1976-04-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In past years, the Government has given special consideration to individuals and groups of individuals from abroad in terms of the issuance of special ministerial certificates of acceptance into Canada, many of which were issued to self-proclaimed leftists from Chile who, at the cost of the taxpayer, were flown to this country, put up in Toronto hotels, fed, given spending allowances, clothing, job opportunities and all the other necessities. On the other hand, a 25-year-old Czechoslovakian political refugee, Jan Morcinek, who escaped from the Communist regime, who is currently employed and has all the necessary qualifications and guarantees for citizenship consideration, had his appeal refused by the Supreme Court this week and is being forced to return to Czechoslovakia where he could face imprisonment from five to 15 years. For humanitarian reasons, and for the sake of precedent, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House instruct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to issue a special ministerial certificate to Jan Morcinek in order to avoid his deportation.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the terms of the Standing Order, the motion cannot be presented in the absence of unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an important and urgent matter.
Given the serious revelations made by former RCMP officer Robert Samson concerning the secret activities of the police to check the political activities of some groups and since strong suspicions remain on the role of that same police in FLQ cells between 1963 and 1970, and in order to fully clarify the actions taken to oppose separatism in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That a special committee of inquiry composed of representatives of all the political parties of this House be created to examine this matter and prevent that violence be considered as a means of fighting political ideas.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday, the minister stated outside the House-and I am quoting him:
There was a misunderstanding but I would almost say it was deliberate by Lockheed since my negotiators tell me they were given a clear understanding that Lockheed could arrange interim financing.
Is the minister saying that the government is prepared to accept, or does in fact accept, liability for $16 million worth of work which was commenced on the basis of a deliberate misunderstanding as we now know from the facts?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: We have tried to describe that in detail. That there was a misunderstanding is clear. We are now in a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship as described to the House yesterday by the minister responsible for the legal definitions, the Minister of Supply and Services. This
12400

April 2, 1976
Oral Questions
has been stated very clearly yesterday by my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services.
[DOT] (U10)


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-ACCEPTANCE BY MINISTER OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT FINANCING
Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The question is indeed unclear with regard to the obligation. The attitude of the government is the issue. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister this question. Either we are going to do $1 billion worth of business with a company that has misled the government or we are burdened with an incompetent defence minister; that is the choice. Has the Acting Prime Minister asked the Minister of National Defence to confirm that his officials, though conscientious, were misled, or in the alternative is the Minister of National Defence going to take the responsibility he should as a member of the government in regard to this matter and resign?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I neither accept the preamble nor the conclusion.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS
Walter David Baker: The Acting Prime Minister never accepts either; that is one of the problems. May I ask him a final supplementary question. If the position of the government is that the situation is the fault of Lockheed-and the government's position is the important thing for us to understand-is the government now going to cut its losses rather than get involved in up to $1 billion with a company that the Minister of National Defence has said has misled the government and which the government has said it does not trust? I ask the Acting Prime Minister to justify this kind of shabby, sloppy business practice.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the negotiations that have been going on for some time has been to re-equip the Canadian Armed Forces with the kind of planes that are necessary to do the job that has been assigned to Canada by NATO.


Walter David Baker: Yes, we all know and agree with that.


Mitchell William Sharp: We are continuing these negotiations and I hope my hon. friend agrees with me that they should be successful.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-ROLE PLAYED BY MR. GRANDY IN DECISION TO PURCHASE THE &quot;ORION&quot; AND &quot;LOCKHEED L-1011&quot;
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On Tuesday, as reported at page 12265 of Hansard, the Minister of National Defence indicated, and not surprisingly, that he could give no details on the role Mr. Grandy, the former deputy minister, played in the government's preliminary decisions on the LRPA. Would

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce give the House a detailed answer on this question?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but since I have not got Hansard in front of me perhaps the hon. member would do me the favour of specifying what the question is.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The question was, Mr. Speaker: What was Mr. Grandy's involvement as deputy minister with regard to making a decision on the LRPA? Can the minister give us details on that?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as to the making of the decision, Mr. Grandy had, of course, retired from the department several months before the actual decision was made, so in that sense of the word he had no part in the final decision since he was not in the department at the time. During his period as deputy minister, he would be carrying on the normal functions of that office in relation to the various activities of industry, trade and commerce and related departments in terms of the various assessments that were being made and the whole study leading up to the decision regarding the LRPA. But, as I say, he was not there at the time the decision was made.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the former deputy minister also involved in discussions and decisions with regard to the purchase by Air Canada of the Lockheed L-1011? If the minister cannot give a complete answer to this question, I would appreciate a reply from the Minister of Transport.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that. This occurred a number of years ago, as the hon. member knows, and I would have to make inquiries, but it may be possible that some other minister can answer that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government officially recognized the military junta which took over the government of Argentina? If so, may I draw the attention of the House to the assurance given by the Prime Minister on Friday, March 26, as reported at page 12182 of Hansard, that no such recognition would be granted until the new regime in Argentina had given assurances that it would fulfil its treaty obligations. I therefore want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if such assurances have been received from the new regime in Argentina and, if so, in what form, and what was the nature of the commitment?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, such assurances were received by a message from the embassy in Ottawa to the Canadian government that the new regime intended to live up to its international intergovernmental commitments.
April 2, 1976

Quite apart from that fact, we have also, in recognition of that, extended recognition to the new government, as have scores of other countries throughout the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I understand the minister's answer correctly, Mr. Speaker, he is saying that he has this assurance from the Argentina embassy in Ottawa. Has the minister not received any written assurance from that government, either from the Prime Minister of the country or from the minister of foreign affairs? Has the minister any written commitment in respect of discharging the responsibilities which that government has assumed under the treaty, and will he table such a written commitment if he has one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the message with regard to living up to the international agreements was transmitted on the behalf of the government of Argentina by the embassy in Ottawa. It was not a message that originated in Ottawa, it was a message that was transmitted on behalf of the government of Argentina in the form of a note. It is quite unusual, Mr. Speaker, to table such intergovernmental exchanges. It has not been done in the past. We will look at the matter to see whether in this case there would be any reason to do so.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a related supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited gave evidence before the standing committee to the effect that we stood to lose in the neighbourhood of $100 million on the Argentina agreement to sell them a CANDU reactor, and since it was possible to estimate the loss under the original agreement it should be possible to estimate what the financial position will be under the renegotiated agreement, would the minister indicate what Canada stands to lose under the renegotiated agreement, or how much have we reduced the $100 million loss? Can the minister give the House that information?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the House that information at this stage. This agreement is before my cabinet colleagues at the present time. I can tell the House that very substantial progress was made by the Canadian negotiating team in their renegotiation of the commercial terms.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
The serious revelations made by former police officer Robert Samson are so serious that it is beginning to look very much like the Watergate affair. The minister said this week that he asked the RCMP to make an investigation on this subject but sometimes it must be rather difficult to make an objective investigation into and judge one's own case. Would the minister consider the possibility of establishing a special commission to shed light on this matter and prevent the systematic use of violence to fight political ideologies?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in this House earlier this week, we started that investigation to get as many facts as possible with regard to this incident. We have not ruled out the possibility of a further independent investigation if we cannot get all the information we want. This is still a possibility.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Could the minister tell us whether he is aware of the fact that, during other periods, namely between 1963-70 and even after, there were complaints made to his department which are similar to those revealed by police officer Samson.
[DOT] (U20)


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, at this time we are not aware of any other incident similar to the one complained of by Mr. Samson, but this will be one of the subject matters of the investigation I began.


ROLE OF FORCE IN RAID ON QUEBEC NEWSPAPER OFFICE-OBTAINING OF WARRANT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Has the minister been able to ascertain if any other police force involved in the raid on the Quebec newspaper, to which reference was made earlier this week, obtained a warrant? Also, did the RCMP play a main, subsidiary or supporting role in that particular incident?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we know the RCMP played a supporting or assisting role in this investigation or raid. I have not yet been able to obtain a report from those who investigated this matter on behalf of my department and therefore do not know yet if a warrant was obtained.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister undertake to report as soon as possible on whether a warrant was obtained as, if no warrant was obtained, even if the RCMP played a subsidiary role, they
21804-2 4'/2

April 2, 1976
Oral Questions
could be considered as accomplices if they did not act with proper legal authority.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. The other day I promised to give the House as much information as possible, including information on the point raised.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ILLEGAL ACTS BY FORCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. As everyone is aware how serious this matter is, will the Solicitor General make an unequivocal statement to the effect that the Government of Canada does not condone in any way such illegal acts and that there is no justification for such illegality.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance to the House. The direction of the government to the RCMP is this: the members of the force are not to act illegally in any way. Mr. Samson alleged that an illegal act had taken place. We shall investigate that, and shall see if there are any incidents of a similar nature.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD APPLICATION OF RESTRAINT GUIDELINES TO STAFF- POSSIBLE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF COMPANIES UNDER CONTROL PROGRAM
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the staff of the Anti-Inflation Board of Canada is now almost as big as was the comparable staff operating in the United States at the peak of that country's control operation, although our country is only one-tenth the size of the United States, and as the Anti-Inflation Board is under the control of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will the acting minister hay if the restraint guidelines which apply to other federal government agencies apply also to the Anti-Inflation Board. If so, which guidelines apply and how stringently are they applied?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, just as stringently as necessary, but not so stringently that the board cannot operate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Anti-Inflation Board now regulates eight times as many companies as the United States board regulated at the height of phase II of the comparable program in that country, does the minister think that the AIB's propensity to regulate more and more firms will continue, or does he think that the rate at which the board will bring firms under control in future will decrease?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of regulation is at the disposal of the Anti-Inflation Board which is within the purview of the Minister of Finance. The hon.

gentleman ought to direct that question to that minister when he returns on Monday.


THE MINISTRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Noting that the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said he was resigning because he felt that his continuation in office would jeopardize the efficiency and value of his department in its work for consumers, and since the acting minister bears a great load on his shoulders in connection with other matters, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House if it is proposed to appoint a new minister and, if so, when?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I must say the acting minister is doing an excellent job, but that was not the only consideration. He would not take another ministry. However, I will consult with the Prime Minister and I will tell him how urgently the hon. member thinks another appointment is necessary. I know he would not want to reflect upon the present acting minister.


Mr. Forrestall:: I would not bet on that.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister has arrived at a complete impasse in his negotiations with the province of Manitoba with respect to providing an air service for western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan, would he indicate whether Ottawa is considering going it alone and would one of the solutions contemplated be the offer of the regional carrier Transair to provide a daily jet service in this important area of Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am reviewing the option of going it alone in trying to ensure a service to some of the communities which have been involved in the previous discussions. Now that, as the hon. member says, an impasse has been arrived at, with Manitoba clearly not willing to put in as much money as they had been willing to put in when their own Skywest project was considered, I have had discussions with the communities concerned and I am very conscious of their desires, at least as reflected through certain spokesmen, and the option to which the hon. member refers is certainly one at which I am looking.
April 2, 1976


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that the service has been suspended for some three years, and in view of the Prime Minister's promise in 1974 that this service would be renewed, can the minister give an assurance that a service would be in place before the busy summer season?


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure that I can give that assurance because there are certain complications in terms of the decisions by carriers and decisions by the CTC. But I can tell the hon. member that I consider the matter to be a high priority question and one to which I am giving close attention.



REGULATIONS GOVERNING IMPORTATION OF EGGS- SUGGESTION DOMESTIC DEMANDS MET BEFORE CHANGES MADE

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On March 25, as reported on page 12136 of Hansard, the minister gave the assurance to the hon. member for Lisgar that he would look into the question which the hon. member raised with respect to the importation of eggs and matters related thereto. My question is founded on the proposal currently before the minister to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Canadians Egg Marketing Agency over importation of eggs to Canada. In view of the inability of CEMA to be able to adequately control its own production to satisfy Canadian needs, and in view of the fact that one Canadian processing plant has already had to close down in Winnipeg because of its inability to get a permit to have eggs brought into Canada, may I ask the minister if he will satisfy himself that the Canadian market demands are satisfactorily met before any changes are made in the jurisdiction which he has over the importation of eggs?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I have been discussing this matter at some length. The proposal which the hon. member has outlined is being considered, but certainly it is not the only one. I am quite sure we will be able to arrive at an arrangement which will meet the hon. member's concern, namely that the market be dealt with properly. I will certainly assure myself of that and so will the Minister of Agriculture, I am sure, before any decision is made.



AGRICULTURE


James Aloysius McGrath: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it his intention to take immediate steps to ensure that Canadian market demands are satisfactorily met and that the breakers' trade is able to get its supplies in order to make sure that the confectionery and bakery trades in Canada are assured of adequate supplies, and will he take immediate steps to
Oral Questions
ensure that the necessary import orders are granted to the Canadian breakers' trade?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have always said that if the marketing board could not make the proper supplies to the consumer market and the processing market, imports should be allowed into the country. But this is not as easy and as simple as the hon. member makes it sound, because I am told there are ample supplies in Canada. But some of the imports which are being requested at the present time are unwarranted because there are thousands of cases every week taken off the market as surplus and being put into the breaking trade.



U130) CONSUMER AFFAIRS REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF PRICE OF GASOLINE SOLD TO FARMERS

Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the increasing percentage of input costs which energy has been taking with respect to the production of food, and in view of the fact that these costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer, will the acting minister undertake to have the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigate reports that the wholesale cost of gasoline to farm distributors is two cents per gallon above the rate at which similar gas is being sold to wholesalers for regular consumption, and if this is the case, will the minister instruct his department to take corrective action?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look into this as early as Monday.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he confirm the report that the Prime Minister told some representatives of the Portugese community in Toronto that special consideration-I think he used the phrase "bend the rules"-would be given to the residents or former residents of Angola and Mozambique who are now living in destitution in Portugal with regard to admission to Canada? If such special consideration is contemplated, could the minister tell us the nature of the consideration to be given to them?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the transcript of the comments of the Prime Minister. He expressed sympathy, which I have expressed as well, and he indicated that we would look again, as we have many times, at

April 2, 1976
Oral Questions
this situation. However, he told the representatives not to be optimistic in the sense that the Angolans in particular who have been displaced from the former province of Angola have gone to Portugal, of which they are citizens, and the move to come to Canada has been essentially one of economic hardship. We have indicated that we will expedite consideration of applications, particularly from Angolans with relatives in Canada and Portugese applicants with relatives in Canada, but we cannot declare this a refugee or a minority movement. That is the substance of what the Prime Minister indicated to the Portugese community in Toronto yesterday, according to the transcript which I have examined.


Mr. Hees:: That is not the way it sounded on the radio this morning.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I put it to the minister that there is a large number-I think about 300,000-of destitute people who have lost their homes and their jobs. We have a large Portugese community in Canada, and it would be consistent with Canada's generous attitude not to qualify refugees in different manners by legalistic phrases, but to admit at least a portion of those people, so that they can join their relatives and friends in Canada, without applying the very strict immigration rules which are generally applied.


Robert Knight Andras: I tried to explain this to the hon. member and certainly to the Portugese community. First, let me say that we all recognize that the Portugese people who have come here have made very fine Canadian citizens, so we applaud the way they have assimilated into our society. However, the description of the situation the hon. member has given is one I could apply to the people of many countries of the world. There is no question about that.
The Angolans in Portugal are now being helped to settle by the Portugese government. There has been a Canadian contribution of some $300,000 or $500,000 to the Portugese government to assist in that very endeavour, and beyond that I have indicated that we will entertain and expedite applications within the immigration laws which now exist, but we cannot establish the precedent of allowing these kinds of movements on the basis of economic hardship, particularly when we have, unfortunately, considerable unemployment in this country.



AIRPORTS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It refers to the Vancouver airport runway extension. In the minister's press release of March 12 he said that a decision will be made in the next few months as to whether environmental or urban penalties will result from the proposed parallel runway. Then, the minister asked that all interested parties present their views to him. However, then the release goes on to say that the minister thinks the better solution is a new runway entirely within the dyked portion of Sea

Island. Can the minister explain why he is expressing support for this runway when this particular proposal was not studied by the airport planning committee and in fact was expressly excluded from the study of the airport planning committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my expression of preference for the shorter runway within the dyked area was designed to focus attention on what I considered to be the most likely and reasonable alternative. In the course of the study this alternative did emerge more and more as a realistic one, and it certainly did in the eyes of the officials who advise me and who ordinarily judge what is possible and necessary with regard to airport facilities.
It also became apparent that the greatest area of concern which had a real and fundamental basis to it was the interference with the area beyond the dyke, and as a result I thought it better to indicate that this might not be necessary at all in considering another runway for Vancouver.



RUNWAY EXTENSION AT VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF ALL RELATED REPORTS

John Allen Fraser: I will have to come back to this on Monday, but the question to the minister now is as follows: on July 9, 1975 at page 7391 of Hansard the then minister of transport, who is now the Minister of the Environment, said all reports on the proposed expansion of Vancouver airport-and that would include that of the airport planning committee and also the environmental study which has been put in by the former minister's department-would be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for full discussion. Can the minister assure this House that the commitment of the former minister will be kept? Can the minister also assure us that in view of the recommendation of the environmental study that there should be no short runway within the dyke, of which the minister just spoke, unless it goes through the proper environmental planning stage, that there will be a referral back to the committee of this House and that the proposals to which he is referring will not be decided upon until it is also subjected to the departmental planning and assessment regulations of the government?


Otto Emil Lang: I can assure the hon. member that I will not be trying to rush any decision. I will be allowing for full time for appropriate discussions, but I will decide from time to time on the nature of those discussions and the kind which is, in fact, most appropriate. I will even give the hon. member time to make up his mind about whether he does or does not want some additional facility in Vancouver.
April 2, 1976

Oral Questions FOREIGN INVESTMENT



SUGGESTED APPEARANCE OF PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA TO COMMENT ON HIGH COST OF ENERGY

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the conflict of opinions which appear to exist between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia, namely, the opposing views held by the premier of Nova Scotia, who is also chairman of the Nova Scotia Power Commission, regarding energy and the exhorbitantly high cost of electric power in Nova Scotia, would the minister invite the premier and his officials who have expertise in the subject to appear before the appropriate House committee as soon as possible, not only to give their views on the subject, but also to try to reach a solution which would ease the crushing burden of the cost of energy on the people of Nova Scotia?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the premier of Nova Scotia is perfectly able to make that suggestion himself if he wishes to see this matter go forward to the appropriate committee. I do not think it is for me to invite another person to appear before a committee of which I am not a member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his reply, but it indicates his lack of interest in trying to help the taxpayers of Nova Scotia. I realize the finance ministers' meeting is going on at the moment, and from reports emanating from that meeting not much progress is being made. However, I am sure the minister will agree that the minister of finance of Nova Scotia is not an expert in energy and does not profess to be an expert. The premier of Nova Scotia seems to indicate he is an expert on this subject, according to the comments he has made about the minister to whom I am addressing this question.
To clarify the situation, does the minister not agree that it would be in the interests of all concerned, particularly the people of Nova Scotia who have a crushing burden to bear with regard to energy, to excel himself on this occasion and to be kindly by inviting the premier of Nova Scotia to come to Ottawa and discuss the matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question. The hon. member seems to have overlooked the fact that the federal government is already providing a great deal of assistance to the hard pressed users of energy in Nova Scotia and other parts of Canada- indeed, Canada as a whole-through the compensation program. I can understand the hon. member if he is saying he wants more assistance. I ask him to suggest to me what kind of additional assistance we should be considering at a time of government restraint.



MONITORING OF COMPANIES TO ENSURE FULFILMENT OF COMMITMENTS AT TIME OF TAKEOVER-POSSIBILITY OF PENALTIES

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is in relation to his responsibilities for FIRA. Is the government monitoring the degree to which companies that are given approval for a takeover are fulfilling all the obligations they agree to at the time that takeover is permitted?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is a monitoring process. Since the agency has only been in existence for 18 months or so, it is only now becoming urgent and important to do this monitoring because, normally speaking, the commitments involve an 18 months time span in most cases. We are working it out. There are some difficulties. I am holding discussions with the officials of FIRA to see how the procedure can be improved.


James McPhail Gillies: Does the government propose to bring in legislation which will have specific penalties for companies that do not live up to agreements that are given under their commitments at the time the takeover takes place?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, nothing as specific as that is contemplated by me at the present time. However, I would be glad to discuss with the hon. member or anybody else interested just how such an arrangement might be made to work. In other words, one of the concerns is that we do monitor and ensure that the commitments are carried out, but just how we would phrase a penalty clause is something we are examining. As I said, I would welcome proposals as to how that might be done.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the strenuous arguments being put forward by Canada to the Law of the Sea Conference for international recognition of the principles in the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act because of the need to protect the delicate ecological balance of our Arctic seabed, can the minister explain how the government can reconcile this stance which it is taking externally with its current consideration of a permit for oil exploration in the Beaufort Sea, a project which could present extremely hazardous environmental conditions and which could jeopardize Canada's position at the Law of the Sea Conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that the problems posed by our general position at the Law of the Sea Conference and the pending decision upon exploration in the Beaufort Sea obviously is part of the consideration that is going on at present, and part of the consideration that is involved in our discussions with the

Oral Questions
United States which has expressed similar concerns about this particular possibility. Obviously, the job of a good government is to reconcile sometimes difficult alternatives and to produce an acceptable solution. That is what we are trying to do.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, given the minister's answer and the tendency of this government to try to come down on all sides of a question, may I ask the minister if he in fact has his arguments ready to justify drilling in the Beaufort Sea when he next attends the Law of the Sea Conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the arguments ready because I do not prepare arguments against contingencies.



POSSIBILITY OF OPENING TRADE MISSION IN TAIWAN- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At the present time there are some 16 million people living in Taiwan and their per capita income is one of the highest in Asia. During the minister's recent trade mission to five southeast Asian countries, all of which trade with Canada, did the minister give any consideration to visiting Taipei with regard to the possibility of opening a Canadian trade mission in that city so that we could assist Canadian exporters to improve their trade opportunities in this area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, not in the precise meaning that the hon. member has stated. The specific basis of the mission was to visit the Asian countries. It was confined to that. The question of establishing some kind of trade relationship with Taiwan has been under discussion for some time. Without wishing to pass the matter off, I might refer it to my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



IMMIGRATION


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It follows my motion under Standing Order 43 regarding a deportation case. Can the minister explain to the House the criteria used by his department in determining the issuance of ministerial visas vis-a-vis permitting and in fact recommending deportation orders to potentially sound new citizens, such as the case to which I referred?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, ministers' permits are not

issued to people under deportation orders or when a deportation order has been confirmed in various levels of appeal. In the case of Mr. Morcinek, he entered Canada illegally as a ship deserter in July 1974, reported to immigration shortly thereafter and, quite properly, a hearing was commenced. It was adjourned when he made claim to refugee status. That claim to refugee status was heard by the interdepartmental committee and denied in August 1974. The inquiry was resumed and he was ordered deported, whereupon he quite properly appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board for a hearing on refugee status. The Immigration Appeal Board, which is an independent judicial body, examined his representation and decided that he did not have a valid appeal to refugee status and the deportation order was upheld. He subsequently appealed to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court. Only the other day was the Supreme Court decision issued to deny the appeal and uphold the deportation order. The hon. member's Standing Order 43 suggested a course of action I should take which is beyond my jurisdiction because Mr. Morcinek is now under a deportation order. I could not issue a ministerial permit for him to stay. The deportation order has to be implemented. He could, however, seek deportation to a third country. That is an option open to people in that situation. He could apply from that third country if such country would receive him, to return to Canada.



POSSIBILITY OF MR. MORCINEK LEAVING CANADA VOLUNTARILY AND THEN APPLYING FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, another option that the minister did not mention was mentioned in a letter dated February 13 to Mrs. Ann Ridley. I would like to quote one sentence from that letter:
Fortunately, there is a provision in the Act whereby persons ordered deported may be allowed to effect voluntary departure if they can make their own arrangements to leave Canada and be accepted by a country of their choice, providing that they are willing and able to do so.
If Mr. Morcinek voluntarily left Canada, would the minister expedite an application for landed immigrant status from a country outside Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I covered that option in my answer to the hon. member fpr High Park-Humber Valley when I indicated he could take departure to a third country of his choice, either voluntarily or through deportation. In this case, the fact that he is being deported would not be held against him. However, he would have to apply from a third country and that application would have to be judged by the criteria we use in such applications. Therefore, I could not give that guarantee, but it is an option open to him.



POSSIBILITY OF OPENING TRADE MISSION IN TAIWAN- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked
April 2, 1976

earlier by the hon. member for South Shore to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Japan, just to name a few of the many nations that recognize Communist China but continue to have satisfactory trading arrangements with the free enterprise government of the Republic of China, can the minister indicate if he will take steps to see if a similar type of arrangement can be made with the government in Taiwan which would be of material assistance in overcoming the unfavourable trade balance Canada presently has with that country in the limited trade presently carried out?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we do have trade, as the hon. member pointed out in his question, with business interests within Taiwan. I do understand that there have been trading institutions; at least it is said that countries like the United Kingdom have maintained trading houses in Taiwan without jeopardizing their one-China policy. This is a matter which I have discussed privately with members of the House. I have taken into account some views which have been expressed by them and I hope to meet them at a later time with some results.



DEATH OF CHILDREN ATTRIBUTED TO SPRUCE BUDWORM SPRAY-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is serious. I put it to the Minister of the Environment although it probably also concerns the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As it now seems to have been established by a team of researchers at Dalhousie University in Halifax and also American researchers in the U.S. that four children died as a result of the presence in 1973 of certain solvents in the insecticides used against the spruce budworm in Nova Scotia, and as those solvents may possibly be used again this year, can the Minister of the Environment and possibly the Minister of National Health and Welfare assure this House that very strict controls will apply to avoid a possible recurrence of that tragedy this year as it is expected that the spraying program will be very intensive this year of eastern Canada's forests?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Nova Scotia government cancelled a project involving the spraying of the province's forests with certain solvents.
I believe the New Brunswick legislative assembly may set up a committee to study the situation and examine the whole forest spraying program in that province.
Still, I should like to clarify one of the statements of the hon. member in his opening remarks. The Medical Research Council and my department have financed the studies of a group of scientists located at Halifax in Nova
Oral Questions
Scotia. Those studies are still underway but at this point in time they do not allow us to conclude definitely that the insecticides used are linked with the fatal diseases found in some children. It is clear that further studies and research will have to be pursued in that field. It seems too early to conclude that the insecticides caused the diseases that were diagnosed.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the studies which have been made by the Canadian Council on Social Development with regard to public sector pensions and in view of the call which came recently from the Canadian Pension Conference for an inquiry into what is happening in the private sector with regard to pensions, will the minister consider undertaking a thorough review or establishing a public inquiry into pension policy, both public and private, so that we can be sure that things will go well down the road?


Marc Lalonde: I have on several occasions indicated that this issue is currently under study by the government, in particular by my department and the Department of Finance. It might well be that a public inquiry will be useful or necessary but no decision to this effect has yet been taken by the government. At the present time, the studies are taking place on an official level, that is, on an interdepartmental basis, but I am not ruling out the other possibility if it is found necessary to expand those studies.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Solicitor General.
Since the minister has already ordered an inquiry into the disclosures made by former RCMP member, Mr. Robert Samson, and since it says in Bill C-83, clause 105(2) which is now being rammed through this House, that any defensive weapon may, without warrant, be searched and taken away from a citizen even in case of organized or apprehended burglaries, I wish to put the following question to the minister: will he tell the House whether or not there is a connection between Bill C-83 and the fight against separatism?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker.

April 2, 1976
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



REASON FOR QUEBEC'S INTENTION TO OPT OUT OF CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the hon. gentleman received information from the dairy producers of the Province of Quebec that they have served notice of their intention not to be represented on the supply-management committee of the Canadian Dairy Commission for the coming year? If he has received such notice, can he explain the reason given by the industrial dairy producers from the Province of Quebec for wanting to opt out of the Commission?


Eugene Whelan: They have given notice unofficially, I believe, but I have not seen the official notice. They are wanting out and they have to give one year's notice before they can opt out. I think it is part of their strategy to try to renegotiate a new market share quota program because they are dissatisfied. In the Province of Quebec they have both an industrial milk marketing board and a fluid milk marketing board. Practically every province has a different organization for administering the milk marketing system. These are the groups which get together and decide how the quota is to be distributed. I do not decide this for them.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since the implications are very serious as far as the future operations of the Dairy Commission are concerned, may I ask what plans the minister or the department have got to work with, or negotiate with, the dairy producers of Quebec to ensure that they will be in the plan for another year and that the future of the Dairy Commission will not be badly damaged as a result of this move?


Eugene Whelan: We are concerned that the Dairy Commission should operate in an efficient manner. There is a dispute as to how this quota should be divided among fluid producers and industrial producers. However, it is up to them to run their business. We, of course, would like to see it run as harmoniously as possible but the minister has no authority to direct the commission as to how it should operate its affairs. Under the Wheat Board Act the government can give direction by order in council, but this is not such a situation.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Minister of the Environment, is consequent upon the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River with respect to forest policy. Since any initiative by officials of the federal forestry service in developing a national policy have been stifled by the government as a result of divided jurisdiction among at least 20 federal agencies meddling in this field, can the minister tell us whether it is the intention of the government at least to co-ordinate the

various activities of these agencies, all of which, or many of which, may be in conflict or at cross-purposes with each other?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question is much more clever and a lot clearer that the one which was put to me yesterday regarding forestry policy in Canada. As the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte fully knows jurisdiction over forestry belongs mostly to provincial governments. Only federal territories and the Northwest Territories come under our jurisdiction. However we have been in touch with each of the provinces in the hope that they will cooperate with us in working out a national forestry policy. So far the responses have been extremely encouraging.


Fred Alward McCain: I cannot agree with the premise on which the answer is based. For that reason I ask this supplementary question. With regard to the proposed federal-provincial discussion on the matter of a national forest policy, will the minister indicate what form the consultation will take and whether he intends to establish a national policy, as in agriculture, fishing, etc., and assume the cost of such a national program, or is it the intention of the government, as in so many other recent policy statements, to transfer financial responsibility in full or in part to the provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will understand that before we can do anything in this field, since the provinces have the larger share of jurisdiction in this area, they would have to agree to have a meeting. I have received information from almost all provinces that they are ready to discuss with us and elaborate on some national policies in the fields I have mentioned.



HOUSING


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As the minister is aware, the housing industry is very sensitive to the economic cycle, and profits rise and fall depending on whether the industry is in a boom or a bust phase. With this in mind, can the minister tell the House whether he has made any representations to the Anti-Inflation Board on behalf of the housing industry, and, if so, what has been their reaction?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Certainly there have been boom and bust cycles, Mr. Speaker, and the booms have outweighed the busts by a long shot in recent years. I did meet today with representatives of the housing industry and discussed relationships with the Anti-Inflation Board. We are working closely with them. Fortunately, somebody must have been
April 2, 1976

doing something right, with starts up 200 per cent in the first two months of this year compared with last year.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether the Anti-Inflation Board is considering a modification of the profit guidelines for the benefit of the housing industry and, if so, can the minister tell the House when he expects clarification from the Anti-Inflation Board?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, this question is properly for the Minister of Finance, but I am aware that discussions are going on, with a report expected very shortly. I cannot say anything more; it is the province of my colleague.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I only had the opportunity of giving you notice of my question of privilege when I entered the House because the French edition of Hansard was not available before 10:45. I therefore rise on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 35 which reads as follows:
. .. No member shall use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.
So, referring to yesterday's Hansard, on page 12386, one can read the words used by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin)-and I am very polite in calling him the hon. member for Lotbiniere-who used offensive words against me, calling me a coward. The Acting Speaker at the time, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), deferred until today the decision on the question of privilege I raised yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 117, citation 133, reads as follows:
When the Speaker takes notice of any expression as personal and disorderly, and tending to introduce heat and confusion, and calls upon the offending member to explain, it is the duty of the latter immediately to explain or retract the offensive expressions, and to apologize to the House for the breach of order, in terms large and liberal enough both to satisfy the House, and the member of whom the offensive expressions were used. The Speaker's demand usually produces the required explanation, at once;
Mr. Speaker, those same words which appear on page 12387 of yesterday's Hansard were endorsed by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle)-I think he gave up since he is not here, this morning, Mr. Speaker.
To help you make your ruling, I should like to read the definition of the word "coward" in the Shorter Larousse dictionary. It means a person who lacks courage-


René Matte: Right on!


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: -fearful, shameful. I shall also ask the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) to withdraw when I have completed my remarks, because he just said:
Privilege-Mr. R. Guay
Right on. I continue the definition:	. .. base and
contemptible ...


René Matte: This is the right definition!


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: According to the Quillet dictionary, the definition of coward is: lacking in energy, funky, contemptible. "To give up" means to let go, surrender, abandon, and that is no doubt what the hon. member for Joliette is doing this morning: abandon his friends once again. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette has already abandoned the Progressive Conservative Party for the party to which he has returned today. Maybe he has already left the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, to run for the leadership of the Union nationale in Quebec. Last night, when he supported the Social Crediter member, I wondered if he was not becoming a Social Crediter.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the comments made last night by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), with the support of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), I would ask that these comments be withdrawn and the question of privilege which I raised last night be maintained. I would not make the same kind of remarks as regards the hon. member for Lotbiniere because I have been a member of this House for the last 14 years, I have always respected other hon. members and I do not think my colleagues and myself are cowards.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw his remarks immediately, as provided in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Should you rule his comments as not being unparliamentary, I would in turn call each of those two members, one of whom is not here, coward, fearful, base and contemptible.


René Matte: It is cowardly to make such comments in the absence of the hon. member.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to deal with a question of privilege. However, in this case concerning the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), the situation is quite clear. Here is what is provided in citation 113, page 102 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and I quote:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House.
And the citation goes on to say:
Wilful disobedience to Orders and Rules of Parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions; insults and obstructions during debate are breaches of the privileges of the House.
And I would draw Your Honour's attention to the following words: insults during debate, which I did, according to the hon. member for Levis or obstructions during debate, which I blame the hon. member for Levis for doing when he prevented us last night from doing our work pursuant to Standing Orders. Therefore I think we must set the facts in their true light.
In what circumstances were those remarks made? After a motion was introduced to silence the opposition by allowing for a two hours maximum debate, I rose for a 10 minute period as every other member. I did not support the government's motion, and neither did any other member of the opposition. I said so frankly and clearly. I realize that

April 2, 1976
Privilege-Mr. R. Guay
the hon. member for Levis is perfectly entitled to disagree with me and with the opposition. That is quite normal since he is on the government side. However, it is my right and privilege to express my disagreement.
Anyone reading my speech will realize that I did not go beyond my rights under our Standing Orders. Every member however that was in this House yesterday evening will testify that the hon. member for Levis did not stop for a minute interrupting me, shouting his disapproval, voicing protests while I was speaking. He repeatedly interrupted my speech, contrary to our rules.
That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I told him to keep quiet while we were making speeches, as appears in the official reports on page 12386. This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing that problem. I show every respect for the hon. member for Levis. And he knows it. I will not throw back to him what he said earlier about an absent member. I feel that attacking the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) in his absence, the way he did, is rather debasing.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that Opposition members, in situations where they are constantly interrupted by government members, make this kind of remark, as "Let him stop bothering me during my speech. Let him stop railing at me. Let him rise to speak on the subject when his turn comes, if he has the courage to do so." This happens hundred of times during our debates. And the hon. member for Levis knows it.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore submit I said nothing that went beyond my rights and privileges under our Standing Orders, and I respectfully wish that hon. members on the other side would let us make our speeches unhindered.
Mr. Speaker, it is enough that we are muzzled without being constantly interrupted when we speak in this House.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chair intervened during the speech of opposition members from three parties. On pages 12383, 12372, 12367 and 12366 of Hansard, we find four interventions by the Acting Speaker who wanted to restore order in this House so as to allow the speakers to be heard, especially since speeches were limited to ten minutes. Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that as recorded in Hansard, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) interrupted me exactly eight times, while-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, citation 113 in the 4th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms says, and I quote:
But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Speaker, the last point that I want to make is this. The hon. member for Levis, who feels so injured today, seems to forget that, as Hansard shows, he himself called me a coward yesterday. On page 12386, the hon. member for Levis is reported as having said:
... I demand that the hon. member for Lotbiniere treat the others as they do him ...
Which meant that he was calling me a coward.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Levis called me a coward in the heat of the discussion. I understand him and

do not bear him any grudge. I just wonder why he himself dramatizes such things. As reported on page 12387 of Hansard, he himself said yesterday:
... if we say we must muzzle the House, as the hon. member now seems to be trying to prove ...
Mr. Speaker, this was not true. The hon. member was imputing motives to me. I was trying to prove exactly the opposite. No one would pretend that it was the opposition who introduced the closure motion under Standing Order 75C.
The hon. member for Levis added ... I think he is the one ...
-talking about myself-
.. . who should be muzzled for all the nonsense he is saying.
-talking about myself. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, that is not parliamentary language either. I think the hon. member for Levis exceeds the limit. First, he gives a wrong interpretation of my words, he wants to muzzle me, prevent me from speaking in the House, and then he states plainly that I talk nonsense today in order to taint the reputation of the hon. member for Joliette.
Finally, as evidenced by the debates, the hon. member interfered with my right to speak by interrupting me more than eight times in ten minutes.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I refer to the 18th edition of Parliamentary Practice by Erskine May, chapter XIX dealing with
.. . Maintenance of order during debate ...
In paragraph 2 entitled:
In Erskine May's eighteenth edition, chapter XIX concerning the maintenance of order during debate, paragraph (2), in reference to minor breaches of order, states:
When any members transgresses the rules of debate, otherwise than by using disorderly or unparliamentary expressions, or makes any noise or disturbance whilst another member is speaking-
In that event, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the Speaker calls the offending member to order.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you today, to call the hon. member to order so that he will understand like the other government members that he must let the opposition fulfill its duty without degrading it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is always hard for the Chair to make a ruling on a question of privilege, especially when the matter concerns the definition of one word or other. It is obviously clear that often in the past, a member has been allowed to express the feelings of another member who had tried on many occasions to interrupt another member. Either one must have the courage to rise and take part in the debate. I therefore accept the explanation given by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, whatever words were used during yesterday's debate. His intention was quite clear. Then again, I accept the explanation of the hon. member because, in my opinion, there is no question of privilege under the circumstances.
April 2, 1976


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, lately the opposition has been experiencing great difficulty in posing questions to ministers because when they are in the House they are continually visiting with their colleagues. Some days you allow the minister a chance to return to his seat. Today I posed a question to the Minister of Transport but you did not allow him to return. I would strongly suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that he issue a directive to his ministers that when they are in the House during the question period, they stay in their seats. This will help speed-up the question period considerably.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I, on behalf of all the members of my committee, have the honour to present the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in both officials languages. If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, there was an amendment to clause 15 which says that this act shall be deemed to have come into effect on April 1, 1976.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TABLING OF EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY RESPECTING SALARY REVISIONS

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to lay on the table an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy held on March 29, 1976, concerning salary revisions of the staff of the House of Commons.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: March 31, 1976-The President of the Privy Council.
That, on Monday, April 5, 1976, the House shall continue to sit between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.;
That, on Tuesday, April 6, 1976, the House shall not adjourn until the completion of the business provided for in this order;
That, on the aforementioned days, no private members business shall be taken up;
That, on the aforementioned days, the business taken up shall be the consideration of objections to reports of Electoral Boundaries Commissions;
That all objections to any given report be considered at the same time;
Electoral Boundaries
That the objections or groups of objections, as the case may be, be considered in the order in which the objection or first objection in the group, as the case may be, was laid upon the Table; and
That during the consideration of any objection or group of objections, as the case may be, no member shall speak more than once, nor for more than twenty minutes.
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), supported by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), raised a point of order about the possibility that the House might give consent, yesterday, to the consideration of this motion. I have carefully considered the point of order. Of course, the motion today is properly before the House without the need for unanimous consent. The hon. member argued that since this motion concerns itself with debate on objections to do with the reports of several provincial electoral boundaries commissions, and since, according to the argument, there has been a technical or legal failure, or non-conformity with the act on the part of the province of Ontario in that the filing of this report was not accompanied with reasons, the House ought not to deal with this motion. Indeed, as I understand the point of order, the House ought not to deal with any reports concerning themselves with Ontario when it debates the matter next Monday and Tuesday.
I have carefully considered the points raised. First, since this motion may now properly be called without needing unanimous consent, I feel that the point of order should not interpose itself in respect of the calling of the motion today and should not interpose itself with respect to our dealing with two reports, at least, pursuant to the terms of the motion if the motion is adopted.
My reasons for so finding are simple and clear. This House must concern itself with the procedures and practices of this House, not with other legal practices or questions concerning non-conformity with a statute unless those questions relate to the Standing Orders of the House.
The House has before it a motion. The Chair must, therefore, ask if the motion is procedurally correct and receivable. If the House takes a decision on the motion, then that is a decision for the House and ought not to be the concern of the Chair unless there is some procedural irregularity.
Questions to do with reasons attached to reports, or whether those reasons comply with the statute in the first instance in fulfilling statutory requirements, are surely legal questions. They concern legal opinions and are matters to be taken up in debate when the debate takes place. Further, if there is some question of a legal nature which in any way would prevent this House from taking legislative action, commissions from acting in a certain way, of officers thereof from implementing any decisions of commissions in drawing boundaries, that is a legal question.
Again, if remedies lie in the hands of hon. members who brought forward the point of order, or in the hands of any other citizens, then surely the question goes far beyond the procedural confines which are under the authority of the Chair. Therefore, on procedural grounds I must find the motion properly before the House and eligible for consideration at this time pursuant to our Standing Orders. If the motion is adopted, the House cannot be prevented, on procedural grounds, from discussing the matter on Monday and Tuesday next.

April 2, 1976
Electoral Boundaries


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, on Monday, April 5, 1976, the House shall continue to sit between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.;
That, on Tuesday, April 6, 1976, the House shall not adjourn until the completion of the business provided for in this order;
That, on the aforementioned days, no private members business shall be taken up;
That, on the aforementioned days, the business taken up shall be the consideration of objections to reports of Electoral Boundaries Commissions;
That all objections to any given report be considered at the same time;
That the objections or groups of objections, as the case may be, be considered in the order in which the objection or first objection in the group, as the case may be, was laid upon the Table; and
That during the consideration of any objection or group of objections, as the case may be, no member shall speak more than once, nor for more than twenty minutes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Actually, I would indicate at this time that I wish to raise a question of privilege on Monday and present argument, not about Your Honour's decision which I respect and acknowledge, but about important matters fundamental to this House and affecting all members of parliament, particularly those from the province of Ontario. I wish to enter that caveat now and reserve my right to argue the question of privilege on Monday next.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Standing Orders provide that the Chair must be given written or effective notice of such intention to raise a question of privilege. I cannot think of more effective notice than the kind of notice which the hon. member for Ontario has just given.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with the motion which the House just adopted. I think it would help if we could settle the order in which the various objections shall be considered. The motion provides, in part, that the objections or groups of objections, as the case may be, shall be considered in the order in which the objection or first objection in the group, as the case may be, was laid upon the table. That will be the general principle governing the debate. But there may be some confusion as to how that provision is to be interpreted. I should like to settle the question so as to avoid differences of opinion later.
The first of the objections tabled was with respect to Nova Scotia; then there were tabled, in the following order, objections respecting Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. The House will remember that it has also taken under consideration some objections relating to Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia. It is the opinion of the House leaders who have been consulted on the question that the order of consideration should be, first the Northwest Territories and then, in the following order, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and British Columbia. I suggest that it would serve the purposes of the House and would result in orderly debate if that suggestion were to be made an order of the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Mr. Speaker, with reference to both representations, I will take note of them and make sure that a reply is forthcoming.']
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; 3,733, 3,846, 4,776, 4,965 and 4,968.



Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Supply and Services during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


PEI-FISHING SECTOR
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, what criteria have been used by the Joint Advisory Board in (a) evaluating the overall effectiveness of the sectoral strategy in relation to the Plan objectives (b) determining the effectiveness of the various programmes and projects within the sector?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) The criterion used to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the sectoral strategy in relation to the Plan's objectives is its contribution to Gross Provincial Product in relation to the dollars expended, (b) The various programs and projects are examined to ensure that their continuation will contribute to ultimate realization of the sector objective.


LEASE ON KOOTENAY INDIAN RESERVES-CRESTON RECLAMATION COMPANY
Mr. Brisco: Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ever give written or other permission to the Creston Reclamation Company of Creston, British Columbia, to grant, demise, transfer or set over or by any other act cause any term or interest to be granted, assigned or transferred to anyone, all that portion of Lower Kootenay Indian Reserve No. 10, surveyed as Lot 999, Group 1, which lies North and East of the right bank of Kootenay River; all of Lower Kootenay
April 2, 1976

Indian Reserve No. 2, surveyed as Lot 10000, Group 1; all of Lower Kootenay Indian Reserve No. 3, surveyed as Lot 10001, Group 1; all that portion of Lower Kootenay Indian Reserve No. 5, surveyed as Lot 10003, Group 1, which lies South of a line drawn East and West approximately 12 chains South of the North Boundary of Section thirty-two (32) Township eight (8) of the lands of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band held in trust by the Crown according to the terms of surrender of October 1,1934?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The Department has no record of written or other authority to Creston Reclamation Company to transfer or otherwise dispose of any interest in their lease on the Kootenay Indian Reserves.


EXCISE TAX COLLECTED ON AIRCRAFT
Mr. Kempling: How much excise tax has been collected through the 10 per cent tax imposed on all privately owned (non-commercial) aircraft since the budget announcement of 1974?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: The
amount of Excise Tax paid on private aircraft owned by
Business of the House
individuals is not available. The Excise Tax paid to January 31, 1976 on aircraft owned by individuals and corporations for which no exemption was available, was $2,594,208.55.


APPOINTMENT OF EACH PRESIDENT OF CADC
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since 1961, what (a) are the names (b) were the dates of appointment (c) were the public service classifications (d) were the salary ranges on appointment of each President of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
2.	Since 1961, what was the (a) effective date (b) public service classification (c) salary range at time of departure of each President of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
3.	Since 1961, what job (a) was held by each appointee immediately prior to appointment (b) did each appointee move to after leaving the Corporation?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned:	1.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)(i)	Louis Richard	January 1, 1955	not applicable	$12,000-14,500(ii)	Jean Miquelon	July 18, 1967	see note (1)	24,000-30,000(iii)	Jack S. Glassford	December 20, 1973	28,000-35,000(iv)	Claudette Nadeau	August 11, 1975	25,500-32,5002. (i)	September 15, 1967	not applicable	$17,000-21,750	(ii)	September 14, 1973	see note (1)	28,000-35,000	(iii)	December 3, 1974	33,000-42,000	(iv)	not applicable	not applicable	3. (i)	Comptroller, CADC	Retired	(ii)	Deputy Registrar General, Consumer &	Member, Pension	Corporate Affairs	Review Board	(iii)	Asst. Dep. Minister, Science & Engineering Procurement (DSS) See Note (2)	(iii) Retired	(iv)	Self-employed	(iv) Not applicable	l.Public	service classifications do not apply	to the tion of the	Minister of Public	Works and the
President's position. Section 7 (8), R.S. c.S-20, allows the Board to fix the President's salary.
thereof by the Prime Minister. Does it take this long to produce copies of two simple letters?
2. Mr. J. S. Glassford was seconded to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation by the Department of Supply and Services and held, simultaneously, the positions of President, Canadian Commercial Corporation and President, Canadian Arsenals Limited.


Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to my notice of motion No. 68 for the production of papers. It is a very simple motion relating to Canada's $11 million claim against the government of France as a result of the opting out by France of the NATO military alliance. This is the second time that I ask whether I could get an answer to my motion. It is worth $11 million to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Wednesday, March 24, my notice of motion for production of papers No. 96 was passed, with the approval of the parliamentary secretary. When I made my latest inquiry of the parliamentary papers returns office I learned that the return had not yet been tabled. It consists merely of two letters, the resigna-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with reference to both representations, I will take note of them and make sure that a reply is forthcoming.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions with respect to the order of business on orders of the day today. Having particular regard to the fact that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs

April 2, 1976
Business of the House
reported to the House today, and the way in which the House might handle the debate with respect to Bill C-92, I should like to say that discussions have gone on and it has been generally agreed by representatives of all parties that in any event Bill C-92 be given third reading today, and that in the debate leading to third reading there shall be one speech from a representative of each party, such speech not to exceed five minutes in length. I hope there will be no objection on the part of the government House leader or others in that respect because it is the intention of all of us to get this bill passed by the House immediately.
I presume there is consent. If that is the case, then that would be the first order of business, and I want to ensure that in fact the bill will receive third reading today. If that is the case-and the government House leader might wish to join me in this suggestion-it might be necessary for a House order to be made with respect to that bill.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with this matter in a very extraordinary fashion, but the reason is evident. It is the general desire of all members of the House that the bill should come into effect as soon as possible. You will have noted, sir, that the report made by the chairman of the committee mentioned the one amendment that had been made in committee, namely, that the bill shall be deemed to have come into effect on April 1, so that its benefits will not be denied former prisoners of war until it comes into effect. We do not have formally before us the printed bill, but I want to say that if it is agreeable to everyone in the House, and I believe it is, I would like to call third reading of Bill C-92 as the first order of business today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The report of the committee has just been received. To proceed to third reading on the same day would require the unanimous consent of the House. I must, therefore, ask whether the House gives unanimous consent to taking into consideration the further stages of Bill C-92 on this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House having given its unanimous consent, the Chair can scarcely ignore the advice that has been given by the hon. member for Mercier that the bill was in fact amended in the standing committee; at least, that is what I understood was referred to in the committee report, that there was an amendment as to the coming into force of the bill.
I would, therefore, again indicate to the House that it would require unanimous consent to proceed in the ordinary way with third reading debate at this time, in view of the fact that the bill has come from the standing committee with an amendment, because this would preclude the entire report stage of the bill. Not only would two stages be taken on the same day, but it would obliterate the report stage of the bill. So I want to be clear that the House gives unanimous consent to that procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that Bill C-92, to provide for compensation for former prisoners of war and their dependants, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the House wishes an order to be made now that there will be one speech from each of the parties in the House, of five minutes duration. Is that understood by the House and agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very happy to be speaking at this time. We did not expect anyone to be speaking on this matter. Yesterday we had more evidence of the unanimity of all parties in the House. First we were going to limit the length of speeches and then, finally, after several more consultations, we decided to cut out further speeches, which would allow more rapid passage on second reading by unanimous consent. This morning we took it to committee, where we also had unanimous consent. This has been brought about because we think that the veterans in question have been waiting a long time and another delay of a month or so would be detrimental to them. I think the fact that we accepted the amendment which makes April 1 the date on which the law will become effective was a very wise move.
I will not make a speech in favour of the bill. We are all in favour of it as it stands. I would just like to make a few points. First, our minister had a great deal of support from our caucus and he pushed this bill through cabinet. It took him a great deal of effort to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Samuel Victor Railton: I still think that the cabinet was very generous to find the necessary $10 million by scraping the bottom of the barrel, or by scraping it out of some other departmental projects. This shows the government's concern for our former prisoners of war. Also, we have particular cause to be proud of our Liberal caucus members and committee members because not one of them has taken
April 2, 1976

the opportunity to speak, just so we could get the bill passed before the weekend. I thank them all very much. I also give great credit to hon. members on the other side. This just shows that Canadians as a people are fond of their veterans and know that they should have continuing hearings with this committee and with this House of Commons until all their grievances and requests are settled to the best of our financial ability.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have been asked to speak on behalf of our party on this bill for the next five minutes. This bill is a very welcome one. Its content was unanimously recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I think it will especially be appreciated in those areas of the country where units were recruited which later were taken prisoner in Hong Kong or in Dieppe. These groups are the members of our forces, generally speaking, who were prisoners of war for the longest period of time. I am particularly pleased that the anomaly which exists with regard to the benefits already paid to Hong Kong prisoners of war has been removed.
I want to spend a minute or two to express my regret that the minister insists on creating another anomaly. I think it is a great misfortune that the definition of "prisoner of war" does not include evaders and escapers. This refers chiefly-not entirely, but almost entirely-to air crew members of the Royal Canadian Air Force who, along with other members of the allied air forces in those dark days from 1940 to 1944, when the invasion of Europe took place, were about the only harbingers of hope for the people of occupied Europe.
It was the duty of these people, if they came down in an occupied country, to attempt to escape. They were especially equipped and trained to some extent to do this. It seems to me morally wrong and completely unjust that those who were able to take advantage of a situation which allowed them to evade capture for a time, or to escape entirely, should be precluded from benefiting under this bill when, on the other hand, if they had been immediately captured and remained prisoners of war, they qualify under the bill. Instead of rewarding risk-taking and enterprise the reverse is true, these military virtues are being penalized. The reverse is true. When the legislation as amended is administered, some very hard cases will emerge whcih will be difficult for the minister to refuse, and I hope the law will be amended at a later time so that these people can be accommodated. They are very few in number, perhaps a couple of hundred as far as Canada is concerned, and I hope the minister will take what I have to say to heart and give further study to this particular problem.
It seems to me completely unjust that one man out of a crew who, under great hardship, succeeded in avoiding being made a prisoner of war for perhaps months, should be excluded, by virtue of that, from benefiting under this legislation. I want to tell the minister, as he probably knows, that under those conditions the greatest problem an escaping airman had was to reject the temptation in his mind and the terrible psychological pressure he was under to turn himself in, because in turning himslef in he would
Veterans Affairs
have been relatively safe and his next of kin would have known he was alive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, some of us have pressed vigorously and for a long time for this legislation, and I am very happy to be able to participate in these few minutes in the final stage of Bill C-92 in this House. I believe, there are congratulations which can well be extended, and I will start with the minister. I suspect he had a difficult time in the cabinet getting this bill brought forward and that it was only the case he was able to make that won the day. We congratulate him on this important battle and on this important victory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also want to pay tribute to all the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs representing all parties. I have seldom been involved in a project in the House of Commons where there was so much unanimity and such universal determination. I also congratulate the organizations representing veterans from Hong Kong, Dieppe and other prisoner of war veterans. They, too, did a good job in the material that they brought to our attention. We extend our thanks, also, to Dr. Hermann for his report which was the basis for the recommendations we made.
Of course, one cannot look at this bill without realizing that there are two or three things missing which we wish were in it. I support wholeheartedly the plea just made by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) regarding escapees and evaders. In the recommendations of our committee which were sit out in our seventh report, we recommended that they be included. Unfortunately, they are not included in the bill, but I hope at some point, especially as the applications come in, that the minister will find it possible to amend the statute in that respect.
I also regret that there is nothing in the bill to carry out Dr. Hermann's recommendation and the unanimous recommendation of our committee that there be a change with respect to the way pensions are granted to widows of disabled veterans. Without going into detail, I am referring to the present 48 per cent cut-off. I remind hon. members that the Woods report suggested a change in that, that several reports of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended a change in that respect, and that the report on which this legislation is based also recommended such a change, namely, that there be pensions for widows where the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent on a pro rata basis.
As strongly as I feel about that and about the point raised by the hon. member for Malpeque, we do not want to hold back this bill. It is good that we are getting it. It will mean a great deal to Hong Kong veterans to have their position improved, and it will mean a great deal to those who were prisoners of war in Europe, after all these years, to have the recognition and the compensation which are provided in this legislation. I believe that in achieving this legislation the House of Commons has shown itself to be the kind of place it ought to be. The Chair reminded us this morning of all the difficulties because of the rules we are

April 2, 1976
Veterans Affairs
setting aside by unanimous consent. No matter what objection there was, time after time the Chair heard the House say "Agreed." We are unanimous in supporting this bill. We are unanimously pleased that in a moment it will be passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it would be appropriate now to call it one o'clock and proceed directly with the next order of business at two o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.51 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but I suppose we will have to wait a few moments because there is no one here who can move the next order of government business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, since we cannot proceed with the consideration of the next legislation, maybe with the unanimous consent of the House we could resume the debate on Bill C-83, for I would be ready to speak now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We are ready to proceed with the order established among the various leaders of the House, namely the consideration of Bill S-32. As soon as I have the permission to speak, I will give my remarks to the House.


Walter David Baker: I can understand the embarrassment of the parliamentary secretary. There is no one here to move the order of business on which he proposes to speak. But we have to observe the rules of the House and it is necessary for two ministers to be here. Perhaps the government whip could be prevailed upon to go up to the dining-room to get one.


Mr. Breau:: It seems we will have to wait for the minister. I believe a resolution would be needed to change the orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was merely going to point out to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that we have one cabinet minister in his place, but we need two.


Herb Breau: I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does not like to waste any time. He might wish to use this interval as a grievance period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was thinking of moving that the House adjourn.


Mr. Poulin:: I see that the official opposition has one member of its front bench here, and we have one cabinet minister. The other ministers are very busy conducting the affairs of the nation and looking after their departmental responsibilities.


Walter David Baker: One of their responsibilities is to run the House.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: That is right. I think we should continue with this kind of agreeable comment. We are seated in a chamber which is within my riding, and it is pleasant to find this happy feeling prevailing. I see one member of the Creditiste party, and there are two members of the New Democratic Party-


An hon. Member:: Why not recite the alphabet? We know you can count.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: That interjection made me lose my train of thought.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, we normally take points of order in succession, but the point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) is so long that perhaps we can allow the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) to intervene.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I was proposing to put a question to the hon. member. He has spoken graciously of the good feeling which prevails here, but I should like to ask him whether he is inclined to take the action which seems to be called for, that is, to telephone to see whether he can find a couple of ministers.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But as I was saying, the ministers have varied responsibilities other than sitting in the House. There will be a minister here very shortly. They are attending to their departments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council whether he has any news. Otherwise, we shall have to adjourn the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Might I just say, Mr. Speaker, that the troops have just come in.


An hon. Member:: Only one.
April 2, 1976


FINANCE
J. Judd Buchanan: That Bill S-32 (from the Senate) to implement conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium and Canada and Israel, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to implement conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium and Canada and Israel. Moreover, in order that these conventions remain up to date after any amendment to the tax legislation in the countries involved, the bill provides that the Governor in Council may, subject to a resolution of Parliament, decree that any supplementary agreement has the force of law.
After the 1971 tax reform, Canada did undertake a major extension of its program of fiscal agreements with other countries. To this day, we have signed 16 such agreements and we intend to revise them all. As a matter of fact, once the agreement between Canada and France will have been ratified, it will replace the agreement signed in 1951 by the two countries and which is now in effect. Mr. Speaker, we hope that new agreements such as the one signed by Canada and Belgium and the one signed by Canada and Israel will be entered into in the same way between Canada and some forty other countries.
The extension of the network of fiscal agreements signed by Canada and other countries had been implicitly suggested in the 1971 tax reform for various reasons. For instance, before the tax reform, the dividends drawn by a Canadian corporation from a foreign branch were automatically exempted from corporate income tax in Canada; under the Income Tax Act, as amended in 1971, the universal exemption granted with respect to the dividends drawn from a foreign branch is restricted. Since January 1, 1976, only the active income dividends of a foreign subsidiary established in a country with whom Canada has agreed on the overall content of a tax convention are exempted. Tax reform has also brought about, for instance, changes in the taxation of capital gains and has provided that from now on foreign teachers will no longer have their Canadian-earned income exempted.
The three conventions on double taxation being studied have much in common. They take after the format and language used in the draft model convention prepared by the committee on taxation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, better known as the OECD. Canada usually accepts the wording of the provisions recommended in the draft convention. In some cases however, the content of the OECD proposals does not reflect Canadian policies and, therefore, cannot be adhered to in our bi-lateral conventions. The most important of these provisions are related to taxation by the source
Income Tax
country of dividends, interests and royalties paid to non-residents.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that when they are negotiating fiscal arrangements, industrialized nations are inclined to ask for specific rates for tax deducted at the source, according to the pattern followed in OECD countries that is 5 per cent on dividends paid to parent or affiliated companies and 15 per cent on other dividends, no deduction for branch profits, 10 per cent on interests and no deduction on royalties. On the other hand, developing countries usually try to maintain higher rates for taxes deducted at the source because the greater part of the income flow moves from the developing country where the investments are made, towards the industrialized county where the investors are based.
In the course of its negotiations with the other countries, Canada has tried to get a general rate of 15 per cent on the dividends, interests and profits of branches and a rate of 10 per cent on royalties. However, we are prepared to accept higher rates, in the course of our negotiations with developing countries, only if those rates are consistent with those the country in question has granted in its tax conventions with other industrialized countries.
The conventions with France, Belgium and Israel provide that all dividends can be taxed in the country of which the company paying the dividends is a resident so that the charge shall not exceed 15 per cent.
A general rate of 15 per cent is also considered when interests coming from one particular country are paid to a resident of the other. A limited number of exceptions has been provided for certain categories of interests in order to promote better relations between Canada and these countries in the financial, economic and trading fields.
As for royalties, the conventions with France and Belgium provide a flat rate of 10 per cent and that with Israel, a rate of 15 per cent. The three conventions contain an exemption for royalties on copyrights for artistic works, but not including royalties in respect of motion picture films and works on film or videotape for use in connection with television. It must be noted that the Income Tax Act provides such an exemption for copyright royalties. The convention with France provides in addition an exemption on royalties in respect of cultural motion picture films such as defined in the convention.
There are some other points covered by the income tax conventions on which I would like to comment, especially about capital gains. The provisions on capital gains in the three conventions reflect the Canadian position authorizing the country at the source to tax gains from the alienation of immovable property, the assets of a company and the shares of an immovable company. For the purposes of the conventions, an immovable company is one whose assets consist mainly of immovable property.
I would like to bring in a few details concerning teachers. According to most tax conventions in force in Canada, foreign teachers benefit from a fiscal exemption during two years. These provisions have certainly raised a lot of dissatisfaction and the white paper on fiscal reform stated precisely that this concession would be removed from new

April 2, 1976
Income Tax
Canadian tax conventions. The conventions with France, Belgium and Israel do not contain such provisions.
Canada has also upheld its general right to tax pensions and annuities paid to non-residents. Moreover, the three conventions reflect the provisions of the Income Tax Act in providing a tax exemption on pensions paid to veterans.
As for double taxation, the provision dealing with specific procedures to eliminate double taxation is obviously one of the most important of a convention concerning double taxation agreed to with various countries. The Income Tax Act contains unilateral rules whose objective is to relieve Canadian residents from double taxation on incomes from foreign sources. The rules applying to foreign income credits are usually satisfactory but, because of their unilateral character, they cannot make allowances for the particular circumstances inherent in each case. A convention for the avoidance of double taxation gives Canada the chance to adjust its rules on foreign tax credits to accommodate the specific problems that may come up when a Canadian taxpayer receives income from a foreign country. In addition, as I indicated earlier, Canadian companies can be forgiven certain dividends they receive from their subsidiaries only if there is a double taxation convention. Those two objectives are achieved by the conventions with France, Belgium and Israel. To encourage the flow of capital and investments, the three conventions stipulate, of course, that France, Belgium and Israel will do away with, in appropriate fashion, the double taxation in the case of income taxes paid in Canada.
The convention with Israel contains, in addition a stipulation commonly known as the provision for fictitious income tax credit. Let me explain myself, Mr. Speaker. That is a technical means of ensuring that fiscal incentives granted by Israel, through legislation on progressive industries, will in fact benefit Canadian enterprises and that those benefits will not be transferred to the Canadian treasury. This result is achieved in the following way: Canada accepts to include, for the purpose of calculation of foreign tax credit, the amount of Israeli tax which would have been paid without this special incentive legislation. Those provisions will apply to business profits, dividends and interests that a Canadian resident derives from Israeli sources. It is to be noted that in practice the cost for such a provision would probably be very low since there is already an exemption for dividends, which means that there will be no tax payable in Canada for dividends generated by an investment abroad.
One last recommendation: discrimination on the basis of nationality is not allowed under the conventions to ensure that a Canadian citizen will get fair and equitable treatment by the three countries concerned. However, certain tax incentives-tax deduction for small businesses and tax credit for dividends-available, independently of their nationality, to Canadian residents to induce them to invest in Canada will not be affected by the non-discrimination provision since they are applied on the basis of "residence" as opposed to "nationality".
Finally we must aim at working out a policy to keep the conventions up to date. In the past, a bill had to be introduced in Parliament to implement any further amend-

ment to the tax agreement. Considering the expected extension of the tax agreement network in Canada, as I have already said, this method will shortly require much parliamentary time, only to consider technical changes in most cases.
To avoid this and make sure that tax conventions are kept up to date following changes in the bilateral tax relationship between Canada and other countries, part IV of the bill provides for the Governor in Council to be empowered with the implementation of future amendments to the agreements with France, Belgium and Israel, through an order in council subject to the approval of a resolution by Parliament.
Clause 12 of Part IV provides, if both Houses pass regulations such as was described above, for the implementation of those regulations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the terms of the conventions with France, Belgium and Israel provide for a solution which is equitable and in many respects favourable for Canada to the problems raised by double taxation between Canada and those countries. Therefore I urge the House to pass the bill to implement the conventions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the debate on Bill S-32, I think the House should first of all consider part IV, the part with which the parliamentary secretary has just dealt. It is important that we review the provisions of that part of the bill because in my mind they demonstrate the rather cavalier attitude on the part of this government to the role of the Parliament of Canada in relation to the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We have sat here for 20 minutes, from two o'clock until 2.20 waiting for two cabinet ministers to come in, in order that we might start this debate on a bill that I would suggest is much more important than the government has indicated so far.
The three clauses I should like to refer to in Bill S-32 are 10, 11 and 12. If I may, I would put on the record certain comments concerning those clauses. It is our belief that clause 10 of Bill S-32 allows the governor in council to conclude supplementary agreements which would be made effective by proclamation. I believe the parliamentary secretary referred to this point. These are the supplementary agreements to the tax treaties between Israel, France and Belgium that we are now being asked to ratify. Clause 11 purports to set out a negative resolution procedure whereby this executive action can be disallowed if parliament objects, and clause 12 provides that when parliament acquires its own Standing Orders on negative resolutions, the temporary provisions of clause 11 will lapse.
There are two fundamental problems, I would suggest, with this approach. First, the procedure described in clause
11	is useless, because proeedurally any resolution would have no claim to the attention of the House. Second, clause
12	anticipates procedural changes here and in the other place which are not even under discussion at the present time, to the best of our knowledge. The government may have something in mind, but it has not allowed the official
April 2, 1976

opposition to know the nature of whatever rule changes it is now contemplating. If a negative resolution procedure is to provide any guarantee to parliament, we suggest that it must provide, first, means whereby a member can move a negative resolution which will appear elsewhere than under private members' motions on the order paper.
Second, there should be a guarantee that the motion will actually be brought before the House and receive adequate discussion. Third, there must be an opportunity for a decision on the matter before the statutory deadline expires. Fourth, there must be a procedure whereby a negative resolution will be brought before the House, other than the way in which it was introduced, in time to be dealt with before the deadline date has overtaken us.
The procedure in clause 11 does not do any of these things. All it really does is to ensure that the supplementary agreement will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The bill goes on to say that unless both Houses object within 30 sitting days, the agreement is in effect. In short, this changes the onus. Instead of the treaties having to be ratified by the Parliament of Canada, they may, as far as supplementary amendments to these agreements are concerned, be ratified by order in council and it is up to this House and the other place to move. If they do not move in the fashion I have just described, the order in council is effective.
Where does the negative resolution come from? What member in this House would propose it? Who puts it on the order paper, and where; and who calls it for debate, and when? What obligation is there to reach a decision on the resolution? Is it dealt with simultaneously in the other place and, if not, who guarantees it will be considered there within the deadlines to which I have referred? A negative resolution procedure that neglects these questions is so cynical as to be an insult to members who supposedly being respected by these provisions.
Members are invited to look at section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to see a negative resolution procedure with some significance, despite the timing ambiguity of which the government has taken full advantage. It states that where an objection is filed the House "shall" take it up. That is a definite direction which the government cannot ignore. In clause 11 of Bill S-32 the House, which is fully controlled by the executive, making any agreement must "resolve that the order shall have no effect". I repeat, what use is that if there is no objection to bring any proposed resolutions before the House for debate and decision?
Clause 12 holds out the hope, if you like, of changes in our own rules and refers to a time when we might have a negative resolution procedure in the Standing Orders. Then clause 11 will lapse. As this debate develops, perhaps the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will inform the House whether he has something in mind. Does he have an amendment to the Standing Orders which will provide for some type of procedure to deal with negative resolution with which we are not familiar at the present time? In the Senate banking, trade and commerce committee, Mr. Cohen, the witness from the Department of Finance, said:
Clause 12 is contemplating a point in time when each chamber will have established its own set of procedural rules for handling this
Income Tax
concept of both affirmative and negative resolutions in terms of the Interpretation Act. What we have tried to do here is anticipate that when the houses have established their own rules, those rules will apply, and clause 11 will no longer do so. Clause 11 is an interim step, which will function until the procedural rules have been ironed out and evolved in the two chambers.
In response to that, Senator Lang said:
As a member of the Senate Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have never heard of these contemplated changes in the rules. What makes you think, Mr. Cohen, that there are going to be changes in the House rules?
Mr. Cohen then said it was his "understanding and impression". We must echo, on this side of the House, the words of Senator Lang. We in this House have never heard of these proposed Standing Orders. None of the subcommittees of the procedure committee are dealing with them. There is no promise to bring them forward that anyone on this side of the House has ever heard of. I see the President of the Privy Council now looking at me. He was chairman of the procedure committee, and perhaps he can tell us about this, or we would be glad to hear from his parliamentary secretary who was also on that committee. What does the protection of parliament's rights in relation to these treaty amendments come to? I suggest it is a meaningless, procedural, magic trick in the present and less than an empty promise in the future.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to ask the hon. member a question. Is he urging that one of his members on the standing committee bring this matter forward? I would certainly have no objection, if he is dissatisfied with the initiative on this side. Of course, any member of the committee can bring it forward, but it is a matter deserving very careful consideration.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In reply to that question, I would point out to the President of the Privy Council that this is the government's initiative. I should have thought that either in the other place or in the introductory remarks of the parliamentary secretary today in the House there would have been some explanation of why clause 12 has been inserted. All this says is that the government did plan to put a proposal forward to cover this point. What is the government's thinking. After all, it proposed the inclusion of clause 12. It deserves further explanation. I submit that the President of the Privy Council should give a concrete explanation of how the government expects to bring in these procedural changes.
Although in essence this bill ratifying the three treaties referred to encompasses but four pages and 12 clauses, it is a pace-setter with respect to new treaties which Canada will enter into. This is the first time since we passed the tax reform bill that we have been asked to ratify new treaties. In a sense, this bill deals with the fall-out effect of that tax reform legislation. In short, we made such drastic changes in that tax reform legislation that it has now become necessary to renegotiate previously existing treaties which we entered into with various countries. My point is that this bill is a pace-setter. We ought to consider to what extent the international consequences of our tax reform legislation have been desirable or undesirable.

April 2, 1976
Income Tax
The parliamentary secretary talked about the capital gains tax and how that tax is to be dealt with in the treaties we shall ratify. The capital gains tax is a complicating factor in these treaties and presents difficulties connected with entering into such treaties at present. The interests of capital exporters conflict with those of capital importers. Naturally, those who export capital do not favour a capital gains tax in the country in which they invest. On the other hand, importers see nothing wrong with levying such a tax on the gains accruing from the capital invested. Hon. members must not feel that this is merely a technical bill, that we are doing something similar to what we did in the past. Actually, we are dealing with the first fall-out effects of the tax reform legislation, effects making themselves felt in international treaty agreements of the sort we are now contemplating.
In the committee of the other place, Mr. Cohen, to whom I have referred, said that at present 36 treaties are to be negotiated or are waiting to come forward, and in the end we may need to deal with between 50 and 100 various other treaties. I understand that the committee of the other place scrutinized the matter much more carefully than in previous years.
In amending treaties or entering into new treaties, parliament must exercise special vigilance. We ought to look carefully at the initial treaties and examine carefully any amendments. I say this because we live in a world of complicated capital movement. There are great interchanges of capital; there are great international flows of capital. If we arbitrarily do something which may jeopardize the well-being of Canadian-based international companies, we will act most unfortunately. On the other hand, we must make certain that we clamp down on the activities of companies whose offshore operations are really tax avoidance schemes.
It is our responsibility, as members of parliament, to remain vigilant and oversee what the government does in its international dealings. Certainly, there is little evidence of co-operation between various departments of government. The Department of Finance apparently has gone in one direction, the Department of National Revenue in another, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in still another. One wonders how much co-ordinated thought went into the drawing up of the treaties we are considering. What, exactly, was the involvement of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Judging from the testimony taken before the committee of the other place, the Department of External Affairs was not even involved.
I am raising these points because if one examines the broad picture of international taxation two possibilities present themselves: first, Canada has left itself unduly open in the sense that we have allowed the existence of tax loopholes through which huge amounts of money escape untaxed and do not find their way into government coffers. We are losing money because we are too lax. That is one danger and one possibility. The other possibility is that we are too strict; that our companies cannot compete internationally with competitors who are more liberally treated under their country's tax system.
There is evidence supporting the first view. Last June, in Ottawa, the then minister of national revenue in a dramat-

ic speech said that this country is losing, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue as a result of the offshore activities of certain companies. He said that the government wanted to crack down, wanted to hire more investigators and wanted to tighten the entire system. That was said last June. Our newspapers gave extensive coverage to the minister's speech.
The present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) also spoke on this subject. The Globe and Mail of November 19, 1975, printed an article headlined "Tax dodgers major target of study group''. According to the Washington article-
A special task force on taxation has been set up by Canadian and U.S. authorities aimed at catching tax dodgers in both countries.
The force has been told to submit recommendations by the end of this year that may lead to a new Canadian-U.S. tax treaty, revenue minister Jack (Bud) Cullen said.
Canada's aim is to recoup an estimated $1.6 billion a year that is being lost through tax avoidance or fraud.
Mr. Cullen said that multinational corporations, through dealings with subsidiaries in other countries, are suspected of being the major offenders ...
"We want to see if we can do this through existing tax treaties," Mr. Cullen said. "If not, we may need a special agreement."
Last February 25, Peter Cook-who wrote the original story concerning the previous minister of finance-wrote another story. He wrote as follows in the Financial Times:
The government has shelved plans to close a ''tax loophole which costs the country hundreds of million of dollars" because Ottawa cannot afford the expert investigators needed.
Which article is right? Last November we heard that Canada is losing possibly $1.6 billion through the offshore activities of Canadian-based companies. In February we were told that the government could not afford to hire investigators to check this. If $1.6 billion was at stake, could not the government afford investigators whose work might lead to recovery of that revenue?
Last June, the former minister of national revenue, now Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), said that the practice was costing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue and he promised a series of proposals to significantly strengthen Canada's efforts. Department of National Revenue spokesmen said that the government's austerity measures have put the project "far down the road". I hope that the Minister of National Revenue, who is in the House today, will clarify this. What, in fact, is the truth? Is there a chance that we have been losing $1.6 billion in revenue as a result of what apparently are tax evasion schemes around the world, and in spite of that fact they have said they cannot get sufficient investigators as a result of this austerity program? Surely that is not a credible story. However, I should like to hear the Minister of National Revenue give his version.
I have indicated that this is one side of the question before us today. When we are considering tax treaties we have to consider whether Canada is, in effect, being ripped off as a result of multinational corporation activity or any other type of international activity concerning tax evasion which should be stopped. But the other thing that we have to question is whether we are being unduly harsh on our own corporations by subjecting them to tax treatment that
April 2, 1976

is much more harsh than one finds in other comparable jurisdictions. After all, in our committee meeting this week, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) stated, after questioning, that perhaps the luscious area in the world today, so far as tax incentives and tax breaks or grants are concerned to get companies active within their boundaries, is the Republic of Ireland.
I asked the minister whether he could give us some type of synopsis or a review of the relative position, nation to nation, around the world, the position of the main trading nations of the world, concerning how they treat tax writeoffs, grants and other incentives to enable people to open up to advantage within their country. He has promised to do that. I think that type of consideration is something we should also be asking ourselves, certainly in committee when we consider these treaties. What is the relative position of Canada as against the United States, Ireland, Japan, Mexico and many of the other countries which have commercial concerns with whom we have to compete?
In dealing with this question, I found in the September-October, 1975, Canadian Tax Journal an interesting article written by A. M. Pilling, entitled "Tax Haven Subsidies". Mr. Pilling is a lawyer in the city of Toronto. He is well regarded, and I find it very interesting that he takes up the comments made by the Minister of Justice to which I have referred. He referred to that speech in Ottawa. If I may, I will quote directly from the Canadian Tax Journal. Mr. Pilling says that the minister's comments-
-were contained in an address to the ninth general assembly of the Inter-American Centre of Tax Administrators (CIAT) in Ottawa on June 12, 1975. The address was largely about the elusiveness of multinationals in the tax context". The minister noted in connection with the "tax haven problems" that:
"Since 1968, our tax avoidance and special investigations groups have been searching out and challenging tax haven situations. A substantial number of reassessments, some involving prosecution, have been issued, and the related tax recoveries have amounted to many millions of dollars.
At present, there are more than twenty important cases, either under investigation or in the appeal process, concerning substantial diversion of income from Canada.
Although Mr. Pilling deals with the speech in the context of the aftermath of the recent case with which most of us are familiar, the Dominion Bridge v. The Queen, it was pretty strongly held by the Canadian Federal Court that an offshore operation which in any way appears to be a sham or a dummy will simply be wiped out, and that the taxation will be looked upon as if the entire operation, irrespective of whatever other jurisdiction is involved, is a Canadian operation. Mr. Pilling, in his rather thoughtful article, tries to look at the consequences of this decision and of the perhaps new and rather active approach of the Department of National Revenue. He states:
First, the judgment suggests tests to determine whether or not a tax haven subsidy is a sham. Secondly, shortly after the judgment the Minister of National Revenue stated that "we now intend to move, with more confidence and vigour, against other similar arrangements".
"Similar arrangements" was the term used by the Minister of National Revenue. Mr. Pilling then goes on to state as follows, after reviewing some of the highlights of that case:
Of broader interest is the question of whether, as a result of Revenue Canada's renewed confidence in dealing with tax haven abuses, it is
Income Tax
now necessary to introduce the distinction between active business income earned by a foreign affiliate in a treaty, as opposed to a non-treaty, country .. . While after 1975 active business income earned by a foreign affiliate in a tax haven country will not be subject to Canadian tax until repatriated to Canada, if the affiliate is regarded as a puppet of its Canadian parent its income will be subject to Canadian tax whether repatriated or not.
Mr. Speaker, in committee I would like to go into more detail concerning the actual wording of the existing tax act, the intention as far as these treaties are concerned. But the point I would like to get to in Mr. Pilling's article is in the final paragraphs of the article where he asks whether there should be a time for reappraisal. He says:
The proposal, however, ignores the competition that Canadian business faces overseas from multinational companies with vast resources, from companies located in low wage countries, from companies whose governments are in a position to and do help in securing contracts and from companies whose domestic law permits the use of tax havens without the necessity of paying domestic tax on repatriation of earnings accumulated abroad.
He gives examples of where this is the case and, oddly enough, one of the examples he gives is France: he says that through the use of a special company, the French authorities permit-actually encourage-the use of the tax haven in relation to their domestic taxation. I would point out that we are dealing with a tax treaty involving France in Bill S-32. Mr. Pilling goes on to say:
It can be argued that a country with a limited domestic market and a heavy reliance on foreign investment benefits from encouraging its domestic companies to expand overseas. While no one would contend that tax haven operations play a significant part in developing Canadian trade overseas they can be significant in some areas. For example, in technologically-oriented industries R & D staff and program can be maintained if order books can be filled with overseas business when domestic business is lean. For the engineering and construction companies the uncertainty of bidding in foreign countries can result in margins for which the only protection in many cases is a low tax rate in a company located in a low tax jurisdiction on some portion of their contract income.
Mr. Pilling continues:
If the over-all objective of encouraging the expansion of Canadian trade overseas is of greater value than the fiscal advantages resulting from the proposed international tax system, and the writer submits that it may well be, the incentive of using a tax haven country should be made available to Canadian business as it is to many of its competitors. This would suggest that the treaty-non-treaty country distinction be abolished-
Here is an authority on this general international tax question suggesting that perhaps the old-fashioned idea of having these international treaties should be abolished. I certainly do not know. I am simply looking for some comment from the government benches, having considered this suggestion, the reason they persist in going ahead with the treaties we are being asked to ratify today.
Mr. Pilling goes on to say that the distinction should be abolished, and I quote:
.. . that all active business income of foreign affiliates be allowed to be repatriated to Canada free of Canadian tax as in the past. This is not to say that sham operations or the artificial diversion of income from Canada should be permitted. But if a company can establish an overseas operation in a tax haven country which can withstand the management and control tests and puppet and sham tests, which are no more stringent than those applied to domestic subsidiaries, there would seem to be no reason for Canada to tax its earnings when repatriated, and

April 2, 1976
Income Tax
particularly not if the location of the subsidiary is an incentive to develop markets for Canadian products overseas.
Surely the debate on Bill S-32 should broaden to the point where we can get some explanation as to what extent the government has considered the trade implications of its whole tax approach, bearing in mind that there were rather dramatic changes made when the legislation was recently passed, and bearing in mind that certain provisions in these treaties begin, and can only begin, as of January 1 of this year. For example, I refer to FAPI.
I think we have before us a pace setting piece of legislation which we should debate thoroughly in the House at second reading. We should also intensively review the treaties and proposals in committee. I suggest that unless there can be a reasonable explanation for Part IV of the bill before us, that part should be amended substantially before it comes back for report stage in this House.
I am nervous about the possibility that we might be over zealous and that the negotiators will be running around the world entering into so-called treaties to avoid double taxation, and hitting countries with which, for some reason or other, they find it difficult to negotiate. Certainly they do not want to come up with a treaty which would be closely scrutinized in this House, and they end up deciding to have a token type of treaty, knowing that from then on all they need is an order in council to strengthen the agreement with subsequent amendments, and there is little possibility that this House will consider in a meaningful way what they will have done.
For example, in committee I noticed that Mr. Cohen suggested that the negotiators are now negotiating with certain communist nations to sign new treaties. I find this very interesting. I do not know exactly how you enter into a tax treaty between a communist nation-when you consider their ideology and their system-and a capitalistic or free enterprise system. I am not sure how you can put those apples and pears together, but presumably it is felt that there is some way to work out a tax agreement and protect Canadian interests at the same time. I believe Rumania is a country which is high on the list.
In short, we have an important bill before us today, Bill S-32. I hope that we, as members of parliament, will be vigilant before we pass the bill, and I believe that as this is a pace setting piece of legislation we must be careful that we do not unwittingly jeopardize Canadian business activity with regard to international trade, and second, that we do not allow-and I should like to hear more on this-any type of loophole to continue to exist whereby taxation which should rightfully fall to Canada does not do so. And certainly if it is to the extent of $1.6 billion per year which is being lost, as the Minister of National Revenue apparently indicated, I think it is time the government did something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, when we are considering Bill S-32 we would be remiss if some hon. members on this side did not point out the cost to the Canadian taxpayers of the reluctance of the government to take material steps to tighten up the tax laws by which it is possible for multinational corporations and their subsidiaries to divert income out of Canada, and therefore to

lessen their tax liabilities, and therefore their taxes payable to the Government of Canada. As is well known by hon. members this is done by multinational corporations underpricing exports, overpricing imports, and charging artificially high expenses to their subsidiaries.
I want to read into the record an example taken from the files of the United States Internal Revenue Service which demonstrates how a multinational corporation can actually cheat governments out of tax dollars. Of course I will not use corporation names. I shall simply call the company involved company A. This is right out of tax files, and I suggest under the existing tax laws in Canada this could happen and likely does happen right here in Canada.
It reads as follows:
... manufacturing company (A) in the U.S. had a wholly-owned subsidiary in another country that extracted raw materials. The multinational had another wholly-owned subsidiary shipping company in a tax haven country that chartered ships from unrelated companies.
Most of the shipping company's activity was in transporting raw materials from the mining subsidiary to the parent manufacturing company in the United States.
But the shipping company also supplied shipping services in a small way to other companies which were not related to the parent. The key point is that it charged the unrelated companies the same shipping rate as its parent company.
On the surface this appeared to be reasonable, but on closer examination U.S. Revenue Service officials decided the shipping company was charging its parent company much too high a rate.
By inflating the shipping costs the parent company was increasing its expenses allowable against income and therefore decreasing its tax. It was also increasing profits of its wholly-owned subsidiary, the shipping company, in a tax haven country.
So it can happen, and it does happen. It happens to the degree that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) suggests that it is responsible for a loss of revenue to Canada of $1.6 billion. I disagree with the minister. Like others, I think it is closer to 10 per cent of the total revenues of the government of this country, which would put it at $2.7 billion. Like Mr. Smallwood, the former premier of that great province of Newfoundland, I like to reduce things down to their lowest common denominator so that people such as myself and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) can understand them.


J. Judd Buchanan: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: To understand what $2.7 billion can buy, one could use a Toyota Corolla, a 1200 model. I know ministers on the other side would not know what that is. That is a car which people other than cabinet ministers drive and have to buy. Let us take a Toyota, because we are in an affluent society, and put a radio in it of whatever colour we like.
Let us start in Victoria and put Toyotas together, bumper to bumper across British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the keystone province of Manitoba, wind our way on the trans-Canada highway around the Great Lakes, through the Ottawa valley, down through Gaspe, the all Canadian route to the Maritimes, down through New Brunswick to the great town of Truro, Nova Scotia, to Halifax, take the trans-Canada to Cape Breton, put all the Toyotas we can possibly put on the ferry across to Newfoundland, all the way to St. John's, Newfoundland, and right up to the front door of Joey's oratory, and we would
April 2, 1976

have 17 Toyotas left over. As if it were not bad enough that the Government of Canada takes all these Toyotas, it deprives the people of Canada of the 17 left over. That is what they are talking about in lost revenue to the people of Canada, revenue that was legitimate revenue.
The two dictums of taxation in this country, the two principles which every Canadian can understand and probably would agree with, are that taxation be fair and universal, and that governments spend taxes in a responsible and constructive way. My friend, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), says yes, after they get them. That is the whole problem. We do not get $2.7 billion of taxation that we ought to get. I suggest that is not fair taxation. It is not fair that all Canadians are taxed and yet multinational corporations can rip off, if we accept the estimate of the Minister of National Revenue, $1.6 billion. That $1.6 billion is not out of the minister's pocket, but out of the pockets of taxpaying Canadians. This government was elected to act, not to tell us what it wants and hopes to do.
The predecessor of the Minister of National Revenue made a promise. That, of course, is a word that the government takes rather glibly. I am not sure it even knows the meaning of the word promise. However, the former minister promised proposals. He said, "I promise significantly to strengthen Canada's compliance effort." In other words, he promised to take action to recover for the people of Canada taxation that is lost because of tax havens, subsidiaries, and the arrangements we have with other nations with regard to the multinationals.
Since then that minister has risen and fallen, moved on to other things, and we are left with the same state of disarray and bewilderment as before. However, there is hope. One thing that always lifts our spirits is that we have this great hope of better things to come.
We now have a new Minister of National Revenue. He has not been idle. He has been about the country and about the world. He is a man of great compassion. There is no question about that. He has even been to our city of Winnipeg opening temporary centres. I suppose he is attacking the multinationals in Winnipeg.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind being called compassionate, but I certainly do not like being misquoted. I never at any time indicated that the loss of revenue was $1.6 billion. I did indicate there was a significant sum. If the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) will re-read the article, he will see that part is not in quotes and is not attributable to me. I never made that statement.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister might inform the House of his estimate.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is a good question. It is significantly less than $1.6 billion.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
Income Tax


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor. He does not need to rise on a point of order.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly yield the floor to the minister if he would be more exact in his remarks to this House. If he says it is significantly less, he must have some figure in mind. To my mind, significantly less means less than half. Would the minister like to inform the people of Canada of his estimate of lost revenue to Canada? The minister has a blank look on his face. I do not know whether it is because he does not want to answer or because he does not know. In any event, until he comes up with a figure to refute mine, my estimate will be as valid as his. Until he explains, I will suggest it is $2.7 billion. Until the minister proves me wrong, that is where we will stand.
The minister says we cannot afford to hire experts. Before he rises in his place I ought to say the minister was reported as saying we cannot afford to hire the experts who could evaluate the cost of goods and services and material shipped in and out of Canada and assess a fair tax. The minister shakes his head when I say that that is what he is reported as saying. Is that not in fact the position of the minister?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. I do not know how far ranging this debate should be. I thought we were talking about tax treaties and the treatment of them. I had the estimates before the committee where these questions should have been raised. If the subject matter is so interesting to the hon. member, maybe he should save this speech for another day. The hon. member says I am reported to have said that. I again indicate to him that I never made that statement. I challenge anyone to show that I made that statement.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The minister says I should save this speech for another day. That is what is wrong with the government. It always wants to save the problems for another day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: He is the minister. Why does he not get on with it now? They have been in government long enough.


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Yes, I should rephrase that. They have been in government too long. Nevertheless, it has been long enough to have more of an answer than that my speech should be saved for another day.
I would like the minister to address himself to this question. We ought not to be asking whether we can afford the cost of hiring experts. Surely our brains in Canada can equal the brains of the world in terms of tightening up our tax structure. I believe we have that brain power. I do not think the question should be whether we can afford to hire them, but whether we can afford not to hire them, if for no other reason than to break even.
I know the way this government spends money. However, I cannot imagine it costing $2.7 million to tighten up the tax structure. The government will probably spend all
12424

April 2, 1976
Income Tax
of that to get the job done. Even if it did spend all that money to get the job done, Canadians could at least go to bed knowing that this unfairness and inequity in terms of our tax structure in this country would be eliminated. There would not be one tax for the multinationals and another for the common people of this country.
The minister has made some useful suggestions. He suggested a simultaneous audit from country to country to correlate the various kinds of activities of the multinationals. That is a good suggestion. I give the minister full credit and I commend him on that kind of suggestion. However, the problem is that that is all it is, a suggestion. The difference between being on the minister's side and on my side is that I suggest, but he can act.
Surely you must have something more for the people of Canada than to say, "I am making suggestions." We do not need any more suggestions. We need actions. These whimsical notions you get from time to time have to be translated into legislation, and surely you could present something better to the House of Commons than this dismal effort, as good as it is, which does not really address itself to the real problem facing Canada. I understand the difficulty of getting to the root of not being able to catch these multinational corporations in their tax games. I know the lag which occurs when they exchange information from country to country. I know the large number of tax havens in which they can get involved. But the government was elected not to identify problems only but to present programs and actions to right the wrongs.
I conclude by saying that if the government will bring in legislation to tidy up these tax loopholes I have no doubt that we on this side will give our support. Surely they are known to the department. Given the kind of staff the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has in his office I should think you could borrow a few dozen of them and he would still have plenty around to run his office. I say this for the reason that the Canadian people expect no more and deserve no less.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, as I take part in this debate on Bill S-32 I cannot but reflect on the history of taxation in this country and the conventions we have entered upon in the past with many other states.
First of all, I should like to refer to the words of Senator Lang when he introduced the bill in the other place. He made reference to the so-called tax reform law which parliament passed in 1971. He referred to the fundamental changes which were made at that time and said these changes in the tax laws were so basic that they had necessitated renegotiation of the tax treaties in effect at that time between Canada and 16 other countries. It is now four years later and it is worth noting that the three tax treaties we are now examining are the first to be renegotiated according to the evidence given in the other place. The words of the hon. Senator were these:
The first three conventions to be successfully renegotiated out of the 16 extant at the time of the tax reform legislation are reproduced in this bill.
The next day the Senate was informed that this information was incorrect. There had been 16 tax treaties in effect, all of which would require renegotiation because of the

major changes made by Canada in its own tax law. However, the three treaties we are examining today are not among the 16 in force in 1972. The question thus arises: are these renegotiated conventions or are they new conventions? The implication is that we actually have 19 now, rather than 16.
It is difficult to know just what the government has planned in this regard. I refer to a list of tax conventions published by the CCH Canadian Limited under "Income Tax and Regulations." The information given here, and I think we might take it as being reliable, refers to the international tax conventions and states there are 16, and that since 1971 Canada has not concluded any treaties related to the avoidance of double taxation or of fiscal evasion. The reference here is to the Canada-France Treaty which was actually signed in May, 1975. Now, in April, 1976, parliament is being asked to examine it and approve it. I shall not read the list, but it runs from Austria to Zambia, and names 37 countries with which Canada is presently negotiating tax treaties.
The interesting thing is that the tax treaties with the United Kingdom and the United States, to name just two, are listed with those presently under negotiation. The reason this is strange is that the government does not seem to be aware of the treaties those countries are negotiating. The 16 countries with which we had treaties in 1971 seem to be in limbo. Mr. Speaker, you cannot have a treaty which is in effect if it is also being renegotiated, especially when the government has apparently no idea of the status of those treaties at this moment.
I attempted to ask the minister this morning what was the status of the Canada-United States tax treaty and what interim measures the government was relying on since there is no doubt, when one looks at the personal income tax forms of Canadians, that some relief is given to taxpayers in their dealings with that country.
Most of the bill we are asked to consider, indeed all but four pages, consists of the treaties themselves. I shall refer later to the contents of those four pages and I am sure the committee will be giving full scrutiny to the contents of the treaties as well.
I do not think many members will disagree with the principle involved here, which is that we should set down our tax relations with other countries in a proper and forthright manner. Before we get into some of the details I should like to examine the underlying causes of the need to be renegotiating these treaties at the moment. At the very least, the present debate emphasizes the failure of the government's so-called tax reform measures back in 1971 and the months prior to that. The stated purpose of the reform was, to put it in a few words, to achieve equity and simplicity. This is a commendable aim and it is sad for Canada that we were unable to achieve either of those qualities.
If anyone needs examples to show we have failed to achieve either equity or simplicity as a result of the tax reform it will not be necessary to look very far. I should like to give a little evidence right now. I refer to the government's tax statistics for 1975 analyzing the returns of individuals for the 1973 taxation year. It appears from the summary, table II, that the poorest sector of Canadian society, those earning less than $7,000, paid no less than $1
April 2, 1976

billion in income tax. Yet the government's agencies tell us that the poverty level is something less than $8,000 a year income. I am certain the people earning under $7,000 and who have paid $1 billion in taxes do not think the situation is very equitable at the moment.
Another interesting figure in table II of the statistics reveals that 46 per cent of the personal income tax bill is paid by Canadians earning less than $12,000, which after all is only one half the level of pay of the lowly backbencher of this House. A little higher up the scale we find that fully 65 per cent of the total personal income tax bill of the federal government is met by those earning under $16,000. The low income earners of Canada are also suffering from galloping inflation, and even with personal exemptions indexed their tax bill is high. Indeed they are suffering the combined effects of our bad tax laws and inflation.
What else, Mr. Speaker, does our present tax system do? Instead of giving us equity it also seeks to penalize the hard worker. This does not necessarily mean someone who is a huge income earner, though the tax system affects that person as well. I have in mind a tradesman who has a certain skill of the kind Canada needs. Such a person is encouraged not to work overtime, because although he earns a big buck while doing his normal work he knows that taxes will take away so much that it is not worth his while to continue to work hard. As for those in the higher income brackets, the really high earners, our tax laws not only deter them from bending their efforts to their best advantage but also tempt more than a few of them actually to quit living in this country.
A little later on I shall be making reference to that particular problem, but I think we are all familiar with examples where really able Canadians who can contribute to our society have been frightened away by this so-called tax reform and have gone to some other place, probably a tax haven. I shall cite some figures in a few minutes showing the huge write-offs required by Canada since we are unable to follow these incomes and collect some taxes.
Let me examine for a moment one other aspect, and this is the tax simplicity that the government promised. Along with equity we were going to get simplicity. In 1917 Canada introduced a temporary tax through a measure at that time called, I think, the income war tax act. Interestingly enough, income tax carried this name till 1949, when we had another kind of tax reform and passed the plain, ordinary, Income Tax Act. I had a copy of a 1917 tax return in my possession a few years ago. It was a one-page document with no schedules or fancy calculations required. It was simply a matter of paying 5 per cent of your income to the government. That is what I call simplicity, Mr. Speaker. In the government's efforts to achieve so-called equity, we all know what has happened to this simplicity over the years, and of course the equity has gone as well.
In 1951, 25 years ago, I had the privilege of completing my own income tax return for the first time and I still have it in my possession. It really is a thing to behold. It is a simple document that would fit into the breast pocket of your jacket and is known as the T-l short form. I am sure that everyone remembers them, but they are now a thing
Income Tax
of the past, having disappeared along with the old, outdated war tax act. I do not know whether I have it with me today, but I am sure we are all familiar with the 1976 version of the taxation form for 1975, known as the T-l general. It consists of many pages. It is supposed to be simple to complete, but the government takes no chances and provides you free of charge with a 53 page booklet to guide you through your new simplified tax return just in case you find it a little bit complicated or have some trouble getting through it.


An hon. Member:: Like the yellow pages.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Yes. These 53 pages tell you how to complete the form. This would all have been unnecessary had we been allowed to coast along with our old tax law. However, I think people still have difficulty with their returns and tax services are booming businesses in Canada these days. Banks, trust companies, and even department stores are now selling a tax service so that the poor individual who just cannot through his forms get some relief, albeit at the lifting of some dollars from his pockets.
Before I came to this place I was in the accounting profession, and I well remember how accountants and lawyers were tearing their hair out trying to overcome the problems created by tax reform as presented by the government. This may have been overcome to some degree by now since they have been working at it all day and every day, but I think it is obvious that very few of them will agree precisely on what course of action should be followed because even they are confused by the regulations. Accountants and lawyers have one slight advantage over others in that they get paid for worrying about these problems, and in view of the professional fees being asked today I think they are doing very well.
What are the things, one may ask, that are so confusing to the poor taxpayer? What does he find so difficult to understand? I have thought of a few answers, Mr. Speaker. How do you explain to a widow who is surviving on pension and dividend income, for instance, the operation of grossing up? Why should she have to pay tax on $600 when she knows very well she received only $400? To answer that is impossible, Mr. Speaker. I have only been able to tell them to take it up with the government at the next election. I do not think the government itself has ever properly explained that.
Then there is reference made in the booklet and on the tax forms to the income averaging provisions of the Income Tax Act. There are many examples of income averaging, but a simple one that applies to everybody every year is if their incomes have changed by more than 20 per cent over the previous year. The tax department, however, does not suggest that you try to calculate what effect the general income averaging provisions, as they are called, will have on your income, because they know it will be difficult for people to understand them. So they recommend that taxpayers do not bother doing anything with that, but that the department will feed it into the computer and get an answer. Then these taxpayers will get some money back if that is what the computer says. No thought is given to the fact that a person might want to question the computer, or that the computer might be wrong, a
2 1804-2514

April 2, 1976
Income Tax
frustrating experience as those of us who have had this experience know.
There are various kinds of annuities available to the taxpayer, the income averaging annuity, for example, which the taxpayer can decide to buy if he has received a fairly large capital gain. However, the taxpayer is very hard pressed to decide whether he is eligible to buy such an annuity or whether it would be to his advantage. I certainly would have difficulty advising anyone on that.
There is another kind of annuity which I think is really mandatory for a taxpayer, although many of them do not understand this, and this is the case with hundreds of thousands of Canadians every year. Every Canadian who reaches age 70-


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly this information about annuities is very interesting. The treatise of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) on annuities is undoubtedly of value, but we are dealing with a tax measure that seeks to enforce international treaties. I fail to see what the advantages of annuities has to do with the bill under discussion. I would commend to the hon. gentleman the provisions of this bill and its clauses so that he might himself be informed as to what we are debating.


Walter David Baker: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with the greatest respect to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) and his point of order, of doubtful value in any event, I do not believe any representative of any government which cannot start the business of this House until 20 minutes after starting time should complain about the content of speeches later in the afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I tried to make a serious point, contrary to the intervention of the hon. member who-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I think perhaps the parliamentary secretary has made his intervention, and one bite is probably all that should be allowed under the rules. The Conservative House leader has also made his point. I hope at this juncture prudence will take over and that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) will be allowed to continue his speech. The debate does concern Bill S-32, an act to implement conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium, and Canada and Israel. Having said that, perhaps I have outlined as much as the Chair should regarding the contents of the bill.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your direction. I really cannot understand the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) making such an intervention. It would appear that he has not paid attention to what I said in my opening remarks. Perhaps I should start again.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I am well aware of the purpose of the bill and I will have something to say about that in a few moments. I thought it was important to establish the base upon which we were working, and hence my preamble. I was merely trying to establish that the government brought upon itself these very unnecessary and complicated negotiations, which have taken some four years to produce three treaties, those we are being asked to examine today.
I was talking about annuities, which are very confusing to many Canadians. Many thousands of Canadians every year who achieve the age of 70 have taken advantage of the government's provisions which allow them to defer a certain amount of their earned income through the purchase of a registered retirement savings plan. Many taxpayers are caught in a terrible bind because they do not understand the simple rules put forward by the government which allows them to defer some of their income and, therefore, some of their tax.
Unfortunately there is a penalty for the unwary taxpayer who arrives at age 70 and finds he has some money in his registered retirement savings plan and is required by this simplified tax law either to take it out into income in his 71st year, or buy a life annuity. This completely ignores the fact that this is a penalty in itself to the unwary taxpayer, because the rates for a life annuity at age 70 these days require an amount of cash almost identical to the amount that would be received if only the interest were taken into account.
Perhaps that is enough about annuities, but I do not think it is enough about the so-called simplicity of the tax system. Many taxpayers have great difficulty in finding their way through the capital gains rules. We all know that half the capital gains are taxable and put into income. We all do not know about the adjusted cost base and the other complicated terms that can lead us into traps.
As a result of these capital transactions we have an inequitable situation that allows someone to sell a capital asset and make a capital gain, providing he has invested and the value has gone up. He then has to pay a capital gains tax, but finds himself no longer in a position to replace that asset because of rising market prices, or because the tax has been paid on the gain. As a result this is not really a gain at all, it is really a tax on inflation which the taxpayer happened to have rolled into his hands.
Of course there is also the roll over provision which would allow the taxpayer to reinvest, but that has to be done within a certain time frame. I am not sure how many taxpayers understand the roll over provision. In addition, this does not always seem to work.
There is another difficulty which came to my attention the other day about this so-called simplified tax system, and this relates to a form produced by Revenue Canada Taxation. We know it is a valid form because it was revised in 1975 and is referred to as the T-5 form. There is a provision on this form regarding who shall complete it. There is also a relieving provision. I am only going to refer to the relieving provision that is of interest to me. It says that this return is not required to be filed for interest paid on money on loans from banks, financial houses or other institutions, or from persons whose ordinary business includes the lending of money.
April 2, 1976

That seems to be quite clear. It refers to money borrowed from a money lender or someone whose ordinary business includes the lending of money. This does not have to be a money lender, but could be a doctor who makes loans, or something like that. If you borrow money from a person whose ordinary business includes the lending of money, and that includes a bank, you do not have to file the T-5 form.
However, I ran across a taxpayer the other day who had not filed this particular form within the required time because that was not necessary. For the benefit of some people with whom he was doing business he decided gratuitously to file the form. The department officials came along and said that was fine, and they thanked him for filing it, but told him he would have to pay a $20 late fine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Some members laugh, but the department was right in this case. It was the form that was wrong. Regulation 201 covers the filing of these forms and states who must file them on dividends, interests and so on. It seems that in 1971 when the tax form went through, intentionally perhaps, the relieving provision which allows the person not to file the form for interest on loans from banks and other lending establishments disappeared. It would appear to me now that the government is checking this up and perhaps we will have a proper answer, hopefully from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) on this point. It appears that anyone who has borrowed money from a bank and does not issue the bank with a T-5 slip may be in breach of the tax law.
Speaking to the Canadian Tax Foundation, the former minister of national revenue, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), said that he was concerned about the tax law. He said that he considers tax reform as a continuing process and asked business to help keep the system in balance by continuing to press for changes in the law. Well, members of the House on my side, and certainly the taxpayers of Canada, want to see progress in this regard. The minister also apparently was in favour of a "softer" government attitude to ministerial discretion, technical amendments, and all demands for files and records.
We all know that the Department of National Revenue carries the big stick. If you do not obey the law and pay your tax, the department can do terrible things to you, that is, if you are still in Canada. Later we shall deal with what happens if you have left Canada. Apparently the minister was concerned about ministerial discretion and those powers in the area of tax law that allow the Department of National Revenue to decide whether a transaction is aimed at avoiding taxes.
As lawyers in this House know, a man should be entitled to so order his affairs as to minimize the incidence of taxation. It was the view of the department that it knew better, that it ought to decide this question, not the taxpayer, as if it were a crime to claim your rights under the law and reduce your taxes. I am sure that lawyers in this House, and taxpayers outside, will be delighted to note that the courts recently decided that a man still has the
Income Tax
right so to order his affairs as to minimize the incidence of taxation.
I hold in my hand another press clipping which illustrates the sort of thing that can happen when our so-called tax reform law fails. It is the hope of members on my side that, in addition to avoiding double taxation, the treaties we shall enter into with other countries will allow us to close certain tax loopholes. Just over one month ago the Financial Times reported that:
The government has shelved plans to close a 'tax loophole which costs the country hundreds of millions of dollars' ...
Why did the government decide to shelve those plans? Apparently Ottawa could not afford the extra investigators needed. This country employs 300,000 or 400,000 civil servants, depending on who counts them, and how the counting is done. It strikes me as odd that anyone should say we cannot afford a few expert investigators whose work may lead to the recovery of up to $2.7 billion. I think we heard that figure. At any rate the money lost to this country is enormous, and the work of the investigators would enable us to enforce collections against taxpayers who have left. The former minister of national revenue admitted that the loophole was costing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. He promised a series of proposals to "significantly strengthen Canada's compliance effort". I hope that this bill, and the treaties we expect will follow, will go some way to correct the difficulty.
Department of National Revenue spokesmen said that government austerity measures have put the investigation project "far down the road". I remind the House that an article written in November of last year dealing with tax dodgers and evasion outlined how the government was to attack this difficulty. According to the article appearing in the Globe and Mail of November 19, 1975:
A special task force on taxation has been set up by Canadian and U.S. authorities aimed at catching tax dodgers in both countries.
The force has been told to submit recommendations by the end of this year that may lead to a new Canadian-U.S. tax treaty,...
Canada's aim is to recoup an estimated $1.6 billion a year that is being lost through tax avoidance or fraud.
I think the minister denied that the figure was $1.6 billion. The article mentions the figure, but I will not insist on attributing it to the minister. Without doubt the minister was interviewed. According to the news report he said:
We want to see if we can do this through existing tax treaties ... If not, we may need a special agreement.
It remains to be seen what we shall do. If existing treaties are responsible for our present position, we may need to examine dozens more of these treaties.
As I wish to make some further comments, may I call it four o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. I understand we are to consider first notices of motions. The Chair understands that Notice of Motion No. 42 is to be proceeded with. Therefore Notice of Motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), No. 15 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), No. 19 in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 2, 1976
Freshwater Fisheries
Watson), and number No. 20 in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) shall stand at the request of the government. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Standing Orders of this House should be amended to provide that there shall be a Standing Committee on Freshwater and Inland Fisheries, distinct from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, to which shall be exclusively referred all matters relating to the freshwater and inland fisheries of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on this motion. The freshwater fishery of Canada is close to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents. The commercial, gill net freshwater fishery in many constituencies represents an important way of life. Freshwater fishing in Manitoba provides an important economic base and it is my concern that this valuable industry shall be kept alive and fishermen allowed the opportunity to remain in the freshwater fishing industry despite drawbacks-and believe me there are many-which have plagued them for years.
I am also concerned because freshwater fishermen are being short-changed because they do not receive from Ottawa the same recognition which coastal fisheries receive. I specifically refer to the present inability of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to deal adequately with the freshwater fishing industry. It is my conclusion that this standing committee does not-nay, cannot-spend enough time monitoring the workings of the freshwater fishery.
Today I shall propose to hon. members of this House that a separate committee be established to deal solely with the freshwater fishing industry of Canada. In doing so I have endeavoured to assimilate enough facts so that I can cogently present my ideas as to why a standing committee on freshwater and inland fisheries is desirable and, indeed, necessary.
First, let me review the history of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, the federal Crown corporation which, in effect, is the commercial freshwater fish marketing board in this country. I will then show how difficulties with the corporation and with the freshwater fishing industry in general have not been adequately dealt with in the respective standing committee of the House in the past.
The Freshwater Fish Marketing Act was assented to on February 27, 1969, and came into force May 1, 1969, at which time the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was established for the purpose of marketing and trading
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave).]
in fish, fish products and by-products, in and out of Canada. The corporation has the exclusive right in interprovincial and export trade to market the products of the commercial fishery of the provinces participating in the program. The provinces, under Section 25 of the act, include the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and western Ontario. As well, the object of the corporation is to increase returns to fishermen, promote markets, and increase inter-provincial and export trade.
The quality of the commercial freshwater fish that is regulated and handled by the corporation is comparable to any in Canada. Indeed Canada is unique in having a freshwater fishing industry that in many cases is the livelihood of hundreds of individuals and is the sole economic base of many regions.
Fishermen, however, have run into difficulties with their seasonal occupation since the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act was implemented in 1969. First of all-and this would especially apply to the province of Manitoba and in particular to my riding of Churchill-many fishing operations were disrupted as they were turned over to local co-operatives that would act as agents to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Fishermen were lost and some fishing was abandoned at this time because of alternative local job opportunities in the fields of farming, lumber, and logging, mechanics, carpentry, and general contracting, although hydro development in the north was a major controlling factor.
Many of the large commercial freshwater fish operations were out of production between 1972 and 1974. This was a crucial changeover period, the beginning of a regulated freshwater fishing industry that set the stage for a whole new area of responsibility for members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Then there was one of the most devastating examples of how fishermen in Manitoba and other member provinces were adversely affected by the actions of the corporation. I am talking now of the long standing strike at the freshwater fish marketing plant at Transcona, Manitoba. If members will recall, that strike began with a walkout of plant employees on October 11, 1974, after they had worked without a contract since March of that year. The strike that officially went into effect the following day ended with a new contract settlement five weeks later-after the near destruction of the freshwater fishery in Churchill constituency, and throughout the province the Transcona strike caused losses for fishermen who were not able to catch their quota before the strike began. This is unacceptable in light of the fact that the corporation was aware that its employees might eventually strike once their contract had expired. Yet no additional cold storage facilities were made available, and fishermen were ordered to pull up their nets and stop fishing.
These fishermen had virtually no one to go to bat for them. They had no federal body which they felt confident they could turn to, so many of them blamed the provincial government for inaction in regard to settlement of the strike. Had there been an exclusive freshwater and inland fisheries committee-or at least a special committee to which these fishermen could have presented their grievances-then the situation could have been different. The Fisheries and Forestry Standing Committee, as it is pres-
April 2, 1976

ently structured, is simply unable to monitor effectively the freshwater fishery.
There are other problems with which fishermen had had to contend. These are problems that fishermen themselves have brought to me, or that the co-operatives have tried to solve through resolutions-the majority of which, unfortunately, have fallen on deaf ears in the past. Not only has there been an over-all reduction in the number of fishermen, as I mentioned earlier, but there has been a marked decrease in the pounds of fish harvested. Fish not removed from lakes in the 1973-74 fishing season, for example, represented a total loss to the northern Manitoba economy of $2,123,336.
One of the most obvious reasons for this loss-and again, let me assure you there are many-is in the area of economics. Money lost through transportation costs represents by far the largest loss to fishermen. Rail and air transportation costs have risen to such an extent that freshwater fishermen in Manitoba are having a hard time absorbing costs. For example, air transportation from lake to railhead went up from $1.80 per ton mile to $3.20. Railways have doubled their freight rates. They have suggested that freight equalization be applied on the lake to rail, and rail or highway transportation.
The co-ops have also been faced with rising equipment costs. In fact these have doubled in the last few years. Wages for hired labour have increased from $300 per month to $600 per month. Even more shocking is the fact that, under present circumstances, fishermen are unable to dispose of their licences to heirs, successors, or to other fishermen. The average age of fishermen who fish Lake Winnipeg is 60 years of age. It is so difficult for young men to obtain operators' licences that many have given up fishing or have not even attempted to get a licence.
We know that the freshwater fish produced are of a high quality and are of a species readily marketed. Why then are fishermen dissatisfied with the way in which their operations are being handled, and why then do they think that a separate standing committee to deal with freshwater and inland fishing is so important to the success of their operations? A letter I received from the manager of Northern Co-operative Fisheries Limited best answers that question. The letter stated that:
.. . Generally speaking the fishermen, the agents, the corporation are trying to work on 100 cents on the dollar, while the actual cost is 125 cents on a dollar.
One paragraph of the letter effectively summed up the feelings of fishermen. It went like this:
I could almost assure you that it, lack of recognition, will destroy the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board within a year or two and I am saying this because the signs of erosion are all around us.
For example, the letter goes on to state:
The 1,400 fishermen belonging to 25 co-operatives and associations in the province of Saskatchewan have already delivered their ultimatum to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation that they will no longer deliver their fish in the traditional manner. Instead, they are asking the corporation to market their fish on a fee for service basis. Failing to accept this proposal, they will ask their minister ... to withdraw the commercial fisheries from the participating region of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
Freshwater Fisheries
A resolution submitted to the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan and Manitoba Co-operatives Fisheries held in Prince Albert March 23, 24, and 25 of 1975 stated, and I will read this resolution in its entirety:
WHEREAS commercial fishermen in the Province of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are continuously experiencing difficulties in communication with the federal government,
AND WHEREAS the fishing operations are being complex and requiring assistance similar to the East and West Coastal Fisheries,
AND WHEREAS the present Parliamentary Fisheries Committee is made up of Eastern M.P.s who are not acquainted with the inland fisheries program,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Honourable Romeo LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, appoint an inland freshwater fish parliamentary committee to assist the freshwater fishing industry in their problems which lie within the jurisdiction of the Federal Committee.
This resolution refers to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
Let me say that I first presented the idea to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry quite some time ago. In fact it was in 1974. I want to emphasize that again I am asking that consideration be given to this proposal.
I wish to refer to the resolution as submitted at the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan and Manitoba Cooperatives Fisheries held in Prince Albert on March 23, 24 and 25 of 1976, just this past week. At that meeting there were representatives from all the major fisheries in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Ontario. This is the resolution, and it is hoped there will be a more positive response to it:
WHEREAS the 1975 Resolution No. 10 requested that the Honourable Romeo LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, appoint an Inland Freshwater Fishery Parliamentary Standing Committee to assist with the problems relating to the Freshwater Fish Industry within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
WHEREAS, the Honourable Minister replied that there are three (3) Members on the Committee who represent the Freshwater Fisheries and that Quebec and New Brunswick also have a freshwater fishery and both Provinces have representation on this Committee.
THEREFORE, be it resolved that another request be made to the Honourable Minister of Fisheries pointing out the volume of the freshwater fishery production in other provinces, such as Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Northwest Territories and that he give his utmost consideration towards appointing a sitting Member from each of the above-mentioned Provinces and Territories to the proposed Standing Committee of Fisheries in the House of Commons.
The resolutions of 1975 and again of 1976 came from concerned fishermen. They did not come from agents and so forth. They came from people who are trying to make a living from commercial fishing in the freshwater fishing industry. In Manitoba a group of fishermen from north of the fifty-third parallel have formed the Northern Commercial Fishermen's Association. Fishermen throughout the north are becoming more and more concerned. They are not operating in a piecemeal manner. They are operating as a group, but they want to get a fair return for the effort they put into the fishing industry. They have been in it all their lives. At one time they could make a fairly reasonable living from fishing, but the high cost of transportation today seems to be the most important aspect of their problem. I ask the minister to consider very seriously having a separate committee to deal with the freshwater and inland fishery. That is a resource we have had for a long time, and it is renewable.

April 2, 1976
Freshwater Fisheries
We seem to spend an awful lot of time looking to the north for our energy resources, but we are not spending very much time considering the natural resources we have. In my opinion many of these natural resources are more important at the present time than much of the exploration work which is going on in the Arctic islands. I ask that every consideration be given to the immediate appointment of a separate committee to deal with this very complex problem and to help the fishermen solve this problem.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) requesting the appointment of another Standing Committee on Fisheries to which all matters concerning freshwater and inland fisheries in Canada will be referred.
The sponsor of this bill is a very active member of our Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forests. I do not wish to question the sincerity and the good intentions of the hon. member in presenting his motion, and without being an expert on the matter of fisheries, I believe that we are all sincerely working towards the improvement of the fishermen's lot and also to assist as much as possible fish processing plants, whether they are in the East, the West or even in the centre of Canada.
While I find many of the hon. member's arguments valid, I still cannot support this motion, since I believe that another standing committee of this House will not improve the freshwater and inland fisheries of Canada.
If my hon. friend is aware of the complexity of establishing committees in this House and the constant difficulty in having a quorum, he will realize it would be very difficult to find members to sit on that other committee.
As recorded in Hansard for March 31, 1976, this House has 20 standing and special committees, and six joint Senate and Commons committees. Most of these committees include 20 members. There are 30 members on each of the External Affairs, National Defence and Agriculture committees. Joint committees such as that of the Library of Parliament include 16 senators and 22 members of this House, 38 in all.
The hon. member for Churchill, quite coincidentally, sits on the same committees I am on, that is Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and also Fisheries and Forestry, where we also deal with environment. The hon. member is also on the Committee of National Resources and Public Works. It will be realized that when a member sits on three committees meeting at least twice a week, this means he has to attend at least eight to ten committee meetings each week.
Mr. Speaker, apparently the official opposition have some difficulty in making suggestions in this House. Apparently, that party lacks leadership and cannot agree on a particular matter. No doubt the hon. member for Churchill already discussed the proposals for a new committee on Freshwater and Inland Fisheries. He will have discussed it in caucus. But I doubt whether the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) agrees with him to

establish another standing committee of this House, because on October 28, 1975, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Peace River, in a statement dealing with the Standing Orders, had this to say, and I quote:
... the government should introduce some flexibility in the control they are exercising on committee programs and chairing. Certain documents and reports tabled in this House should be automatically referred to committee, and certain committee reports such as that on public accounts for instance, should be debated in this House. Committees should be empowered to make inquiries when members feel they are needed. Committees should be reduced to a more limited size. Chairmen should be appointed in a more objective way, probably by a neutral source, and provision should be made for appealing the chairmen's decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat these remarks by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin): "... committees should be reduced to a more limited size . .." This necessarily entails reducing the number of standing committees of this House, now totalling 30.
Mr. Speaker, why increase the number of committees when there are already too many. I believe that hon. members, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), would agree to reduce this number and have between 15 and 20 committees. Most members now sit on three or even four committees and it is difficult, indeed impossible, for a party like the New Democratic Party or the Social Credit Party to send a representative to each one of these committees.
That is why members of these parties, which have only 10 to 15 representatives in the House, are forced to run from one committee to another every day. For instance, in the fisheries and forestry committee on March 30, and the hon. member for Churchill could corroborate my statement, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) arrived in the committee room at about 9:45 p.m. and as the Committee was to adjourn at ten o'clock he could not put his question. He was told that at the next sitting of the committee he would be the first to question witnesses. So the hon. member came to the committee and was recognized first to ask his question. It took from 15 to 20 minutes, then he had to leave for another committee of which he was also a member. Mr. Speaker, how is it possible for members who have to attend the debates of 4, 5 or 6 committees the same day to be really efficient and perform their tasks conscientiously? I say this is not possible.
Mr. Speaker, the committees or the House are always faced with the same problem; the governing party has to keep the quorum, so when the provisions of a bill are about to be adopted or when budgetary estimates are to be voted, the party whip as to run from one committee room to another and try to get the quorum. I wish we would have discussed a motion proposing to reduce the number of the standing committees of the House, and not to increase them.
In his motion, my good friend the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) requests that the new committee be responsible exclusively for the questions concerning freshwater and inland fisheries in Canada. This proposal might cause much discussion and bring about a constitutional debate with the provinces.
I shall ask a question to the hon. member, if he wants to answer it later: has he consulted his province concerning
April 2, 1976

his proposal that the federal government take exclusive control over freshwater and inland fisheries in his province? I can tell him that my province will not easily agree to let the federal government extend its responsibilities to the lakes and rivers of Quebec. It will be the same for the province of Ontario and for the other provinces, in the Prairies, in the Pacific or the Atlantic regions.
Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, we have many very interesting sittings, since members from all provinces are most interested and our chairman, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) is doing a tremendous job, and I also ought to mention the cooperation of our vice-chairman, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall). We discuss all problems, those of the Atlantic region as well as those of the Pacific, and those of the fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and those of the Great Lakes. We always have the cooperation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Baker).
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could take fifteen, twenty or thirty minutes at the meetings of the committees on which I sit, particularly the committee of fisheries and forestry, to explain the requests of Quebec fishermen and the demands of processing plants owners; but it is impossible because every member must be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings of the committee regardless of the area he represents. This is why in most committees the interventions of members are limited to fifteen minutes during the first round, then to ten minutes and finally to five minutes.
In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and particularly in the Gaspe Peninsula, there are years when the fishing industry suffers ups and downs. As far as the fishing industry and particularly the salt and dried fish processing plants are concerned, the plant owners have had to face very serious problems these last few years.
In the Committee on Fisheries, I have taken the time that was allotted to me by the chairman to explain to the minister and his officials the sorry financial plight of Gaspe producers. Two representations convinced the minister to send his officials around the Gaspe Peninsula in order to make a field study and attempt to find a solution under existing regulations.
Recently, at a meeting of this committee, we considered the new policies on redfish quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean. All members had enough time to express their views. I made several suggestions to the minister who will apparently take them under serious consideration when he drafts the new policies and establishes the redfish quotas for the years 1977 and 1978.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to underline the satisfaction we find in the Committee on Fisheries in working with the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), and I believe that all committee members share this view. I also want to emphasize the dedication of his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). I have represented for many years in the House of Commons the beautiful riding of Gaspe and a group of citizens for whom I like to work, the fishermen. I must say that we have received a great deal from the central government. The work was not done so much in this House but rather in committee. I must also
Freshwater Fisheries
admit that we always had good people in charge of this department, both under the Pearson administration and under this government, under the direction and wise guidance of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not mention the dedication of the officials of the Department of Environment, in particular the Fisheries and Marine Service, who are really concerned about the problems of fishermen as regards freshwater as well as the Atlantic Ocean, in Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland or in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, for the various reasons I have mentioned, I cannot support the motion of the hon. member for Churchill. Knowing how hard he tries to find more effective ways of helping fishermen, I am sure he will know how to convince them that his suggestion is not necessarily the best one.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a good experience to stand and support a motion presented by my colleague from Manitoba. My colleague from Churchill is a man of vast experience, and everyone in the House knows it. He is a man who is close to the people, a man who is not prone to speaking in philosophical platitudes but one who has the capacity to grasp the problem, to see the need, and to respond to it. When I hear the kind of debate I have just heard it makes me wonder whether the hon. member on the other side even knows where Manitoba or any of the inland fisheries are.


Miss Begin:: Ungracious!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: It is known in the west that the inland fisheries are in trouble. There is a problem of great magnitude. In 1969 when the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was formed the catch in the province of Manitoba was 75 million pounds of fish. Last year, for the entire area covered by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, the catch was only 32 million pounds. Anyone from western Canada, anyone from any of the inland fisheries can tell you what the problem is.
If we want to understand the problems of the coastal fisheries we consult, for example, my colleague from South Shore. He can tell you about draggers, he can tell you about the continental shelf, he can tell you about the techniques which are used, he understands about Decca Loran and all the sophistication of electronic gear aboard modern trawlers. I can tell you that fishermen in my area, and in the area of which my colleague from Churchill speaks, have not even seen Decca Loran. My colleague from South Shore understands the problems of the coastal fisheries, but he does not pretend to know the problems of the inland fisheries or the solution to those problems.
It bothers me when we hear members opposite standing in their places as though they are the epitome of wisdom and pontificating upon solutions when they do not even know the problems. I can identify some problems very quickly for the benefit of members opposite. There are problems inherent within the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation itself. At the formation of that organization back in 1969 it was guaranteed by the then president that
12432

April 2, 1976
Freshwater Fisheries
they would handle every pound of fish for a cent or a cent and a half. We find, six or seven short years later, that one or one and a half cents has risen to 80 cents per pound. Between the time one pound of usable fish reaches the corporation and the time it leaves, 80 cents is gobbled up and lost forever to the fishermen.
As was stated by my colleague from Churchill, the objective of the marketing corporation when it was formed was to increase returns to the fishermen, not to build a conglomerate for the inland fisheries. That was not the purpose. Back in 1969 there was no talk of processing fish. It was to embody the concept of a one-desk marketing agency. For members opposite to stand up and maintain that everything is O.K. in the west and that if you understand fisheries, fisheries are fisheries anywhere in Canada, is to display ignorance of and a kind of indifference to what happens in western Canada.


Mr. Goodale:: Nonsense!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The hon. member opposite says,
nonsense.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They put their building right in a wheatfield.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The hon. member opposite says it is nonsense. If he wants to hear about nonsense I will tell him about nonsense. I will put nonsense on the record for him. Down in the maritimes when you want to build a processing plant, generally you build it by the wharf, by the water so that the ships can unload readily. That is the ordinary, common sense thing to do. But not the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Its building stands in the riding of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), right among the wheatfields! There stands this great modern fish processing plant, and the closest water anywhere is 55 miles away as the crow flies.
Hon. members opposite want to talk about nonsense. Mr. Speaker, they are the originators of nonsense when it comes to inland fisheries. Oh yes, and as always with this government, although the original cost was locked in, guaranteed, fixed at $3 million, by the time construction was finished, with the landscaping done and the flags flying in the cool breeze of western Manitoba, and the sun shining down, the balance sheet showed $5.5. million, almost double the original figure. Who paid?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We, the people of Canada.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, if that were the case all would be well. The people who paid were the very people this great corporation was established to help. It was the fishermen who paid. They paid for it, pound by pound, fish after fish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sucker after sucker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: They thought the fishermen were a bunch of mullets. And anyone knows, if he understands the fisheries, that the equivalent expression is "suckers". The fisherman in western Canada may only know about fishing, but they have more common sense in one little

finger than one can find on the whole of the treasury benches.
I could go on and talk about the effects of inflation which have hit the inland fisherman, just as they have affected coastal fishermen. I could talk about the problems of the quota system. Some fishermen in Manitoba particularly on Lake Winnipeg, are locked into the prices of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation quotas. The government says that they can catch no more fish at that price, period.
My hon. friends opposite can go on talking nonsense, but we have more important things to talk about in this motion of my colleague, which is not an unreasonable one. He simply wants a separate committee. He wants certain members of this Chamber who know something about the inland fishery to band together in a little group so that they do not waste the time of the existing committee on fisheries. He wants a little group of members of parliament from the west to form a committee to deal specifically and only with the inland fisheries. Though their numbers be few in western Canada, surely the fishermen of western Canada deserve no less than that.
In addition, I think the committee structure of the House ought to be reviewed in terms of numbers and the function of committees. The numbers are certainly too large in most cases. I am calling for a review of the committee structure and I am asking the government to think again. If hon. members opposite were to repent, fall to their knees, shed tears of true repentance, and say they have changed their minds, that on closer reflection and on more critical analysis they have decided to support our suggestion, I know my hon. friend from Churchill would accept it. I know he is not a vain man and that he would go back to the west and give the government its fair share of the credit for recognizing that there is a problem in western Canada that is unique, one that needs special and specific responses from the government.
The kind of response that is needed in western Canada is not exemplified by what happened a week ago today in the province of Manitoba when the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) denied the fishermen of Manitoba and the north the transportation subsidies they need to make their industry viable. These people were not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker; they were not even talking about $1 million. They were talking about less than $1 million-the difference in transportation costs which would make the fisheries viable, that would make the difference between existing and not existing. This is the kind of sober second thought that my hon. friends opposite should give, instead of the kind of nonsense that has characterized the entire attitude of the government.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time may I take a few moments to lend my support to the motion before us proposed by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith). I have come to respect the hon. member for Churchill for one specific quality that he has demonstrated not only in the House but in committee, and which is recognized by the majority of Manitobans.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I have respected him all along.
April 2, 1976


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am pleased to hear the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) agree with those words. The hon. member for Churchill came to this House after the election of 1974 a relative unknown in Manitoba, and he has demonstrated that he knows the north intimately, that he has staked his claim in the north, if I can put it in that way. He has presented to this House a number of unique viewpoints that can only come from a person who knows the north intimately. I would like to thank him for that contribution. I think this view is shared by members on all sides of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I may say that I for one am proud to have the hon. member for Churchill as a colleague of mine. Coming specifically to the motion, I should like to respond to the view of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) that the committee structure at the present time is complex, that as members we have difficulty sitting on committees, that we do not review our work in committee sufficiently, and that we are not well enough prepared in committees. I accept those criticism and agree with them. But I wonder whether using that tack is not putting our finger on the difficulty we so often have as members in communicating with our constituents.
I am sure that all members of the House have had constituents come to them with a serious problem that can be solved, yet we come back to the Hill and become so wrapped in procedure and with making our little operation "efficient" that we lose sight of the very request that moved us to act in the first place. This is not unique to this government. I think it is in the nature of the thing, if I can put it in that way. So often we lose sight of the very real problems that people back home have. We say action cannot be taken for this reason or that. While efficiency might be sacrificed at times, the first job of all members is to respond to the needs of their constituents. To solve the problems they present to us is our obligation and is really, I suggest, the only reason for our existence.
The problem that concerns me about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is this. We know the corporation was established by joint agreement between the federal government and various provincial governments, in particular the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development through its responsibilities in the Northwest Territories. The way I understand the subsidy question at the present time-and the hon. member for Gaspe alluded to this-it is questionable whether the provinces would want the federal government to get involved in jurisdiction over the inland waterways, lakes, and so forth. Yet there is already an association in the minds of the fishermen, at least, that the federal government has become involved with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation because of the very fact it has become operative.
I wonder whether here we are not discussing the same problem that I referred to earlier, and that is that the federal government has raised a constitutional question- rightly or wrongly I am not going to argue because I do not have the time. The fishermen are not concerned about constitutional problems. They are concerned about how they can retain a viable industry, one that has had real difficulty in the past. Efforts have been made by all parties
Freshwater Fisheries
to get the people who constitute this industry-their average age in Manitoba is over 60-to the point where they can retain their self-respect and earn their own income, so they can make their own way in life instead of constantly having to come to the government for subsidies.
I should just like to give a brief quotations from an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on Wednesday, March 31, as follows:
The federal minister turned the requests down on the basis that the federal government isn't responsible for inland fisheries.
There is the constitutional question that he raised.
"I was just incredulous. I couldn't believe his blunt statement disclaiming responsibility for inland fisheries," Mr. Bostrom said. "It puts northern fisheries in real jeopardy."
I am not quoting a Conservative, Mr. Speaker. I am quoting a constituent of mine who happens to be a minister in the present NDP government in Manitoba.
I should like to return to the motion of the hon. member for Churchill. He has made this suggestion. Surely members of good will can get together on this. If it turns out that a committee is not the right vehicle, let us develop some other structure. Surely through the House leaders we can take this step whereby a committee or subcommittee is formed to which a full time fisheries minister would report directly on inland fisheries. In this way members such as myself, who cannot sit on the other Standing committee on fisheries because of other responsibilities, could sit on that committee and represent the interests of our fishermen, for instance those along the eastern shores of Lake Winnipeg and in the northern parts of my riding. This is all the member is asking. I am sure hon. members opposite see his point of view.
Let us get together in that manner, with that kind of co-operation, in order to help those people who are asking for a minimum. This will give us a chance to help those who represent a very small number but are important to the well being of Canada. It is on that basis that I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Churchill and thank him for again making the House aware of the needs of these people.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think today you are seeing in the House what happens in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Environment when a discussion on freshwater fishery comes to the fore. There you will see other hon. members back off and make room for the worthy gentleman, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), and for the somewhat histronic, at least today, hon. gentleman from Selkirk, and for the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). The committee always makes much room there for members who are inland fisheries oriented when it is time to discuss such important matters as the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
The hon. member for Churchill has requested that a special House committee be struck to deal exclusively with the concerns of freshwater fishing. I am sure the hon. member is just as sympathetic to the concerns of people on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as we are to his. However, I
12434

April 2, 1976
Freshwater Fisheries
believe it would be really quite extraordinary for us to attempt to augment the already 26 House committees with yet another committee especially devoted to freshwater fish.
When I began to think of this, Mr. Speaker, I began to think of the number of specialized group in fisheries which could very well be served by a single committee within the House. I think of coastal surveillance, the coastguard, production marketing and research, small craft harbours, vessel subsidies and vessel contruction, and Environment Canada which, by the way, the hon. member for Proveneh-er will be interested to know, has responsibility for Northwest Territories fisheries.
Then we might also consider special species subcommittees. We would have one for lobsters, molusks, crustaceans and shellfish. We would have one for salmon, of course, the noble fish on the west coast, on which I am sure the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) would be glad to serve. We would have one for herring, groundfish, halibut, and all those other exotic Atlantic varieties.
We could then, of course, think of our friends at the Saltfish Corporation as well as the fish oil producers. We could have a special committee for some of those marine menaces of which we have an abundance on the west coast, and which represent a very serious problem to our fisheries. I have in mind the dogfish which load down the gill nets to such a degree that the fishermen must cut their corklines allowing their $3,000 lines to sink, because there is just nothing they can do about the dogfish.
Then there are those other menaces of the sea such as the lamprey, the harbour seals, and scavangers of all kinds which would have to be the subject of special committees. We could have a committee for the smoked saltwater and smoked freshwater fish, both varieties pickled, and all kinds canned. Then there are the meal producers who, of course, would want to be part and parcel of any special committee we would strike.
I believe all of these things are valuable and many of them have been the subject of discussion by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. In fact this infinite variety of concern has been the matter of discussion at the standing committee. I have seen that committee deal with the whole spectrum from seal pups to pipeline threats to salmon smolts; from spawning grounds and ultra high frequency communications between vessels to everything else. This is an everyday occurrence at that vital committee.
Members opposite have played a very active role on that committee. Indeed I would say it is one of the least partisan committees on which I have had the privilege of serving since coming here. The present system is not perfect, but to single out one area of importance equal to at least ten others for a special committee is simply impossible and impractical. The 26 committees of the House would be augmented on fisheries concerns alone by 56
committees, and they in turn would have to be augmented ad infinitum. I might say that even with the committees we now have it is often difficult to get a quorum, in spite of the ambitious members on the other side.
It is interesting to note that the attendance at the committee dealing with the environment was very large the other day, but when fisheries came up for discussion the other night members opposite were indeed few to be found. It is interesting to note also that when we have a discussion on a question of very great importance to those hon. members, the members on our side back off, as I said in the beginning, and refuse to enter into the discussion so that more questions can be put in respect of those areas where we indeed lack expertise.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) does not have to tell me that I do not know what kind of fish swim in the water in his part of the country, but then again he does not know the difference between a troller and a trawler. However, that makes no difference to me. There are many places where co-operation, not partisanship, shines forth, and one such place is the present standing committee.
This is a government which has shown a concern unmatched by any previous administration in its positive actions on behalf of fishermen. The painstaking debate in New York on the extension of the 200 mile limit at the Law of the Sea Conference is but one example of the devotion and expertise that the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) brings to his task.
There are fisheries enhancement programs in British Columbia. There are programs in respect of safety at sea. This has seen changed in surveillance and tracking and rescue techniques. This will result in greater search and rescue ability in this country, and this is the value of the new policy forthcoming on search and rescue.
There is also the Indian fishermen's assistance program whereby native fishermen can make their way into a business they once dominated. I like to think, as a native Indian in my part of the country always says, they are not using anything that is theirs when they are taking the salmon but rather they are taking their grandchildren's salmon. I should like to think that this committee would not become so specialized that I cannot take as much interest in the legacy of the grandchildren of the hon. member for Churchill as he does in the legacy of my own grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Indeed the hon. member may. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m. Have a nice weekend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The same to you.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 5, 1976