member of Parliament and to speak on this measure at the report stage on legislation introducing the goods and services tax.
All Canadians are aware of the controversy in the debate generated by this aspect of tax reform. Of course, members of the opposition have not helped. They have played upon the natural fears of many Canadians through using misinformation, the only weapon they have in their arsenal.
This is, and will continue to be, a tough debate on the streets, in the coffee shops and over the kitchen table in homes across Canada. Some constituents have urged me to vote in favour of the GST and some constitutents have urged me to vote against the GST. What are the factors that I must consider? What are the arguments on either side? Let me deal first with why I should even consider voting against the GST. There are nine commonly cited reasons.
One, if the GST were a new tax raising buckets of new money for the federal government, then I should vote against the GST.
Two, if the GST were a cash cow easily increased once in place, then I should vote against the GST.
Three, if Albertans do not already pay a sales tax and we know that that is one of the ways that we as Albertans define ourselves, then I should vote against the GST.
Four, if the GST were to create a spiral of inflation in our economy, I would be the first on my feet to vote against it.
Five, if this were an unfair tax that hurt the poor and the seniors, then I should vote against the GST.
Six, if the GST were to be an administrative nightmare for small business and farmers, then I should vote against the GST.
Seven, if businesses and farmers would have to pay GST on their rent, on their equipment, on their supplies and other purchases resulting in an increase to input
Government Orders
costs, then I should vote against the GST. If the GST were to increase costs of production in agriculture, then I, as chair of the agricultural caucus representing a strongly agricultural riding, should vote against the GST.
Eight, if I felt the elimination of the existing federal sales tax would not be passed along to consumers, then I should oppose the GST.
Finally, number nine, if I felt there were several better alternatives or even one better alternative, then I would vote against the GST and call for that better alternative.
The bare facts do not sustain any of these propositions. Let us examine them one by one.
First, this is a replacement tax. The GST replaces the federal sales tax. Both the old FST and the new GST raise about $18 billion net for the Canadian treasury.
Second, if governments wanted a secret cash cow, they would keep the existing federal sales tax. Perhaps, this is the real reason that some members of the Liberals and the NDP oppose the GST. They want the so-called painless secret cash cow provided by the existing federal sales tax. The Conservative party wants an open and a visible tax so that Canadians know when they are paying for the services they receive from this government.
Three, Albertans already pay $1.7 billion in federal sales tax. Under the GST, they will pay about the same amount.
Four, regarding inflation, there is clear evidence from other countries that indicates that such a change does not create a spiral of inflation, because of the removal of the federal sales tax at the time that the new goods and services tax is introduced.
Five, regarding seniors and lower-income Canadians, the GST does not tax groceries, rent, health care and other basic necessities which compose the bulk of expenditures of these people.
Six, regarding administration for small business and for farmers, the GST tax return is but one page in length.
Seven, the GST will decrease input costs. For example, a farmer presently pays federal sales tax on the purchase of a pick-up. Under the GST, he or she will not be paying that input cost any more.
Eight, with respect to whether the eliminated FST will be passed on to consumers, we know that if one retailer

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
is slow to pass along the difference another will not be. That is the basis of economic competition in our society.
Finally, is there an alternative? Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are alternatives, but I can assure you that they are all worse in their impact on my riding, on my province, and on my country.
We could stay with the federal sales tax. We could continue to damage the economy and to eliminate thousands of jobs that never got a chance to get started. We could increase income tax. Is that what they want? They want us to increase income taxes. They want to increase other taxes. Or, we could cut out important programs like pensions. Is that what they want to do? There are always simple answers, and they do not work.
It is my view that I was not elected to simply be popular and to try to get re-elected. I believe that I was elected to make judgments and do the right thing for my riding, my province and my country. For these reasons and for many more, I will vote for the goods and services tax.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the best of luck to that hon. member. We are going to see an alternative all right, an alternative sitting in that seat after the next election.
I want to begin my remarks by saying how disappointed and disgusted I am in witnessing this continual abuse of parliamentary procedure by the Conservative government. The government has decided again to invoke closure, or time allocation as it is properly called, on almost every piece of legislation in this House.
Since I was elected, the government has moved to limit debate no less than 37 times. That is more often than any government in history since Confederation. No wonder the Conservative government is at an all-time, precedent-setting, record low of 15 per cent in the polls, and going down. Read all about it. It states in the newspapers that no other Canadian government has fallen to such levels since Gallup began polling during the Second World War. Mr. Reid states that this is a signal that Canadians think the government is adrift. Adrift, Mr. Speaker!
I rise in support of the motions moved by my colleague for Gloucester, seconded by the member for Kingston and the Islands. The motions would have the effect of deleting the most substantive portions of the bill. These portions would have the effect of putting into law the concerns raised by the Official Opposition regarding the goods and services tax.
What are those concerns, Mr. Speaker? Permit me to list them for you: that the GST is regressive; that the GST is unfair; that the GST is inflationary; that the GST will be a nightmare to administer for the government and businesses. According to the Minister of National Revenue, the start-up costs for the GST alone will be over $1 billion and will cost over $380 million to administer every year.
The legislation before us would entrench a system of taxation that would put the tax burden squarely on the shoulders of the less well off in our society.
I could not help but listen to the two hon. members earlier. The member for Calgary Southeast had the audacity to ask: "What are they doing here?", referring to the opposition. He says that we are wasting time here in the highest court of the land. But I would like to remind that hon. member for Calgary Southeast that we in the opposition represent 80 per cent of Canadians on this issue. Eighty per cent of Canadians say no GST. I suppose that the hon. member for Calgary Southeast represents the remaining 20 per cent.
Then the member for Calgary Southeast had the nerve and the audacity to call the members for Calgary Northeast and Edmonton Southeast "characters". They are Members of Parliament. They are fellow caucus members of the member for Calgary Southeast. These gentlemen, and I suppose there are other members of Parliament in there as well, know best the demands and the wishes of their constituents. They are the ones who are there in the riding. Yet the member for Calgary Southeast has the nerve to stand up and call the members for Calgary Northeast and Edmonton Southeast characters just because they are acting in the best interests of their constituents. It is their constituents who are telling their member of Parliament, the person they gave the privilege and the honour to stand in this House, to say no to the GST because that is what the
April 9, 1990

constituents want them to do. The member for Calgary Southeast calls them characters and makes idle threats: "Kick them out of caucus", he says.
Even before this second stage of the tax reform had taken shape culminating in the bill before us, the Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister, managed to raise taxes 32 separate times since taking office in 1984. The present manufacturers' sales tax, a tax which the Minister of Finance called a silent killer of jobs, was raised by him from 9 per cent in 1984 to 13.5 per cent today. Each time he raised the tax, in essence he became an accomplice to the elimination of Canadian jobs. Under the second stage of tax reform-now, there is a word, "reform". The Tories did not want to call it what it really is, they call it tax reform. A good PR job sells it better-it is becoming increasingly clear that the poor and middle classes will be hit even harder with the GST. We have heard examples of that, especially from the hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the member for Windsor West. He gave all kinds of examples of how that tax is going to hit us along the way.
Under the second stage of tax reform, this government has forgotten, but it must recognize that whatever tax system is finally put in place it must promote fairness and eradicate economic discrimination. The GST is not such a tax. It would have the opposite effect and here are a few examples. The Hamilton and District Homebuilder's Association states that the GST will add $3,000 to the price of a new home. In Metro Toronto, this could be as high as $9,000.
Due to the GST, the government expects a minimum increase in inflation of 2.25 per cent. Of course, we know that is going to signal the Bank of Canada to maintain high interest rates, adding to the cost of a new home, car, or whatever other investments.
The Conference Board of Canada estimates that the number of jobs that will be lost due to the tax could be as high as 72,000 in 1991.
If the government has its way under the changes to the unemployment insurance system, Canadians who lose their jobs, through no fault of their own, will receive less entitlement for a shorter period of time.
The tax will be a nightmare for small businesses to administer. It could cost them over $2,000 in compliance costs alone. The Conservative Government had prom-
Govemment Orders
ised an annual subsidy for small businesses, but instead has opted for a one-time allowance.
The government has also placed the onus on businesses to decide whether or not they will include the GST on the shelf price of the good, or at the cash register. If they include the GST on the shelf price, the Minister of Finance says that businesses should post signs saying that the GST has been included. However, his officials have confirmed that there is no requirement to do so, meaning that another promise has been broken that the tax would be visible.
Let us not forget the provincial sales tax. Even though the provinces stand to gain, there will be a little windfall for the provinces in applying the GST then the provincial sales tax on top of the price of the good. So the Ontario Government, for example, stands to win. This government cannot get one province on board to help administer this tax.
Canadians should remember that included in the second stage of tax reform are massive cuts to existing programs. Some of these are familiar to Canadians already. The clawback on Old Age Security, the freeze on payments to Canada Assistance Plans for the needy, withdrawal of government support for the Unemployment Insurance Program. The GST is simply part of the over all Conservative strategy to paint a misleading picture of our present situation.
In closing, as a member of the Official Opposition, I respect the fact that Canadians can and should be encourage to join in pursuit of the free market. However, I do not believe that the operation of this country should be financed on the backs of those who are least capable of paying, which is what I believe is proposed in the GST.
For the record, GST simply means "government sanctioned theft".


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to axe the tax and put in a tax that is fair.
The other day people opposing the goods and service tax decided to phone my office. I happened to be there and picked up the phone and talked to a Mrs. Carmichael. She told me how terrible this tax was. I said: "Mrs. Carmichael, we are going to axe the tax". And she said: "Oh, that is marvellous. You are going to axe the tax". I said: "We are going to axe the federal sales tax, Mrs. Carmichael". She said: "That is wonderful. Why didn't you say so?". Well, that is what I have been saying across

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
the country. That is what the whole policy is about. The policy is about getting rid of the most unfair, unCanadian piece of legislation that the government has had in force since 1924.
We have had report after report: three royal commissions. There was the Goodman study, on behalf of the hon. Marc Lalonde; a study undertaken by Mr. MacEa-chen, a study undertaken by Mr. Chretien; a study done by Mr. Turner; a study done by our present Minister of Finance; all designed to find out how they could alter the current federal sales tax and do something other than a goods and services value-added tax.
Time after time governments realized how wonderful the current tax was for them, because under this current tax when taxpayers' put their hands in their purses or wallets and take their money out, the government takes their money and they do not know it. We are going to axe that tax and we are going to put in a tax that is fair, visible, upfront, honest and works for the benefit of Canada.


Ron Fisher: It is regressive.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This tax covers the whole gambit of goods and services in the country. It is designed to be rebatable and take the burden off our industry and off our business. In the rebatable system what we do is allow business to invest in new buildings and new machinery and farms to buy new pick-up trucks, new milking machines and new things that they presently pay tax on and get that tax rebated to them so they can grow, develop, create and make a better Canada without the burden of tax on their backs. That is a 4 per cent refundable tax credit to every single developer-creator in Canada. That is what we are doing. We are building Canada.
My friends on the other side are worried about building Canada. They want to make sure that there is a weak, wimpy Canada because they are weak and wimpy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We are now at report stage of a bill that has had before it was engrossed a very thorough study across Canada by the finance committee. It has been the subject of a report. It has had a further study by the department that resulted in a bill which was brought before this House on second reading and then referred to the finance committee for further study and further amendment. A whole host of amendments were put through.
Two excellent amendments, by the way, were put by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor dealing with the benefits to credit unions and psychoanalysts, an exempt profession. These are good amendments that were put forward by the member for Essex-Windsor.
It is too bad members of the Official Opposition could not get around to doing any thinking on the bill because they too probably could have come up with some more amendments that were worth while. But, what did they do? Their amendments before us today simply say: axe this section, axe that section, get rid of that clause, get rid of the other clause, but there is nothing progressive, no creative thinking.
I recommend to the House tonight the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga West dealing with the horse racing industry and with the ability of charities and others to run bingos so that that kind of fund raising on behalf of charities bears no tax. These are the kinds of amendments that have come out of hard work done by members of this House in changing, persuading and ameliorating the problems of this tax to make it work better.
I want to thank members of the finance committee who worked on it, my colleagues from Mississauga West, from Essex-Windsor and others for the efforts in making the bill work the way it ought to work, because it is a pretty simple form of taxation.
I am told it is awfully complicated. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in a simplistic way all you have to do is put two nails on the wall. On the one nail, you put all the bills you received for everything you buy, and on the other nail put all the invoices you have for everything you sell. Then once every three months or once a month, depending on how often a small business wishes, they simply subtract one pile of bills from the other pile of bills, multiply by 6.54, and that is what they send in. That is as simple as you can get.
April 9, 1990


Ron Fisher: What about those who have nothing to sell?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If you have nothing to sell, you create nothing. Then you pay the tax because you are a consumer and consumers pay consumption taxes.
We have a philosophy of taxation on this side and that philosophy is: as far as income is concerned we ought to tax income, we ought to tax work, but not so much as to persuade people who work that it is not worth their while to work. That is why we have managed over a period of time to reduce our income tax rates. We have to do more of that, but we have reduced income tax rates as we did in stage one of tax reform.
We have to tax capital, but not so much as to make investment unfair or inappropriate. We have done that as we have worked, bit by bit, through amending the Income Tax Act and other statutes. Here we are reorganizing our consumption tax in such a way that we get growth in consumption tax activity instead of the negative attitudes that have been expressed in the existing federal sales tax. This tax creates a new growth attitude in Canada, a growth attitude of 1.4 per cent above the existing base case, that improves Canada and makes it bigger, grander, and finer.
It creates an additional $9 billion worth of new wealth in the second year of the tax and probably more. They say it is going to cost us $300 million in additional costs. I guess I would spend $3 to make $90 any day. That is what we are talking about when we talk about costs.
Where are we? We are in the final stages of a debate in this House of Commons to change a tax system that Canadians have been asking to have changed since the Rowell-Sirois report of 1940. No government has had enough guts, drive or initiative to do what has been necessary.
You do not rule by the Gallup poll. You do not govern by the Gallup poll. You govern by election, and we presented to the people of this country our alternative for sales tax reform in the White Paper of 1987. That White Paper formed the basis on which we went to the country in 1988, and the country endorsed this party as the government. It is on that endorsement that this policy is now before us here, in final form, endorsed by the people of Canada in the election of 1988.
Government Orders


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Give us a break.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This is a simple form of taxation. Even Mr. Bulloch will be able to figure it out when he gets around to it.


An Hon. Member:: Don't count on it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says "Don't count on it", but I have to say that even Mr. Bulloch will figure it out. Once it is in place I believe we will have the provinces of this country joining up in this tax system. Sure, it is unpopular now. Sure, we are unpopular, doing the tough things that have to be done, but we are trying to make Canada grow and we are building a nation. We are not building a society of wimps and weasels, and wastrels.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is an unexpected pleasure to be able to speak after the hon. member for Mississauga South. As I listened to him I knew I was listening to someone who was so absolutely out of touch with the Canadian people that he could say that public dissatisfaction with this GST is actually diminishing. The member is radically and completely out of touch with the Canadian people. Of course the tax is unpopular. Any tax is bound to be unpopular. It is not a question of whether the tax is in itself is unpopular, because obviously there is a natural tendency for tax to be unpopular.
However this particular tax is unpopular for a deep and fundamental reason. The member fails to read history. What history says is that over and over again governments, administrations and regimes that fail to listen bring in a tax which cracks the system and forces change. Every major revolution over the last 200 years or 300 years has been triggered by an unpopular and unnecessary tax. I suspect, unless this government listens more carefully in the hours, weeks and months ahead, what we are seeing now is a fundamental radical realteration of the Canadian political landscape.
I spent last weekend in my home constituency, as did most members. In Victoria I was impressed not only with the amount of the opposition to the GST but the underlying sense of bitterness and despair that we have a government in Canada that simply will not listen to the Canadian people. This government has learned as a result of the 1988 election a mistaken lesson. It learned

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
then that it could recover from unpopularity if it just hung in there.
It is now trying to apply that lesson to the current situation. It has been advised by tax advisors who simply fail to understand that a tax system is an intricate system of social economic relationships. To tinker in a fundamental way as this tax does is to set loose major tremors through the whole economic system at a time when the Canadian economy simply cannot take it. For example, the government and its advisors, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have said over and over again that this tax will not be inflationary. They have studies to prove it. Already the people are understanding more than the government knows, that this tax is going to be dramatically inflationary at a time in our economy when we cannot stand it.
I have a tax notice that a senior citizen received in Victoria. The tax notice is for a tax increase of 17 per cent that comes into force on July 1 of this year. The landlord, in explaining the tax increase, says it is because of the GST. We know that workers across this country are beginning to gear their wage demands to take into account the effect of inflation. We know that prices are already beginning to be jacked up in anticipation of the GST. Real estate prices are going up in anticipation of the GST. The people know that this tax is going to be inflationary.
Why won't the government listen? This weekend we had what was called the no campaign. People had an opportunity in more than 500 communities across Canada to vote on the GST. Certainly in Victoria they came out in amazing numbers. People of all persuasions, of all points of view, were united around a single clear message, and that is no to the GST. As I emphasized before, it is not simply a reaction to being taxed more. When one has a chance to sit and chat carefully with the people who are signing these cards, one uncovered a range of attitudes. In some cases it was a negative feeling toward any increased taxation. In many cases it was thoughtful, careful business people who have studied this and who are worried and afraid of the impact of this tax on their business and the administrative chaos that is going to ensue.
I talked to a couple who are involved in the clothing business in Victoria and Vancouver. They already find
that the retail prices in Washington, just south of the border, equal their wholesale prices. They worry about what the GST will do to them.
There was another couple who had a business. They looked into the administrative aspects of this and found there were tremendous complications in collection that this is going to cause. Another man has been a Conservative all his life. He was feeling a sense of tension and anxiety at the cheating that he says will happen in his particular business. He does not want to do that. He says that, in competition, he is going to be forced to do that, or he is going to be forced out of business.
These are genuine concerns. They are based on life-long experience and this government should listen. There will be hundreds of thousands of Canadians over this weekend who will sign these cards. They will take the special effort of signing a card and filing it, and asking the government to say no to the GST. It is not too late for the government to listen.
I suggest that in mere self-preservation the government must begin to listen to the people of Canada. The member for Mississauga South made a virtue of acting in the face of public opinion polls, and certainly there are circumstances under which those acts of political courage are necessary. But this is an act of arrogance and foolhardiness, pushing forward with this tax in the face of the collective wisdom of the Canadian people.
It is now very clear that the impact of this tax is felt most strongly among those who have spent their lives as Conservatives, who have been supporters through thick and thin of this Conservative party. It is ironic that it is the Conservative party which is now seen by so many people as leading this country into disintegration and disarray. This was the party that founded Canada in many respects, that had that initial, historic vision.
It is now the party that is perceived by many of its own supporters as dividing and causing the disintegration of this country. We have the free trade agreement. We have the litany that we have been raising in this House over the last number of months; the disintegration of social programs, unemployment insurance, seniors' programs. We have had in recent months and weeks the elimination of funding for women's programs, a clear and absolute violation of the responsibility of this government.
April 9, 1990

Now we find that this party, which was elected back in 1957 and 1958 on the campaign for the freedom of Parliament and against closure, has used closure to impose this unpopular, unfair, dishonest tax on the Canadian people. The GST is part of the Americanization of Canada. The government is refusing to see that we have, in this country, a distinctive social and economic system which needs changing in a different way than that the government takes us.
This government moves us increasingly into an integration with the American economy. We must have a tax system that reflects the essential social democracy of this country which is fair, honest and open. The government's refusal to listen to the Canadian people will mean the end of a Canadian institution. I must say I do not spend too much time worrying about the fate of the Conservative party, but it is an institution which has played a part in keeping this country together.
What is happening in Victoria is happening in community after community across the country. The Reform Party for example, in my riding, has now signed up 800 members. Clearly, from the impression I had on the weekend, it has replaced the Conservative party as the voice of conservativism in western Canada.
That means that western Canada is now represented by a sectarian party which does not and cannot properly represent all Canadians. But it is a symptom of the disease which has been inflicted on this country by the Conservative party.
I call on the House to reject this bill, to reject this tax and I call on the government to pause once before it crosses the brink. It is not too late. The Canadian people must be listened to. The Canadian people will be listened to.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to participate in what I hope is near the end of a lengthy process of reforming the tax system which this government began about five years ago. I have been part of that process for most of that time. Over the course of that time we have seen more misinformation, hysteria and nonsense on this subject than perhaps any other that has ever been
Government Orders
discussed, with the possible exception of the free trade debate during the last election campaign.
I took the time yesterday to find one of the tabloids that I used in the last election campaign because I wanted to make sure that what I was doing here on this subject was consistent with what I was doing in the election campaign. I took that tabloid out. I have it here and it has a nice picture of me and one of the Prime Minister and some senior citizens. It talks about free trade and has some information about that. But what is important is what is on the back here-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Show us what is on the back. There is another picture there too.


Murray Dorin: That is right. There is another picture. There is a picture of myself and the Minister of Finance. He was the Minister of Finance then and he is now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member knows that he should not be using any of his props. I do not wish to see any props in this House, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest has the floor.
The hon. member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair on a point of order.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a picture album of himself. Since that is a document to which he is referring, I would ask that it be tabled for the benefit of other members of the House.


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


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than glad to table it. But before I table it I will quote something from it. It talks about tax reform. It says the following.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: First, the hon. member will not be able to table it. Second, I would appreciate if he would just leave it on his desk and quote from it there.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. What I said in that document was that tax reform is an issue in this election. That of course was the last election. We had completed the first stage which was income tax reform, corporate and personal. I was talking about the second stage of tax reform because we had completed the first stage:

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
The second stage of tax reform will be the development of a better and fairer sales tax regime. The inadequacies of the present federal sales tax system are widely recognized; it is complex, hidden, unfair to lower-income Canadians, impedes the ability of Canadian firms to compete internationally, and is too narrowly-based. The present tax applies to only about one-third of the goods and services produced in Canada.
Changing the federal tax system is a very complex process. This government is committed to developing and implementing sales tax changes in full consultation with the provinces, the business community and individual Canadians. The government is continuing to work with the provinces-
Reform of the sales tax system will ensure that the revenue obtained will replace those of the old manufacturers' sales tax and will be accompanied by a significantly enriched sales tax credit-It will be designed to reduce the complexity, ensure the fair treatment of all businesses and eliminate both the inequities and competitive disadvantages that are a basic part of the current tax regime.
The government is also committed to ensuring that municipalities, hospitals, school boards, colleges and universities will not bear a greater tax burden under the new system and that basic groceries, prescription drugs and certain medical devices will not be subject to tax.
Those were my comments during the election campaign. I distributed 40,000 copies of that document in my constituency. I gave every elector in my constituency an opportunity to see what we were planning to do when we returned to office, as we were, because the people chose wisely and they recognized that this was a government with a platform, plan and vision.
What we are doing here today is implementing exactly what we said we were going to do in the last election campaign, exactly what I said we were going to do as stated in 40,000 copies of a tabloid that I distributed throughout my constituency.
Over the course of the last several months, we have heard from a lot of people who have talked about this particular tax. I would just like to let you know what some of them have had to say. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said:
We do not favour the maintenance of the current manufacturers' sales tax. Its serious flaws have been well documented and need not be repeated here. We do support 1he concept of a value-added tax as a vehicle that could serve as the best replacement mechanism -
Some people might be interested to hear what Shirley Carr of the Canadian Labour Congress had to say. She said:
I should add that the Canadian Labour Congress has long been critical of the existing federal sales tax which is hidden, unfair, and economically destructive tax.
She was accompanied by Bob Baldwin, director of technical services. Ele said:
Within the realm of multi-stage taxes, there are all kinds of design options-We have not said we are opposing multi-stage taxes in principle.
Maybe we should talk about Mr. Bulloch because he had some things to say. Some members were quoting him earlier. I asked Mr. Bulloch the question: "Do you agree there is a problem with the existing federal sales tax that needs to be resolved? Is that true?". He said: "Yes". Then he said: "Everybody out there would like to have an alternative to a multi-stage sales tax. The trouble is, one is not out there".
Let us hear what some other people had to say. Mr. Alasdair McKichan, president of the Retail Council of Canada said:
Our members are firmly of the opinion that the current MST is outmoded and inefficient in a great many ways. We acknowledge it must be replaced and that the economy and the revenue needs of the government would best be served by a comprehensive goods and services tax along the lines of the type we are now considering.
I will give another example. Mr. Michael Geller, president of the Urban Development Institute said:
Our position is that the sales tax reform is necessary to reduce the deficit, to improve the over-all fairness of the tax system, and to ensure that Canada can compete effectively in the world. We will support a GST which will contribute to the realization of these goals.
Because there are many members who have automotive plants in their ridings, I will quote Mr. T. Mezon, Government Relations Committee of the Automotive Industries Association of Canada:
As a representative of the manufacturing sector of our association, let me say that we are in agreement with the proposed GST We think that the current FST has been an unfair burden for the Canadian manufacturer.
Mr. Roy M. Woodbridge, president of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association said:
I can tell you pretty categorically that if you got a roomful of our members and asked them, taking the good and the bad all together, how many are in favour of this, you would have about 98 percent raising their hands in favour.
I could go on and on because I have a long list here, but I know that I am out of time, so I will thank you and allow the next speaker to continue.
April 9, 1990


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, and it is night, it is six o'clock and supper hour, to say that I am against Bill C-62 and will vote against it. Every consumer sitting around their kitchen table can say that the food on that table will not be taxed because it is a necessity. But next year every consumer in Canada will pay an additional 7 per cent on everything else in the kitchen.
The minister can talk about his 13.5 per cent-maybe he thinks he can fool some Canadians, but obviously he has not fooled 80 per cent of Canadians. The manufacturers' sales tax, or the federal sales tax, as the minister should be aware, is only on some goods. I do not say that it was a good tax. But I certainly do not think that the goods and service tax is a good tax when you think that everybody is going to pay 7 per cent on all goods and services, except on basic necessities such as food and medicine.
There are several reasons why I dislike this tax. One, it is regressive. It makes the lower income Canadians pay. I think there are other areas where this government could have looked to reclaim some money from Canadians- but I will come to that. It affects every low income Canadian, whether they are a student, unemployed, a widow, or single woman or man in their 50s, everybody. It means they will have to find 7 per cent more next year to buy the same thing that they bought with their income this year, except for some of the major items such as a car and they are still going to have to pay 7 per cent on a car.
The other thing is that it is inflationary. We are asking the people to find 7 per cent more in their income. It means higher wages and it also means, in my opinion, fewer jobs. There will be less incentive to buy come the beginning of the year until people get used to this tax. Next year they will need more money to do what they did this year.
The government says: "Oh, well, we are giving a credit to Canadians". I agree, they are giving a credit to Canadians. There has been a federal sales tax credit in the income tax system for the last three years. I have never heard statistics on how many Canadians filed income tax returns when they did not pay income tax nor have to pay income tax. I can only say that my constituency offices have many people who have never had to fill out an income tax return, and there are many people
Government Orders
who not even know that that credit has been there for the last three income tax years. As well, it means they must file an income tax credit in order to start receiving the credit next December. That means every Canadian.
It would be very amazing to me, a politician, to think that every Canadian will have enough awareness to know that they must file that income tax return in order to qualify for that credit. It takes a long time for people to get used to it. There is always an injury to Canadians until they get used it.


Mary Catherine Clancy: That's right.


Coline M. Campbell: The collection from the individual taxpayer is one thing but there is another element. It is only partially indexed. The National Council on Social Welfare estimates that a partial indexation of the goods and service tax credit will result in 100,000 families losing the credit within two years, and some 700,000 within five years. The Canadian Tax Journal tells us that 46 per cent of Canadian families earning less than $30,000 will pay more taxes in 1991, contrary to the government's argument as to the fairness of the goods and service tax.
The Minister of Finance says it will increase inflation by a factor of 1.25 per cent. That is his statistic. That is a government statistic. Many economists say that that is a very optimistic figure.
I see many other consequences that we do not have time to talk about here. I do know that next January there will be more bartering among people, and I cannot say that I am against it. Why not avoid the 7 per cent? Why not allow the poor or lower income Canadians to barter? I am certain that the higher income Canadians will go to the United States for services and the government will not get the 7 per cent. Why do I say that? If I were going to plan a trip to the United States, I would write to an American travel agency rather than pay the 7 per cent here for the same service. With the free trade agreement it could not be prevented because the United States would tell us that we were interfering with their way of work. I can see many areas where the government will lose the benefit of passing this goods and services tax.
I know we are under a 10 minute rule for speeches under closure and this is one of the last times to debate this bill. Tomorrow night at this time we will be voting on third reading. Contrary to what 80 per cent of Canadians may feel, by tomorrow night at this time the House will

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
not have the power to change anything in that bill unless it is returned to us from the Senate.
I say to the 80 per cent of Canadians, as a person who understands politics, there is only one way to make your voice heard between now and tomorrow night. My constituents have certainly written to tell me they are against the goods and services tax. I can only say to them, find the telephone number of your member of Parliament. Find out where his or her office is and make sure you report your feelings on the goods and services tax.
All weekend I heard: "Well, if 80 per cent of Canadians are against it, how can it pass?" It is a very real thing in our parliamentary system that we have a government which has a majority and the majority is going to pass this bill.
We have heard why it is a simple tax and why there are no other alternatives the government has wanted to look at, and I will get to those alternatives if I have a minute. I tell the Canadian people that a majority means that regardless of the feelings of constituents the government is going to pass this 7 per cent tax. I can only say to Canadians, get on the phone, go visit your MP's office by tomorrow night at six o'clock, and register your concern in their offices, at their desks.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Hear, hear!


Coline M. Campbell: That is your last chance-except of course in the next election. It can easily be done at that time but it is better to do it now so that the tax is not put into place.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The electorate will remember.


Coline M. Campbell: What are the alternatives? The government could have kept the federal sales tax, or it could have done away with it as people have said. It could have used the our income tax system as it is today by increasing the income tax levels of the three groups. But the government does not want to do that. It wants to bring in a 7 per cent consumption tax, a regressive tax. It could have gone to the single tax-as my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has said- which has a lot of support across Canada from both businesses and economists. It could have closed existing loopholes, such as changing the capital cost allowance, as I have said before, so that it reflects a true replacement
cost. It could tax real capital income including capital gains.
At least these would be affecting the higher income earners rather than the lower income and the poor people of Canada. It could have gone after the business meals and entertainment deduction that tax specialists have said is a big loophole, a billion dollar loophole and growing.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that my time is ending and that I have two minutes.
I want to get very parochial because as a maritimer, as an Atlantic Canadian, a Canadian coming from the eastern part of Canada, there are other things that this tax does. It will affect our tourism trade.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Will it ever!


Coline M. Campbell: Yes, they can get a refund as they leave the country, but 7 per cent on top of everything else is very negative to tourists coming to Canada. It is certainly a better thing for the Canadians to go to the United States and not have to pay the 7 per cent on the goods and services there. I am sure there will be an exchange of tourism, but we will be going to the United States to buy instead of paying the tax here.
The other thing it does is to put a negative on transporting goods from the east to the Ontario market. We are going to have to add on an additional 7 per cent to our transportations costs, which in light of some of the things that have happened in the past few months, have gone up.
I know that my time has run out. I thank you for your endurance. I would only say that I think the government should reflect hard and long before bringing this bill in for third reading tomorrow. I think that the people in Canada should get busy and tell their representatives that they have a majority and they are abusing it.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to participate in this debate today because I think it is important that we set this particular item in the context of what the government has been doing for the last several years.
We know that one of the difficulties facing Canada is that we may not be competitive down the road. If we look at what this government has tried to do over the last five
April 9, 1990

and a half years, most of those actions have been designed to make Canada a competitive country so we could enjoy the social programs that we all desire.
Take for example, the Foreign Investment Review Act.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Take it, please!


William C. Winegard: People said: "You have got to watch that. Don't let any of that foreign money in."


Mary Catherine Clancy: We've sold the country. Let it go.


William C. Winegard: FIRA has gone, and the reason FIRA has gone is that we want to make Canada competitive. We welcome foreign capital.
Another example is the National Energy Program. I often hear what a marvellous thing the National Energy Program was for my province of Ontario. We know what damage it did to the west, but it also severely damaged my own province of Ontario. Let me explain. It damaged it because with the cheap energy, lower than world prices, Ontario industry became lazy. Ontario industry did not have to use their heads because they had the option of cheap energy. That was no favour to my province. The National Energy Program was bad for the whole country. That is why we got rid of it, to make Canada competitive.
With the free trade agreement, people wanted to draw the wagons around in a circle. They would prefer to have us trade only interprovincially. They did not want to have us get out and trade with the rest of the world. They said it would cost us jobs, and it would be terrible. The fact is that since it came in, 200,000-odd jobs have been created since January of 1989. Of course, they are not all due to the free trade agreement, but the net result has been positive.
We look at some of the other things that this government has tried to do. With deregulation we are trying to make Canada competitive with the rest of the world, and that is really what the GST is all about. When you have a 13.5 per cent manufacturers' sales tax, a tax that hurts Canadian industry and everyone agrees in this House that that is a bad tax-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Not as bad as the GST.


William C. Winegard: -then you have to do something about it. When you have 22,000 exemptions to the current federal sales tax, you have to do something about it.
Government Orders
When your exemptions complicate the issue so much that you really do not know which way you are going, left or right, you had better do something about it. When you look at what we have in terms of our exports, every export in this country is penalized because of the current manufacturers' sales tax. The rate is somewhere perhaps between 1 per cent and 3 per cent. People say: "Well, if you are only penalizing your exports by 1 per cent or 3 per cent, what is that?" That represents something between 10 and 30 per cent of the total profit that the exporters are dealing with. That is another reason why you have to get rid of the manufacturers' sales tax.
There is a company in Guelph that operates a manufacturing section as well as an import section. The president of that corporation says to me: "Why would you continue with the current system? All you do is penalize me for manufacturing in Canada, because when I move to import things, I do not have to charge on that price for the sales tax, my distribution system, my importing system, and all those things. It is easier for me to import than it is to manufacture, so we have got to get rid of the manufacturers' sales tax."
Most people in this House have said over the past few days that they would like to get rid of the manufacturers' sales tax. We have had it for 64 years and we all recognize it is doing us damage. We have had the royal commissions and we have had statements by governments over the last 40 years about it but we have not done anything. How long do we go on putting something off that decreases the fundamental thing we need in Canada, namely, being competitive?
That is the thrust of most of the things that this government has tried to do. We are taking one more step in getting rid of those things that get in the way of making Canada a truly competitive trading nation. From all the things that were said during the free trade debate and those things that have been said in this House over the last several days we must enhance our trading position or we will not have the things that Canadians want.
We have got to get rid of the manufacturers' sales tax. No one questions that now, not even the members of the opposition but that is where the agreement stops. They would like something different. They say it is a tax that other people do not have.

April 9, 1990
Government Orders


Mary Catherine Clancy: We did not say we didn't have it; we said we didn't want it.


William C. Winegard: There are 49 other countries in the world that have this goods and services tax. If this is such a terribly regressive tax why do those other countries manage to do quite well with it?
I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the House talk about tourism and how bad it is for tourism. You had better tell some of the countries in Europe that. Obviously they do not understand it because their tourism is doing quite well and they all have the goods and services tax. There are 49 other countries, Mr. Speaker, with this tax.


Mary Catherine Clancy: And there are riots in Britain, riots in the streets.


William C. Winegard: I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say: "Whack it to them in income tax." They do not understand how much income tax would have to go up if that were done. That would again drive people out of this country, the people who are trying to put their money in to make the country go. I hear them say: "Oh, well, if you would tax the corporations more! Why do you not sock it to the corporations more?" We have done a lot of that over the last several years.
You heard the Minister of State for Finance talking today about the things we have done in terms of removing some of the tax loopholes which were used by corporations. We will continue to look at all those things.
What some of the opposition members really want is to sock the corporations so that they become uncompetitive with the rest of the world.


Ron Fisher: Tax the poor!


William C. Winegard: That makes no sense. They want to drive the wealth-makers out. They do not understand how you create wealth. You create wealth by having corporations do new things, make new products and bring more funding into Canada. They do not understand that. All they understand is killing the corporations because they are nice things to attack. Corporations are not really people so you attack the corporations. If we drive the corporations out of Canada then we will not have the wealth that we all want, to have a Canada such as we really want.
I have heard that they want to talk about capital gains. Let's hit all those capital gains. What this government has done is put a limit on capital gains. It has also changed the rate at which capital gains are charged in terms of tax remittance. I do not think we should go any further. If you do not allow people who want to take a risk with their money to have some benefit from that, then you are not going to have the risk-takers in Canada. You will have the people who want to sit on their hands and clip their coupons and that is not going to do us any good. You have to have risk-takers. You do not have risk-takers if you don't let them keep something of what they take the risk for. But no. I know all my colleagues want to share the wealth-I know whose wealth they want to share. They want to share the wealth of the risk-takers and yet they do not want to take the risk themselves.
I have heard about this tax being regressive and terrible. A GST that exempts basic groceries, a GST that exempts residential rents is not a regressive tax when you then give back to the lower-income groups in the form of a tax credit that differential that they are going to have to pay.
One of the things we will do is make sure people apply-


Ron Fisher: If they apply.


William C. Winegard: -because we will have the advertising and will put slips in with their Old Age Security envelopes to say: "Please apply to do this". Listen to the beasts when we do. They will say: "You are advertising. You are doing terrible things". We will inform the people of this country about what they need to do to have their tax credit.


Ron Fisher: So will we.


William C. Winegard: They are already getting their tax credit and they will get a larger one. So this tax is not, I repeat, not a regressive tax.
Some people tell me that the 13.5 per cent will not come off. They are living in a different world than I am. The competition that is coming from the free trade agreement, the competition coming from Europe '92 will ensure that corporations which do not take it off will not be in business. It will be as simple as that. But we also have the Department of Consumer and Corporate
April 9, 1990	COMMONS
Affairs doing its very best to ensure that people are notified if the tax does not come off.


Mary Catherine Clancy: John Diefenbaker would not like this tax.


William C. Winegard: I have spoken to both the President of General Motors and the President of Ford. They can hardly wait until this is law so they can reduce their prices. That is exactly what they want to do, so they can compete better with others.


Ron Fisher: So they can reduce their costs.


William C. Winegard: As the Prime Minister said the other day: "We could take the easy way out. We could take the way out that every government has done for years, do nothing." We do not intend to do that. We intend to make Canada a competitive country. This is one more block in our story to do that.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the amendments that are before us, most of which were put to this House by our finance critic, the member from Gloucester. The hon. member has worked very diligently, not just on behalf of the members of this caucus, but on behalf of all Canadians, in trying to show this government the folly of its ways in this piece of political nonsense called the goods and services tax.
This particular group of amendments that have been put in this piece of legislation should be worthy of considerable debate. They were worthy of considerable debate in the committee studying this piece of legislation.
Once again, I find myself rising and speaking on behalf of over 80 per cent of Canadians. I think it is probably 87 per cent today. We know it is at least 85 per cent. If you take 100 and take the 15 per cent of Canadians who now support the Conservative party, you are left with at least 85 per cent that do not. I would suspect that those 85 per cent have seen the error of the ways of this government and have decided that they can no longer support it no matter where they live in this country because of the government's arrogant fiscal policies it has tried to foist upon the Canadian public.
The debate tonight on these amendments is limited. We know the Canadian public wants to see a full and thorough debate on this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is singularly the most unpopular piece of legislation ever foisted upon the Canadian public by its
Government Orders
own government. It is a crazy piece of legislation. The government will see the next time it goes to the electorate that it will pay the price for not listening to the Canadian public.
In the report stage of this legislation, we have seen the government do what it has done at every stage of debate on this legislation. It has imposed time allocation. This government has imposed time allocation, over and over and over again, for fear that the more opposition members stand up here and speak on behalf of the majority of Canadians, the 85 or 87 per cent that are saying no to this GST, that there will be more members opposite who will wake up and smell the roses, listen to their constituents and do what they are elected to do, namely, to represent the views and interests of their constituents.
We have already seen what happens when you have freedom of thought and free expression on the other side. You get kicked out of certain rooms and certain caucuses to sit by yourself.
I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this particular piece of legislation that we are debating at report stage today is a piece of legislation that Canadians have decided must not, and will not, go through.
I have travelled this country from coast to coast. On one particular day I stood at the ferry terminal in Dartmouth on the Atlantic Ocean and saw over 2,000 individuals who told me that they wanted me to come to this place and tell this government "no" to this goods and services tax.
That very afternoon I was in the city of Calgary-Tory country. I talked to people in Calgary who had never voted anything but Progressive Conservative in their lives. They told me that they would never, ever, vote- their right arm would fall off before they would vote -for these people opposite because they felt betrayed. They felt betrayed because this government had put a policy in effect or tried to called the goods and services tax, which is completely contrary to their wishes, and what they said was completely contrary to even Tory philosophy.
Later that afternoon I was in downtown Vancouver. There, I stood shoulder to shoulder with Canadians from various parts of British Columbia who were collecting names on a petition, to try to show this government the

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
folly of its ways, to say no to the goods and services tax, but this government has not yet listened.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, after the government picked up the paper today and saw that it is the most unpopular government in the history of this country, it is going to have to start listening to Canadians.
The goods and services tax is not the only bad piece of fiscal policy that this government has tried to foist upon Canadians. This is perhaps the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. In the last number of years we have seen a government that talked about tax fairness, sacred trust, and social policy over and over again, flip-flop on its positions on fiscal and social policy.
Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that this is the government that partly de-indexed the old age pensions. I saw the Deputy Prime Minister in the Chamber a few minutes ago. He was the very man who stood up and said that the government supported a strong national railway from coast to coast. These are the very people who have dismembered our national railway from coast to coast in this country. They destroyed the national railway system when they dismembered VIA Rail.
This is the government that talked such a good game about regional development. The Prime Minister made much to do about nothing-now we find out-when he announced $1.05 billion for ACOA. Subsequent to that and subsequent to November, 1988, we saw this government completely withdraw its support and commitment. It is an age-old commitment that governments in Canada have given to regional development.
We have seen a government which has mismanaged not just the fisheries- I get up all the time, as do my colleagues, trying to shake some sense into those people opposite about the fisheries-but it has also mismanaged its agricultural sector into a state of complete chaos and collapse.
This is the government that talked about how consensus-building could work. This is the very government that went and told the poorest provinces of this country that they could not get what it expected from Established Programs Financing; the very funds that provinces like Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island rely on for their national
standards; for post-secondary educational institutions and health care. This is the government that did that.
This is the government that in the last budget lost all sense of propriety and withdrew funding that subsequently shut down women's centres from coast to coast in this country. This is the very government that used to have its Minister of State for Indian and Northern Affairs stand up and talk about all the wonderful things it was doing for aboriginal communities. Yet in this budget it cut the very funding for Native Friendship Centres from coast to coast.


Coline M. Campbell: And newspapers.


Ronald MacDonald: This is the government that has come forward and devastated veterans programs. There is nothing sacred any more. Everybody and every group is a target. This government does not know where to stop in its crazy pursuit of trying to get hold of its fiscal house because it does not know where it is heading and it does not know where it is coming from.
These are the very people that were telling seniors; "No, you are not the senior veterans who need those special programs for veterans affairs to help with their cleaning in the house". It is telling them now: "You must bear a disproportionate share of the burden that we have created as a Conservative government when we doubled your national debt between 1984 and 1989".
This is the very government that said it had a spending commitment, a spending priority, and that the funds were committed for a national system of child care from coast to coast in the country. The day after the electorate put its faith in this government, it flip-flopped and decided that it was not going to have a national child care program.
This is the government that went in 1984 to the Canadian electorate and said to those men and women who serve and have served this country greatly in international defence forces that it supported the national armed forces of the country and that it recognized the commitment of those men and women. The government came into this Chamber with a White Paper on defence and, as soon as the electorate got suckered into giving it
April 9, 1990

another term in office, it completely gutted the White Paper. It closed bases from coast to coast.
Not only that, but how many times in debate did we hear about the Polar 8 ice-breaker? It was on, and then it was changed. Then it was modified, and then it was put off. Not even the protestations of the member for Capilano-Howe Sound, who is the Associate Minister of National Defence, and the tears she could cry, could show the government the error of its ways. It cancelled that program as well.
On 33 occasions the government has come into this place and raised taxes for Canadians. It came in with a goods and services tax that it pretends is going to be revenue neutral. It pretends it is going to be simple. It pretends it is going to be fair. It pretends it is going to be single tiered.
The Prime Minister, when he is faced with 85 per cent opposition and 15 per cent standing in the polls, shows his typical arrogance in standing in the House, I believe he did it today, and saying: "Well we know that we are doing the right thing. What counts is what the votes are on election day."
What is going to count for the Prime Minister is what he is going to do after the next election outside politics. The Canadian people have placed their trust in this government's capabilities to manage the affairs of the country and to live up to their promises for the last time. The history books will record that the goods and services tax, this regressive tax, this assault on the wallets of the Canadian taxpayers, was the final nail in the coffin of the Mulroney government.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate today.
The member who just spoke talked about how he was going to talk about all those amendments that members of the Liberal Party has proposed to this legislation so that they could improve it because they did not like it. He talked about everything but, and I guess that is why he is called the member from Dartmouth: because he has used his mouth to dart all over the place but he did not talk about the legislation itself. I find that rather disturbing because I think he should have.
Not only did he not talk about the legislation that is in front of us today, but I listened to other members make their pitches on the legislation. They said what they like
Government Orders
about it and what they did not like about it. Again, we have had some very good comments from some members of the House and some comments that are, if I might say, misleading from others.
This morning before I came to Ottawa I met with a group of seniors in my riding. There were about 25 of them. They probably reflect many of the same opinions as many seniors across Canada. They reflected opinions based on information that had been given to them to a degree by people in opposition who chose to give them the wrong information. Therefore, naturally, there are 85 per cent of Canadians opposed to it. I am surprised, with the information out there from those in opposition, that it is not 90 per cent or 95 per cent of Canadians opposed to the legislation.
I watched the debates here in the House. I would like to give you some examples, Mr. Speaker, of some of the things that have been said.
The member for Hamilton West chastised the government because the legislation did not require visibility of the tax. I take it he is not upset with the 7 per cent. He is not upset with all the contents of the tax. He just does not like it because it is not visible. Either he has not read the legislation or he needs an explanation.
I will give him the explanation so that he can very clearly understand what the legislation states. In fact Bill C-62 requires that the vendor-the store or shopkeeper, the business or whoever-must clearly indicate to the purchaser that the tax is included in its price. It must indicate 7 per cent in a sign or some mechanism somewhere in the store or, second, the actual amount of the tax has to be shown. That is in the legislation, and it is exactly opposite to the comments being expressed by that member. What that member wants us to do is: he wants us to go to the small business community, that community that he feels his party supposedly represents, that community that Mr. Bulloch represents, and force all those small businesses, those small mom and pop shops, those people who have small cash registers, to buy new cash register equipment. He wants us to force them to buy new point of sale equipment. He wants us to force them to go to IBM and buy those deluxe computers that really are not necessary because under our system of GST, under the legislation that we have, we are allowing businesses some freedom to indicate to their customers exactly how the tax is being applied.

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
That is a government that listens. That is a government that cares. That is certainly more than what the Liberals do. The Liberals talks a great show until they get to perform in office, and we know what happened when they performed in office. During election campaigns they say one thing and, lo and behold, after the election campaign is over they are doing exactly the opposite. They govern by public opinion polls. The end result is that we had a $38 billion deficit because they promised everything that every person wanted. They did not care about where the money was coming from.
I am happy to say that I am a member of the government that does care. The essence of visibility is there in the legislation.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie rose in this House and claimed that music lessons would be taxed at 7 per cent. I am not necessarily going to say that he was totally wrong, because if somebody out there somewhere wants to take lessons on how to play the spoons or a washboard, yes, those things will probably be taxed. If you want to take formalized lessons, if you want to take lessons as part of a conservatory of music, things that lead to various grade levels of education in music, all those lessons are tax exempt. Did the member say that?
In my constituency there are not many people taking lessons on how to play the spoons or the washboard or some other beautiful instrument that the hon. member thinks is taxable, but I have an awful lot of constituents, whether they be children or adults, who are taking those conservatory music lessons, and they will not be taxed. That is not what the member for Sault Ste. Marie said.
This morning in my meeting with the seniors in my riding they talked about the tax on cable TV companies. They have been told that the tax on the cable TV fees is going up 7 per cent. Yes, there will be a 7 per cent GST levied on cable TV bills. I note that the same member for Sault Ste. Marie made comment about the fact that cable TV services will be going up 7 per cent. What he did not say in his presentation was that the 11 per cent communication tax was being removed. If you want to start making comparisons, I think you have to give all the information.
The fact of the matter is that the information he did not give was that the communication tax was coming off; 11 per cent off and 7 per cent on. In the math that I was
taught it tells you that you are 4 per cent better off. In Sault Ste. Marie that might be different.
We had the member for South West Nova carry on with a great presentation. She talked about the federal sales tax, that it is only on some goods. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you know that when you go and buy a head of lettuce in the store, or whether you buy fish that were caught by some fisherman in Newfoundland, some lumber from British Columbia, some agricultural products from people here in Ontario or a car that was produced in Ontario, there are taxes on all those things. The list goes on. She says it is only on some products when literally everything in this country has the federal sales tax. Of course the member for South West Nova did not want to say that. She wanted to ignore that particular comment.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Ignorance is bliss.


René John Soetens: The member for Egmont made terrible comments about the poor farmers of this country and how they are going to be hurt by this tax. Again, it is very easy not to use all the information available, which is how members of the opposition operate.
Farmers and all the products of farming and fishing as a matter of fact have been zero rated. They will get back the taxes that are applied in the cost of their production. We have listened to farmers and their concern about cash flow. We have put in place a system whereby they can get a listed exemption and not have to pay the tax on those listed items. We listen to farmers. That is more than this group to the left is doing. All it does is talk, talk, talk. It certainly does not listen to farmers.
I had the same experience this morning when senior citizens said: "Our phone bills are going up. You are now going to tax us more on our phone bills". Yes, the GST will apply on the phone bill, but the 11 per cent communications tax will not apply on the long distance charges. That tax is being removed.
There are a whole bunch of things which the opposition members choose not to share with the consumers at large. This will be good for them.
I would have thought that some members would have put some positive amendments, like the hon. member from Mississauga did. He put some amendments dealing with horse racing and the various agricultural communities affected by that. Where are these members and why are they not speaking about how good that amendment is? We are going to assist some 80,000 people involved in the horse racing and horse side of the agricultural
April 9, 1990

business. Why are they not saying that that is a good amendment and that they are going to vote for it? No, they are not here talking about that either. All they are talking about is the negatives.
Another amendment that they could be talking about is the one that I have put, Motion No. 88, which talks about confectionery products and how we are trying to make the tax fairer. I put that amendment because I think it would be fairer for that particular sector of the economy.
Did opposition members put any of those amendments? Is there some sector of the economy that they are particularly concerned about and feel is being negatively affected by the GST? Where are their amendments? Their attitude is just to cancel the GST. We know the FST is falling apart, so what is left? Well I guess the deficit goes up.
That is the Liberal attitude on everything. The last time that party was in office, it took the deficit from zero to $38 billion. That is the way it operates. If it had another chance, I would hazard to say it would take it from its current $28 billion-and fortunately by the time it gets a chance we will have it down to $15 billion-and run it right back up again.
I am happy to say that I am here in support of this legislation. I am a member of a government which has some policies, which has a direction, which has the interests of the Canadian people at heart, and which is making decisions which need to be made, unlike the government that preceded us which did not make any decisions that needed to be made. That government just made decisions which were popular.
Popular decisions are good at certain times of the year, until you have a $38 billion deficit. Even at that point, that government was not prepared to deal with that decision.
I do not have any problem supporting this legislation. I do not have any problem supporting some of the amendments because they are wise, but unfortunately opposition members chose not to put any amendments that would enhance the legislation. They simply put amend-
Govemment Orders
ments which in their minds would cancel it. They do not suggest what else would happen.
I take it that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I could go on. I am sure I have convinced-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member of Okanagan-Shuswap.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I understand my comments are limited to two minutes because of a time restriction. Is that correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Two minutes.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Jean Colbert, a 17th century French statesman, once said that the art of taxation consists of plucking the goose so as to obtain the most feathers with the least amount of hissing.
While this and previous governments have returned again and again to pluck yet a few more feathers, our Canadian goose has traditionally protested little. It would honk about and flap a little bit just to let the government know that it would not be taken for granted, but the protest was generally short-lived and soon forgotten, until now.
The government's proposed goods and services tax has changed all of that. The requisite honks of protest from our Canadian goose have turned into a terrified squall as it fights being throttled in the process of being plucked.
There is a fundamental change taking place across this land in response to this Tory tax tragedy. People from St. John's to Victoria are telling this government that enough is enough. They are angry and they are ready to take action. They are no longer willing to roll over and submit quietly to this government's repeated assaults upon Canadians.
In my very limited time I do not intend to stand here under any illusions that my brief comments will change this-


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78, on Thursday, April 5, 1990, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 90.

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
Is the House ready for the question?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, why you are only reading Motion No. 90. I think there are other motions previous to this that were on debate at this time and which could be put to the House. Motion No. 90 covers a whole series of others as a result of a decision made by the House some days ago.


Mr. Speaker:: The reason is that in the ruling that was given earlier a vote on Motion No. 90 applies to Motion Nos. 1 to 11, 31 to 36, 39 to 55 and 57 to 85.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am not questioning the Speaker's reasons. I take it that members will be asked to pronounce themselves on Motion Nos. 1 to 11, 31 to 36, 39 to 55, 57 to 85 and 90, which are grouped for debate. A vote on No. 90 applies to these previously mentioned motions.
I did not hear the Speaker putting those motions in debate as of now. I am asking why is it only Motion No. 90 is before the House rather than the grouping that I just referred to. That is my point.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will of course want to know that I have considered what he said.
All those other motions were moved and put to the House. I think if the hon. member goes back and looks at the ruling that the Speaker made he will see that the ruling was clear and that Motion No. 90 would cover all those when it came time to vote. I do not think at the moment that it is necessary for the Chair to put all those motions again.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my difficulty, and one that all members in this House have at this time, is that there is no doubt that the motions were put for debate and that Motion No. 90 was in front of the House. I do not quarrel with that. I have your decision on Bill C-62, Mr. Speaker. There are 90 motions and amendments set down on the Notice Paper and I could go on and read it.
I am trying to draw attention to the fact that there is only a need now to put all those motions that are indeed
before the House. I can go back, and I will get my research staff to send me the precedents. I have them. I thought that every motion would be put at this time, Motion Nos. 1 to 90, including the groupings, and then the only question before the House at that time would be on Motion No. 90. All the other motions have to be put. Otherwise, it is not in my view a procedure that I can understand.
We debated that, but now the question is being put on those. That is a different matter all together. Debate is followed by questions on the usual procedure before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I have consulted with table officers, and I think that my original view is correct.
The fact of the matter is that if one takes a look at the ruling, as well as the practice, one will see the appropriate thing to do now is to put Motion No. 90 to the House. That may or may not be deferred, but it is not appropriate now to redo what has, in effect, already been done.
I think in view of the fact that there has been a question of order raised I should ask the question again.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


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


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay. H
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton - Melville) moved:: Motion No. 12.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
April 9, 1990

That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 4 to 27 at page 9.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You are putting the other motions to the House, Motions No. 14, 15 and 16 since they are grouped for debate. Is that correct?


Some Hon. Members:: He is on Motion No. 12.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the hon. member.
I read: Mr. Nystrom moved:
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 4 to 27 at page 9.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to avoid confusion could we have Standing Order 65 apply tonight, and every time you put the motion in English we could have it also in French. The people would find it easier to follow, and all of us would understand what we are doing.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection to the hon. member's suggestion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. [Translation]


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 18.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: This time, in my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 40 to 45 at page 45, lines 1 to 49 at page 46 and lines 1 to 24 at page 47.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 25 to 45 at page 47 and lines 1 to 7 at page 48.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division proposed on the motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 16.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the seconder for Motion No. 16 is Mr. Karpoff. He has a particular interest in that motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 8 to
17 at page 48.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 19 at
page 65 and substituting the following therefor:
"equal to 0.1 percent of the value of the consider-"


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 22 at page 128 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada a tax equal to 0.1 percent of the value of".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 18
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 15 to 43 at page 70, lines 1 to 46 at page 71 and lines 1 to 10 at page 72.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


vf.     A
[Stage Direction]
li

April 9, 1990
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 21
That Bill C-62 be amended in clause 12 by striking out lines 40 and
41 at page 131 and lines 1 to 45 at page 132.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West on a point of order.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, we have a long evening ahead of us and I am afraid your voice may not last with all of this reading. Voters may not know that every member in this Chamber has all of these motions, in both languages, sitting on their desks and they can read them for themselves.
I am wondering, because the House of Commons costs about $250,000 an hour to run, whether or not they would like to save the taxpayers of the country about $250,000 and simply let you read the motions and let us vote on the motions without going through the kind of detail that does not add much to the understanding.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting proposal of my hon. friend, but if he had the real concern of the taxpayers of Canada at heart he would withdraw the legislation and we could close this down right now.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member for Calgary West that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has invoked the order and, unless there is consent to dispense, I am bound to follow it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, I want to assure you that from the government members you have that consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the hon. member for Calgary West that I was quite sure of that. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we could go on with this debate but I think we started at 6.45 tonight and if we proceed as we are doing, pretty well, we might get through this evening early. But if the Whip and government members start rising on this kind of superfluous points of debate, then we may get into it.
The fact is they were thoroughly confused. As a matter of fact, they voted for our amendments at the beginning. They said "yes", Mr. Speaker, to a whole series of our amendments and I think they should get their act together.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: I think both sides and the Speaker probably have got our act together now. What was put forward by the hon. member for Calgary West was a suggestion. It is not the first time suggestions have been put forward during votes in order to hurry them along but without consent your Speaker is bound by the rule which has been quite properly invoked.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 27 to 43 at page 134, lines 1 to 46 at page 135 and lines 1 to 7 at page 136.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West) moved:: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12
(a)	by striking out line 8 at page 139 and substituting the following therefor:
(Division VI,"
(b)	in the French version by striking out lines 33 to 35 at page 139 and substituting the following therefor:
"VI, le ministre est repute, pour l'application de cette section, lui
avoir verse a ce moment un"


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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

April 9, 1990
Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 24
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 24 to 48 at page 146.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of hon. members that there is a certain amount of exchange of opinions across the Chamber.


An Hon. Member:: Insults would be a better word.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I heard one member say that "insults" would be a better word. I would not want to pursue it but I do point out to hon. members that while this ordinary exchange is taking place without members having the floor, they may be drowning out for the public the very important matters that the Speaker is reading to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 (8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This amendment was put by me and there is slight error in line 2 on page 1990. In the French version I would like to change the word "d'une'', where it says "dans le cadre d'une activite" to "de son
activite". I would ask for the permission of the House to make that change.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the hon. member that there is not consent.
The hon. member on the same point of order.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could advise me who did not give consent. I have always supported, through statements in this House, the linguistic duality of this House. Since my mother tongue is English, I would only ask that my mother tongue be given precedence and that the necessary amendments be made later on.


Mr. Speaker:: It is up to the House whether or not the House will accept the changes the hon. member has asked for.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member from Mississauga wants to explain to the House and if the House wants to revert back to debate and indeed debate Motion No. 19, we would be more than pleased to hear him out. But unless there is a special procedure at hand here, I cannot see how one could amend a bad bill. Withdraw the motion. Withdraw the bill.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the comments of the House Leader for the Official Opposition and suggest that we, too, would be willing to reopen debate, as long as it is debate on this clause and every other clause. But this is a bad bill and we will not accept any amendments whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, in the interests of the public who may be wondering what we are doing here, I just want to advise that we have considered the wording en frangais "dans le cadre d'une activite commerciale" against the suggested change, "dans le cadre de son activite". I have taken some advice on it and I do not think it is going to make any significant difference in the law.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12
m



April 9, 1990

(a)	by striking out lines 20 to 39 at page 95 and lines 1 to 32 at page 96 and substituting the following therefor.
"188. (1) Where a commercial activity of a registrant (other than a registrant to whom subsection (5) applies) consists of taking bets or conducting games of chance and, in the course of that activity, the registrant pays an amount of money in a reporting period as a prize or winnings to a bettor or a person playing or participating in the games, for the purpose of determining an input tax credit of the registrant, the registrant shall be deemed to have received in the reporting period a taxable supply of a service for use exclusively in the activity and to have paid, in that period, tax in respect of the supply equal to the tax fraction of the amount of money paid as the prize or winnings.
(2) Where, in the course of an activity that involves the organization, promotion, hosting or other staging of a competitive event, a person gives a prize to a competitor in the event,
(a)	the giving of the prize shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part, not to be a supply;
(b)	the prize shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part, not to be consideration for a supply by the competitor to the person; and
(c)	tax payable by the person in respect of any property given as the prize shall not be included in determining any input tax credit of the person for any reporting period."
(b)	by adding, immediately after line 45 at page 96, the following:
"(5) Where a registrant who is a prescribed registrant throughout a reporting period makes taxable supplies of rights to play or participate in games of chance, the following rules apply;
(a) the registrant may claim an input tax credit for the period equal to the amount, if any, by which
(i)	the total tax (other than tax that the registrant is deemed under this Part to have collected) in respect of all supplies made by the registrant that became collectible in the period
exceeds
(ii)	7 percent of the total of all amounts each of which is
(A)	consideration that became due in the period, or that was paid in the period without becoming due, for a supply of property or a service made to the registrant, or
(B)	an amount (other than consideration included in clause (A) in any reporting period) paid in the period by the registrant to or for the benefit of a person where the amount is or would be, if the person were resident in Canada, required under section 6 of the "itlncome Tax Act*ro to be included in the income of that person from an office or employment;
(b) tax that became payable, or that was paid without becoming payable, in the period by the registrant in respect of supplies made to the registrant shall not be included in determining any rebate under section 259 or any input tax credit (other than an input tax credit
Government Orders
determined under section 193) of the registrant for any reporting period during which the registrant is a prescribed registrant;
(c)	any property or service acquired in the period by the registrant shall be deemed to have been acquired for use exclusively in activities other than commercial activities of the registrant; and
(d)	the registrant shall be deemed not to increase, in any reporting period during which the registrant is a prescribed registrant, the extent to which any capital property of the registrant is used in commercial activities of the registrant."
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-62 be amended in the Schedule by striking out section 5 at page 323 and substituting the following therefor:
"5. A supply made by a public sector body of an admission in respect of a place of amusement at which the principal activity is the placing of bets or the playing of games of chance, where
(a)	the administrative functions and other functions performed in operating the game and taking the bets are performed exclusively by volunteers; and
(b)	in the case of a bingo or casino, the the game is not conducted in premises or at a place, including any temporary structure, that is used primarily for the purposes of conducting gambling activities.
5.1.	A supply made by a charity or non-profit organization (other than a prescribed person) of a right to play or participate in a game of chance (other than a prescribed game of chance).
5.2.	A supply of a service that is deemed under section 187 of the Act to have been supplied
(a)	by a charity or non-profit organization (other than a prescribed person); or
(b)	where the service is in respect of a bet made through the agency of a pari-mutuel system on a running, trotting or pacing horse-race."


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the previous ruling, Motions Nos. 19 and 86 are grouped together for the purpose of debate. The vote on Motion No. 19 will also apply to Motion No. 86.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 25
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 30 to 41 at page 148 and lines 1 to 29 at page 149.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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

April 9, 1990
Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 22 to 40 at page 152, lines 1 to 48 at page 153, lines 1 to 45 at page 154, lines 1 to 47 at page 155, lines 1 to 44 at page 156, lines 1 to 46 at page 157, lines 1 to 48 at page 158 and lines 1 to 30 at page 159.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 31 to 45 at page 159, lines 1 to 45 at page 160, lines 1 to 48 at page 161 and lines 1 to 14 at page 162.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 28
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 1 to 40 at page 193, lines 1 to 49 at page 194, lines 1 to 47 at page 195 and lines 1 to 4 at page 196.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 29
That Bill C-62, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 5 to 42 at page 196, lines 1 to 48 at page 197, lines 1 to 45 at page 198, lines 1 to 47 at page 199 and lines 1 to 34 at page 200.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
April 9, 1990

Government Orders
Mir. Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


M. Douglas Young: Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-62, be amended by deleting Clause 12.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the absence of the member for Mississauga, may I move the motion on his behalf?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we all know in the House, our pages are first-year university students and they are in the middle of their exam week. I wonder if the House would be so disposed to allow our pages to go home so that they can keep up with their studies?


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion, is there consent?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was certainly made in the right spirit. Perhaps we could hold off making a decision until we have some consultations. There is some question that perhaps there would be a need for one or two of the pages. I am sure we can come to some accommodation.


Mr. Speaker:: After some consultation has taken place, perhaps the House could advise the Speaker.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Motion No. 37
That Bill C-62 be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by striking out lines 1 to 5 at page 278
(b)	by striking out line 1 at page 285 and substituting the following therefor:
"36. This Part shall come into force".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Agreed on division?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


M. Douglas Young: That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 19.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

April 9, 1990
Government Orders


M. Douglas Young: Motion No. 56
That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 37.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


René John Soetens: Motion No. 88
That Bill C-62 be amended in the Schedule by striking out the last line of paragraph (e) in section 1 at page 332 and substituting the following therefor:
"Molasses, sugar, syrup or artifial sweeteners but not including chocolate confectionery bars in family size packages which contain more than five single servings;"

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 88 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I seek clarification on Motion No. 88. Did the government vote against that motion?


Mr. Speaker:: The ruling is that the motion was negatived on division.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. In terms of the pages, I think we are all appreciative of the fact that it is pre-exam period. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there would not be a disposition of the House to give unanimous consent to enable the Chief Page to negotiate with the pages and to keep only a bare skeleton staff on tonight to serve the members.


Mr. Speaker:: A few minutes ago the hon. member for Athabasca suggested that the pages leave. There was a suggestion from the hon. member for Kamloops that some discussion take place. The hon. member for Kamloops has made a suggestion. Does it meet with the wishes of the House?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there has not been any discussion. We stand by the original suggestion that all the pages be allowed to go.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered, and with our thanks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The next group includes Motions Nos. 87 and 89 which will be voted on separately.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 87
That Bill C-62 be amended in the Schedule by striking out the
last line of paragraph (a) in section 26 at page 327 and substituting
the following therefor:
"affiliated with the organization, or any Member thereof, or"


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
April 9, 1990

Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

I think at this point it might be helpful to explain to members and to the public that I will presently be calling in the members to vote. This is a matter of explanation only. There will be a 15 minute bell. Following that there will be votes on all the motions which I have been putting to the House and when that is concluded there will, of course, be one further vote and there may be a bell at that time and that will end the proceedings.
I am obligated to read the following to the House. [Translation]
The House will now proceed to the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of the Bill now before the House.
(Division No. 218)

Members
Allmand	Althouse
Anawak	Angus
Arseneault	Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Baker	
Belair	Bellemare
Benjamin	Bevilacqua
Black	Blackburn (Brant)
Blondin	Boudria
Brewin	Butland
Caccia	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Comuzzi
Dingwall	Dionne
Duhamel	Edmonston
Ferguson	Fisher
Flis	Fontana
Foster	Fblton
Funk	Gaffney
Gagliano	Gardiner
Gauthier	Grey (Beaver River)
Guamieri	Harb
Harvard	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hopkins	Hovdebo
Hunter	Jordan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Kindy
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	Lapierre
Laporte	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacAulay
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacWilliam
Maheu	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
McCurdy	McGuire
McLaughlin	Mifflin
Milliken	Mills
Murphy	Nault
Nunziata	Nystrom
Pagtakhan	Parent
Parker	Peterson
Phinney	Pickard
Proud	Rideout
Riis	Robichaud
Robinson	Rocheleau
Rodriguez	Rompkey
Samson	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	Speller
Stewart	Stupich
Taylor	Tobin
Vanclief	Waddell
Wappel	Whittaker
Wood Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-105	Young (Gloucester)
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Belsher	Bernier
Bertrand	Bird
Bjornson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blais	Blenkarn
Bosley	Bouchard (Roberval)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Bourgault
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Champagne (Champlain)
Charest	Chartrand
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Cole
Cook	Cooper
Corbeil	Corbett
Cote	Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)	Darling
DeBlois	de Cot ret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Dorin	Duplessis

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure - lles-de-	-la-Madeleine) Greene
Guilbault	Gustafson
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hicks
Hockin	Hogue
Holtmann	Horner
Horning	Hudon
Hughes	Jacques
James	Jelinek
Johnson	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Lang lo is
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McKnight
McLean	Merrithew
Mitges	Monteith
Mulroney	Nicholson
Oberle	O'Kurley
Plamondon	Plourde
Porter	Pronovost
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria - Haliburton)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Tbrner (Halton -Peel)
Valcourt	Van de Walle
Venne	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)	
Winegard	Worthy-143
Benjamin Black Blond in Brewin Caccia
Campbell (South West Nova)
Clancy
Dingwall
Duhamel
Ferguson
Flis
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gauthier
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hopkins
Hunter
Karpoff
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Laporte
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Maheu
Marchi
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Milliken
Murphy
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Robinson
Rodriguez
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stewart
Taylor
Vanclief
Wappel
Wood
Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-103
English]


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Accordingly Motions Nos. 1 to 11 inclusively, 31 to 36 inclusively, 39 to 55 inclusively, and 57 to 85 inclusively are lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 12.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Other members moved at the conclusion of the previous vote and did not vote in the division just taken. It is unlike the behaviour of the opposition, where two New Democrats voted twice in the House on a single division not too long ago and members on that side came in after the motion and voted anyway.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same point?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary North clearly left the House before the vote was announced by you. All members saw it. There are a number of others. I must challenge what the member across said because it is simply inaccurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Could I have the attention of the House?
Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth Edition, citation No. 223, paragraph 2, states very clearly:
A Member must be in his own seat should he wish to vote and
should remain in his seat until the division is complete and the result
announced.
There is a long-standing tradition in the House that when a vote is being taken, members remain in their seats. I have been observing members from all sides of the House, but in particular on the government side, moving out. The member for Mississauga South moved out after being approached by the Deputy Whip.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Maybe it was an emergency, but I wish members would not move around until we actually see what is going to happen around here. Stay in your places.


An Hon. Member:: Wait until the vote and then go to the bathroom.
I point out that that is a long-standing rule. There is no question about it. It is not for the Chair to intervene unless a point of order has been called. A point of order has been called. There is a reason for the rule. We are in a series of votes, but even if it was only one vote, the rule is to avoid confusion and to add to the efficacy of a democratic vote in this Chamber. I would ask all hon. members to co-operate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to support my hon. friend's intervention. It became particularly problematic when the chairman of the finance committee left. It is obviously a reflection of how he plans to vote in the future. That is an encouraging sign.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that none of the members who moved, moved before the vote was counted. Or, if they did move-
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Black
Brewin
Edmonston
Ftolton
Gardiner
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Laporte
Angus Benjamin Blackburn (Brant)
Butland
Fisher
Funk
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hunter
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor) MacWilliam

Government Orders
McCurdy	McLaughlin
Murphy	Nystrom
Parker	Riis
Robinson	Rodriguez
Samson	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)	Stupich
Taylor	Waddell
Whittaker	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-38
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Belsher	Bertrand
Bjomson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley	Bouchard (Roberval)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Bourgault
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Casey
Chadwick	Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne (Champlain)	Charest
Chartrand	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Cooper	Corbeil
Couture	Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling	DeBlois
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dick
Dobbie	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Ferland	Fontaine
Fretz	Friesen
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Greene *	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Hudon
Hughes	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Joncas	Kempling
Koury	Landry
Langlois	Larrivee
Layton	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lewis	Littlechild
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Malone
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Mitges
Monteith	Mulroney
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plamondon
Porter	Pronovost
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	TVemblay (Quebec-Est)
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van de Walle	Vezina
Vincent	White
Wilbee	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-
Assiniboia) Worthy-128	Winegard


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

The next motion is on Motion No. 16.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been waiting patiently for the $1 million mark. At the rate we are taking these votes, if we do not apply some of those completed to future ones, we will be here another four hours at a cost of $1 million to Canadian taxpayers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am wondering if we might have unanimous consent to save $1 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw the bill!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the government Whip raises a good point, but if he is really concerned about the taxpayers of Canada, the best thing that he could be advised to do is for his government to resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, we want to remind the government Whip that while he has been worried about the cost of democracy, and there is never too high a cost to pay for democracy to allow the people of Canada to be heard, in the six votes that have been taken, this government already has approval for some $8 billion worth of GST and we are not going to say yes to rest of it without a fight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The next motion is on Motion No. 17.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I think there might be a disposition in the House to ensure that all votes are against the GST given that we have just found out that 2,026,533 Canadians cast their vote against the GST this weekend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton- Melville.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
[Translation]	
The next question is on Motion no. 23 (Mr. Homer).	
Motion agreed to on	the the following division:
(Division No. 229)
 YEAS Members	
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Belsher	Bernier
Bertrand	Bird
Bjornson	Blais

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Bourgault
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Champagne (Champlain)
Charest	Chartrand
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole	Cook
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling	DeBlois
de Cotret	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Ferland	Fretz
Gibeau	Greene
Guilbault	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Horning
Hughes	Jacques
James	Jelinek
Johnson	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McCreath	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Mitges
Monteith	Mulroney
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plamondon
Plourde	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Victoria - Haliburton)
Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Tbrner (Halton -Peel)
Valcourt	Van de Walle
Venne	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Winegard	Worthy-125
++NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benjamin
Black
Boudria
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Duhamel
Ferguson
FI is
Fulton
Gaffney
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Althouse
Arseneault
Belair
Bevilacqua
Blondin
Brewin
Caccia
Campbell (South West Nova)
Comuzzi
Edmonston
Fisher
Foster
Funk
Gauthier
Guarnieri
Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hunter Karpoff Kristiansen Lapierre
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacLellan Maheu Marleau McLaughlin Milhken Nault Parent Peterson Proud Rideout Robichaud Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island -Powell River)
Stewart Taylor Waddell Whittaker
Young (Gloucester)-79


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 24.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 25.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [Translation]
The next question is on Motion no. 26. Motion negatived on the following division: (Division No. 232)
++YEAS
Members
Alt house Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Brewin
Caccia
Campbell (South West Nova)
Clancy
Dingwall
Edmonston
Fisher
Fontana
Fulton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Jordan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Laporte
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Mac William
Manley
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Nault
Anawak
Arseneault
Baker
Bevilacqua
Boudria
Butland
Callbeck
Catterall
Comuzzi
Dionne
Ferguson
Flis
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gauthier
Guamieri
Harvard
Hopkins
Hunter
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Maheu
Marleau
McGuire
Mifflin
Nunziata
Nystrom
Parent
Peterson
Pickard
Riis
Robinson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stewart
Taylor
Vanclief
Wappel
Wood-85
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Rideout
Robichaud
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Tobin
Waddell
Whittaker
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Atkinson
Bernier
Bird
Blais
Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole Cooper Corbett Darling de Cotret
Andre
Attewell
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Cadieux
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cook
Corbeil
Cote
DeBlois
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Fontaine
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hocldn
Holtmann
Hughes
Jelinek
Joncas
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Littlechild
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Marin
McCreath
McLean
Mitges
Oberle
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Thacker
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vezina
Vincent
Wilbee
Assiniboia)
Worthy-116
Dick
Duplessis
Epp
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hogue
Horning
James
Johnson
Kempling
Landry
Larrivee
Lewis
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McKnight
Merrithew
Monteith
O'Kurley
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Soetens
Tardif
Thompson
T\irner (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle
Vien
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Winegard
April 9, 1990

Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [Translation]
I would ask for your attention for a moment, because I hear some Members asking how many votes are still to come this evening.

For everybody's information, I think I should advise the House that there are eight more votes and then there will be a further vote for concurrence.
The next question is on Motion No. 28 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [Translation]

The next question is on Motion no. 29. Motion negatived on the following division: {Division No. 235)

++YEAS
Anderson
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cooper
Corbett
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Desjardins
Edwards
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hogue
Horning
Hughes
Johnson
Kempling
Langlois
Layton
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
Malone
Masse
McDougall (St. Paul's)
McLean
Atkinson
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blais
Bouchard (Roberval)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Cole
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Della Noce
Dick
Fee
Fontaine
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hockin
Horner
Hudon
Jacques
Joncas
Landry
Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski
McKnight
Merrithew
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Baker
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Boudria
Butland
Callbeck
Catterall
Comuzzi
Dionne
Fisher
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor) Lee
MacLellan
McGuire
Milliken
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Parker
Pickard
Riis
Robinson
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stupich
Vanclief
Wappel
Young (Gloucester) -77
Members
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Belair
Benjamin
Blondin
Brew in
Caccia
Campbell (South West Nova)
Clancy
Dingwall
Duhamel
Flis
Fblton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hopkins
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Du nd as)
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Laporte
MacAulay
Manley
Mifflin
Nault
Nystrom
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island - Powell River)
Stewart
Taylor
Waddell
Whittaker

April 9, 1990

Government Orders
++NAYS
Anderson
Atkinson
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cooper
Crosby (Halifax West)
DeBlois
Desjardins
Duplessis
Fee
Fontaine
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure - lles-de-la-Madeleine) Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hogue
Horning
Johnson
Kempling
Langlois
Layton
Lewis
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski
Merrithew
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria -Haliburton)
Soetens
Stevenson
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Turner (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle Vien White Assiniboia)
Worthy-106
Andre
Belsher
Bird
Blais
Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Cole
Corbett
Darling
de Cotret
Dick
Edwards
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hockin
Horner
Hughes
Joncas
Landry
Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
Malone
Masse
McKnight
Mitges
Oberle
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sparrow
Tardif
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Venne
Vincent
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Winegard
Dionne
Fisher
Foster
Funk
Gardiner
Guarnieri
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Jordan
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kristiansen
Laporte
MacAulay
MacLellan
McCurdy
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Riis
Robinson
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Stupich
Waddell
Whittaker
Young (Gloucester)-63
Duhamel
Flis
Fulton
Gaffney
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Hopkins
Hunter
Karpoff
Kindy
Langdon (Essex-Windsor) Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Marleau
Milliken
Nystrom
Parent
Pickard
Robichaud
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Taylor
Wappel
Wood


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion no. 30, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gloucester.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Levis on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I arrived late, and I voted, but I should not have done so. I did not think that the vote had commenced. Therefore, I do not want my vote to count, this time.
Johnson	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Malone
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Monteith
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plamondon
Porter	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Richardson	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields	Sobeski
Sparrow	Tardif
Thacker	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Timer (Halton-Peel)	Van de Walle
Venne	Vezina
Vien	White
Wilbee	Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek
Assiniboia)	Winegard - 113
 NAYS Members
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Timer (Halton-Peel)
Van de Walle
Vezina
White
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek- Winegard -113


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 37 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga West.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 38 standing in the name of the hon. member for Gloucester.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 56 standing in the name of the hon. member for Gloucester.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [Translation]
The next question is on motion No 87.
++NAYS
Members


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

The next question is on motion no 89, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gloucester.
Anderson
Atkinson
Bernier
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Casey
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Clifford
Cooper
Corbett
Members
Andre
Belsher
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Corbeil
Cote

April 9, 1990
Government Orders
Couture	Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling	DeBlois
de Cot ret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dick
Dorin	Duplessis
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Greene
Guilbault	Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Hogue	Horning
Hudon	Hughes
Jacques	James
Jelinek	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McKnight
McLean	Merrithew
Mitges	Monteith
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plamondon
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth)
Shields	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Thacker	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
T\irner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van de Walle	Venne
Vezina	Vincent
White	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek -
Assiniboia)	Winegard
Worthy -130	
[English]


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the			
bells?			
Some Hon. Members		No.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in		the members.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read for the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 12.51 a.m. the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. today, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.51 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 10, 1990