1977-11-22

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
THIRD SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 26 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9
80027-lVz
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 22, 1977


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. 1 hope that all members will support this motion which I believe is urgent and of pressing necessity and even essential at this point in the development of nuclear energy in this country. My motion concerns the widespread concern by Canadians all over this country about the hazards of nuclear power, particularly in the areas of waste disposal and plutonium reprocessing. With regard to the report prepared by Professor Kenneth Hare and his colleagues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this report be referred to a special committee of this House which shall be empowered to conduct a full and public inquiry into the future of nuclear energy in Canada, and further that this special committee submit by January 1, 1978, an interim report to this House detailing the financial and human resources necessary to complete a full and effective inquiry into this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this parliament condemns the action of the British American Bank Note Company in paying its women employees substantially less than it pays its male employees; and supports the action of the women employees of the British American Bank Note Company in demanding equal pay for equal work.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented at this time pursuant to Standing Order 43 only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL-NEWFOUNDLAND INTERIM COMMITTEE TO MANAGE OFFSHORE RESOURCES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Mines and Energy of Newfoundland suggested to the government of Canada that pending a final determination of the question of jurisdiction over offshore minerals by the Supreme Court of Canada that a federal-Newfoundland interim offshore management committee be placed in operation so that the oil and gas companies will have a forum for the answering of questions and problems where the two governments can discuss and co-ordinate offshore exploration without prejudice to the rights of either party, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Government of Canada accept the suggestion made by the Minister of Mines and Energy of Newfoundland for the placing into operation of a federal-Newfoundland interim offshore management committee to ensure that exploration for oil and gas resources can continue during the period until the matter of jurisdiction is settled by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time pursuant to Standing Order 43 only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity concerning a statement made yesterday by the member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), Solicitor General during the latter term that Leslie James Bennett was head of the RCMP counter intelligence and also the statement made

November 22, 1977
Old Age Security
yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that they had never heard of the man. I therefore move:
That it is the opinion of this House that if such statements are the truth that the former Solicitor General and the Prime Minister by such ignorance were negligent in performing their duties, or that otherwise they were purposely misleading this House and the Canadian people with false statements, a situation which the government is called upon to clarify immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented to the House for discussion only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that veterans were willing to face dangers and sacrifice their lives if necessary; considering that they had to give up most normal activities and that at the present time there is a serious difference between the rates of disability pensions and average wages of non-specialized workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House immediately ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to implement the recommendations of the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada providing that necessary steps be taken to correct the gap now existing between disability pensions for veterans and the wages of non-specialized manpower representing five groups of workers now on the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because of the increasing urgency of the matter covered in this motion, I hope that the new Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) will be more sympathetic to it than
(Mr. Cossitt.]
was her predecessor. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House urges the government to introduce without delay an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to provide for the spouse's allowance to be replaced by an equivalent allowance to be paid to all persons between the ages of 60 and 65, including widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors as well as spouses, provided they are out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, Pinard said no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INCOME TAX


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the disturbing revelations related to disclosures by unauthorized persons in the Department of National Revenue about personal income tax returns, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House direct the government to introduce an amendment to the Income Tax Act to force civil servants to protect Canadian citizens against any irregular disclosure of their income tax return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. According to provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 22, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might await the arrival in the House of the Solicitor General.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Charles Joseph Clark: I shall not try to address questions to former solicitors general.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Can the Solicitor General confirm or deny CBC radio reports this noon that the federal government is acting today to limit or stop the work of the Keable inquiry in the province of Quebec?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have instructed my attorneys to appear in front of the judge in a court in Montreal this morning. I understand the matter is presently before that judge. To my mind, because of the way in which it has been conducted, the inquiry has become an inquiry into the day to day operations of a federal government agency. It has become a general inquiry into the operations of the security services of Canada, and I do not believe this is the proper work to be done by a provincial government body. We have set up a federal commission of inquiry to look into all the practices and procedures of the security services; that is the proper place for this to be done. There is also the fact that should a federal commission of inquiry, set up by the federal government, attempt to inquire into the day-to-day operations of a provincial government agency, this would be seen to be beyond the scope and powers of the federal government. So I am asking a judge of the Superior Court in Montreal to decide whether or not the Keable Commission has gone beyond its terms of reference and is now acting beyond its constitutional powers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This House and the government have known for some time that the Keable inquiry, by its nature, would be looking into the activities of the security services. Having known this for some time, why did the government wait until now before acting on this question?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the attorney general in the province of Quebec has all the necessary powers to inquire into criminal acts. It seems to me that if we note the recent actions of the Keable Commission, it is very clear when I examine the subpoenas which have been served on me that it is not interested only in those criminal acts which apparently it deems rather secondary. Now we are being requested to
Oral Questions
produce all kinds of documents regarding the organization and the operations of the security service in Canada. I for one believe that it is quite obvious that only the federal government can establish an inquiry commission to look into the daily operations of a federal agency. If the hon. member feels that a provincial commission of inquiry should have that kind of power, I will of course be interested to hear his point of view. It would mean that provincial parliaments rather than the Parliament of Canada have control over federal agencies.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this minister knew and admitted to this House long ago that this inquiry would necessarily look into the activities of federal agencies. He even offered to co-operate with provincial inquiries in this matter. When was the decision taken for the government of Canada to change its attitude toward the Keable inquiry, and what specific activities, requests for testimony or revelations that might come before the Keable inquiry have caused the government of Canada now to change its mind, to change its course, to reverse itself, and to try to rule out the Keable inquiry into the activities of the security services?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the position of people who sit on this side of the House has always been very clear and precise. We have not been vacillating between the positions put forward by the official opposition which claimed not so long ago that a provincial commission should be given the power to investigate all RCMP operations. From the beginning the government legal advisers have stated before the Keable Commission that we were ready to co-operate with the commissioners on specific illegal acts which might have been brought to the attention of the commission and which it would like to investigate.
We also said from the start-as I repeated on several occasions both outside and inside the House-we would not accept that, under the cover of investigating the administration of justice on specific criminal allegations, the Keable Commission should change its terms of reference and investigate the day to day operations of an agency that is essential to the Canadian national security and is in no way under provincial jurisdiction.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we now have a situation where the government of Canada refuses to answer questions in the House on this matter. They tell us to go to the McDonald inquiry. The Prime Minister has told me that the testimony of ministers before the McDonald inquiry may very well be limited. The government has refused to co-operate with the Keable inquiry and with the Laycraft inquiry. Now the government is trying to stop the Keable inquiry.
My question is this. What is the government of Canada going to do next to try to stop an inquiry into the activities of the security services? What is the Government of Canada going to do next to stop Canadians from knowing what has

November 22, 1977
Oral Questions
gone on in the security services and what has been the role of ministers of this government?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 will say this to the Leader of the Opposition, that unlike him we are not ready to turn over the RCMP to the examination of a provincial commission of inquiry.


REASON FOR DIFFERENTIATION IN ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE KEABLE COMMISSION AND PORTER COMMISSION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that persistently in this House his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has advanced and advocated the right of the Porter Commission in Ontario, namely that a provincial commission has the right to investigate, among other things, nuclear power, a matter clearly within federal jurisdiction, how can the Solicitor General with any integrity now claim that he and the government are not vacillating in their position when they attempt to stifle the Keable inquiry?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear if the hon. member wishes to examine the facts. The last time that I looked at them, the RCMP was a federal police force, and when operating in the field of national security it is occupying a field which is under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, under the constitutional power of peace, order and good government. It seems quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that while it is quite proper for a provincial authority to wish to inquire into certain specific illegal acts, it is quite improper-and I am astounded that hon. members opposite would want to get the other idea across-to suggest that a provincial legislature can give powers to a provincial tribunal or court which that provincial legislature does not have.
A provincial legislature does not have the right to call the RCMP before it in order to examine it. In the same manner, a creation of that provincial body does not have the power to examine the day to day operations of federal agencies. What the opposition is now suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we turn over a federal Crown agency to the control and supervision of a provincial legislature, and that is not the position of people who sit on this side of the House.
T2)


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, what the opposition is suggesting is that the minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources better get their act together in advancing this government philosophy of their's.
My final supplementary question is this. Is it the Solicitor General's position that a provincial inquiry is acting within its jurisdiction when it is investigating a specific criminal activity, but if it ever gets off that one specific activity into more general activity it is then ultra vires? Is that the position the minister is advocating today?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, my position is that when I receive subpeonas which ask me to table, before a provincial inquiry, all the manuals of procedure and all the methods of operations of the security service of Canada, then we on this side of the House believe that commission has gone beyond its mandate and beyond the scope of the constitutional powers of any province in this country, and I have asked a judge of the Superior Court to hand down a decision in this matter.


Mr. Alexander:: Have you ever thought what would happen if he turns you down?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBLE SURVEILLANCE OF MEMBERS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT DURING 1972 AND 1973
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Solicitor General if he gets a request that is clearly unconstitutional, it may make sense to turn that down, but that is entirely different from challenging the right of the commission to exist. My question, however, is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering what the Prime Minister has said about the surveillance of democratic political parties in Canada, 1 would like to ask whether he would confirm that the democratically elected government of the province of British Columbia in 1972-73 was under systematic surveillance by the RCMP? In relation to that, would he tell the House whether the financial records of the New Democratic Party of Canada were at any time acquired by the RCMP and passed on to RCMP headquarters in Ottawa?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any investigation of the British Columbia government by the RCMP. I can remember that the leader of the New Democratic Party accused the RCMP of having broken into his headquarters, I believe in Ontario somewhere. He never was able to substantiate that, so I would have some doubt about his second expression.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Typical cynical regard for a serious question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; I at no time ever made the allegation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question of privilege I will hear it at three o'clock. If he has a supplementary question he should put it now.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is never comfortable with the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 22, 1977

SURVEILLANCE OF PARTI QUfiBfiCOIS-POSSIBILITY OF INQUIRY ABOUT SURVEILLANCE OF OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES


John Edward Broadbent: Let me ask the
Prime Minister when he found out in either 1974 or 1975, and his memory is pretty vague on that point too, that the RCMP was keeping surveillance on a systematic basis of the Parti Quebecois, and he informed the House on November 2 that he put an end, either in 1974 or 1975, to this practice, did he at that time ask whether the RCMP was keeping surveillance of the activities of any other political party in Canada and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it arose, as I reminded the House, when there was a report to me and to the cabinet committee on security and intelligence to the effect that in order to find out more about a violent end of separatism or a violent branch of separatists the RCMP was investigating the party as such, and they were asking us as the government to give them directives as to whether this kind of surveillance should be followed or not, and we indicated that it should not be pursued and that there should not be any surveillance of any freely elected party in Canada.
An bon. Member: Blame the RCMP.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, maybe this time the Prime Minister will try to answer the question. I asked him, when he found out, either in 1974 or 1975, that such a surveillance was taking place by the RCMP, and he expressed deep shock at that revelation at the time, did he or did he not ask the RCMP whether it was monitoring the other activities of democratically elected governments, whether of British Columbia, Manitoba or anywhere else in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Quite frankly I did not, Mr. Speaker. I did not ask them if they were investigating my party or the hon. member's party.


An hon. Member:: You didn't want to know.


RESOURCES
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could he tell the House whether his Quebec counterpart asked him financial aid to develop the asbestos mines now owned by the province?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of any such request.
Oral Questions


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, considering that the minister is touring his province to announce the development of asbestos mines, could the minister tell the House whether he would be interested in meeting his Quebec counterpart to discuss financial aid from the federal government. It would reduce the unemployment rate in Quebec, which is a very great source of concern to the House of Commons.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have never been able to understand how the nationalization of the asbestos mines of Quebec would increase the employment in that province.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Environment. I was wondering whether the minister has seen the Hare report on the disposal of nuclear waste? Is he aware that its principal conclusion to the effect that there is no technological barrier to the disposal of long-lived radioactive waste is in complete contradiction with reports that have been made public recently, such as that by the former chief science adviser to the cabinet and that by the Flowers commission report in the United Kingdom, which state that nuclear development for the moment should go slow? Is he aware that it is also at variance with the United States president's advisory council on environmental quality?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how I can answer all of the questions raised by the hon. member during question period. I have not yet had an opportunity to study the report in detail. I have glanced over it, but within the next few days I will look at it in more detail. Indeed, the Department of the Environment is looking very closely, along with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and AECL, into the whole question of the disposal of radioactive waste. It is a question that is preoccupying us very much.


POSSIBILITY OF REFERENCE OF HARE REPORT TO COMMITTEE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, when the minister examines this report, which is likely to be tabled later this day, I wonder whether he would examine the possibility of having it referred to a special committee of this House so that there might be public hearings, as there were on some of the other reports 1 have mentioned.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take that question up with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to see what can be done.
1112

November 22, 1977
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He said "yes".


Len Marchand: Well, if he said "yes", that sounds like a good idea to me then.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the proposal by Dome Petroleum, Ltd. to extend the drilling season applicable to its operations in the deep Beaufort Sea from the current 60-90 days to the full year. Will the minister tell the House whether he has been informed of the proposal, and in addition, when he expects to receive a formal application for this extension? Will he assure the House that before considering the application a full environmental assessment will be carried out by Environment Canada?


Len Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have not yet had-


An hon. Member:: The question was not directed to you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague was responding to the third part of the question, and I think he answered it. As to the first and second parts of the question, I have been informed they will probably make a request for an extension of the drilling season. I have not yet received that request, but I expect to receive it some time this month.


TRANSPORT
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. There are also indications that the Department of Transport is now negotiating with Dome Petroleum over possible leasing of the $125 million icebreaker which Dome will be building to enable its year-round drilling program to take place. Will the minister tell the House whether these negotiations are taking place and whether or not it is government policy to support in principle the construction of this vessel?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: There have been discussions about the possible development of such an icebreaker and the government's role in relation to it. It has been the government's view, and certainly mine as Minister of

Transport, that an icebreaker of this type is very useful for our many national interests in the north and so we are interested in this one as well and are pursuing the matter with that thought in mind.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that last Friday the minister indicated that he was not aware of any breaches in his department's security which would make it possible for an individual posing as a chartered accountant to call up a regional office of the tax department to request personal information about an individual's tax return without his authorisation, may I ask the minister whether in the past four days he has conducted any further investigations with members of his staff and can he report to the House on whether he has discovered any instances of such practices having taken place?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the investigation is going ahead exceptionally well but I will not make any report until it is completed.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Henry Perrin Beatty: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the revelations of the past week have convinced virtually everyone except the Minister of National Revenue of the fact that it is very easy to breach the security of the tax department, may I ask the Minister of Justice what steps are being taken by the government to tighten up security in other departments which hold personal information in their files, private, confidential information, about individuals, and in particular is the government reconsidering its use of social insurance numbers as the single identification number for the coding of personal information about individuals in their computer files?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Revenue made clear on Thursday, steps have been taken to increase the security provisions relating to the Department of National Revenue. With regard to the question of the single use of SIN, a committee has been operating with the government for some time examining the use of SIN. That committee report is a matter for the President of the Treasury Board to deal with.
November 22, 1977


Henry Perrin Beatty: My supplementary question would obviously be for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that in its very excellent report the Privacy and Computers Commission back in 1972 recommended against the government forging ahead with the use of SIN as the single identification number, and in view of the fact that the tax department is now requiring that individuals cashing their Canada savings bonds premiums take out their SIN, may I ask the minister whether the government is reconsidering its policy and whether in the name of security it is prepared to require that departments not use SIN as a coding number for personal files in its computer files?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would take that as a representation. I am not sure whether all the implications in the hon. member's preamble to the question are in fact correct. We will look at that matter.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Further to my questions of October 19 and October 25 and the statement of the President of the Privy Council to the House on February 4 of this year, can the minister state whether or not a chairman has been appointed to the special committee to review the Public Service Employment Act? If so, does the special committee intend to hold public hearings, and if it does so intend, when will they be held?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the selection of the chairman for the review has not yet taken place, but a suitable person has been identified and discussions are underway now as to the availability of that person to serve.


HOME INSULATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF RECONSIDERATION IN CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I understand that there is to be a meeting of the federal minister with the ten provincial ministers on December 1 to discuss energy matters and I also understand that eight provinces, the provinces other than Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island which are dissatisfied with the present discriminatory home insulation program, are putting forward a new program. Is the minister prepared to consider their proposal, if it is not more expensive, during the present fiscal year rather than the present disjointed and discriminatory program?
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think that the program has been very well received. I am not saying that it cannot be improved. My colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, has indicated that there are particular changes that we might be prepared to contemplate. Before accepting the suggestion or the representation of the hon. member that we adopt the position of the provinces, I think the provinces should make their position clear to me. They have not done so yet.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERIM JOINT BOARD TO MANAGE OFFSHORE RESOURCES OF NEWFOUNDLAND- CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCE
John Carnell Crosbie: At the meeting of the energy ministers on December 1, will the minister be discussing with the minister from Newfoundland his suggestion, sent to the minister on November 3 about which the minister knew nothing yesterday, that an interim federal Newfoundland management board be set up on the matter of the jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas before it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada? Will that be discussed by the minister?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I am prepared to consider the joint management structure which was outlined in very general terms. A meeting has been set up and that meeting will follow the federal-provincial ministers' meeting. I would expect it to take place the following day.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the nurses who are members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service. They are working in the Inuvik zone of the Northwest Territories. These people have been providing an essential service, at times in harsh conditions and for long hours, and have been without a contract since December 28, 1976. I should like to ask the minister what steps he is taking to ensure that a new contract is signed as soon as possible.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this negotiation has taken so long. The consultations with the Professional Institute of the Public Service have been going on since January. The difficulty relates to the question of designation under section 79(2) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act as to just which of the employees should be designated as those who should remain on the job in the interest of the public during a strike such as a strike by the nurses. It was referred to the Staff Relations Board on November 4 and hearings are going on now. There
80027-2/4

November 22, 1977
Ora! Questions
are some 600 classifications or designations involved in this and currently meetings are being held in various parts of the country to resolve it, at which time there will be a reference to the conciliation board. We are trying our best to speed it up, but there are complications of which both sides are aware and I think that both sides are desirous of a successful outcome.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the increased frequency and duration of delays experienced in air traffic, particularly in the Toronto area, as a result of the air traffic controllers slowdown which has caused inconvenience to passengers and has increased the airline operating costs. Can the minister tell the House whether he or his officials have had the opportunity to investigate this matter thoroughly, and can he tell the House whether he has been able to determine whether the work to rule is a legitimate precautionary measure to ensure that all safety procedures are being adhered to, and if that is not the case, has the minister been able to indentify the root cause of the problem and can he tell the House what action he is taking or is contemplating to resolve this important issue as we approach the Christmas rush season?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the air controllers in Toronto and have received from them a very detailed analysis of their views about the air traffic control situation there. We have also been talking to the executive of the Air Traffic Controllers' Association about this matter. My officials assure me that the techniques that are being employed in Toronto in no way lead to problems endangering the public. Indeed, I would not personally use the expressions work to rule or slowdown because in fact what the air controllers are doing is simply not applying some of the extraordinary but still safe measures which they used to employ to facilitate traffic. That is partly due to a difference in view with other controllers, particularly about the appropriate classification and relative pay for work which should exist, having regard to the extra traffic which goes to the Toronto airport as compared with some others. This is the root of the problem and we are working with it very closely in a variety of attempts to consult and get to the root of it. I cannot be totally optimistic about the ease with which a solution can be found but I think we are doing everything we can.


ALLEGATION OUTMODED EQUIPMENT AND UNSAFE PROCEDURES IN USE AT AIRPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There are reports to the effect that outmoded and unsafe equipment is being used at the airport. I wonder
[Mr. Andras.l
if the minister could assure the House and the people of Canada that such is not the case and furthermore that safety procedures are not being compromised in any way.


Hon.   Otto. E. Lang@Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the procedures which are in place fully assure safety regardless of the fact that some of the equipment could be better and will be better with the introduction of the jets program which is a major changeover of equipment throughout our air control services. In the meantime, with the equipment we have, appropriate procedures are adapted to that equipment and as usual a very high level of safety in Canadian air space is maintained.


TOURISM
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In October last year the Canadian government office of tourism and the travel industry had a one-day conference and identified 13 problem areas in the declining tourism industry in Canada. What specification has the minister and his department taken in regard to these 13 problems?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we in the department are well aware of the problems in the tourist industry and have announced some measures which I think will help immensely. We will be announcing some measures next week and continuing into the New Year.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In Toronto recently the minister stated that all levels of government are losing $2Vi million per year in tax revenue due to the increasingly significant drop in tourism in Canada. I should like to ask the minister what action he has taken regarding the resolution passed in Edmonton earlier this year by the travel industry which requested that the federal government form a national tourism policy. What steps is the minister taking in regard to forming a national tourism policy for Canada?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are setting up a tourist advisory board in the department which will be representative of all segments in the industry in all regions of Canada. As I said earlier, we will be announcing policies between now and the New Year which will eventually help the tourist trade in Canada next year.
November 22, 1977


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. The exporting and importing nations are now apparently at loggerheads on the proposal for a new international wheat agreement. Since Canada is one of the major exporting nations at the London talks, what position have we taken there? Is the minister optimistic that discussions will resume in December in London?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are continuing. I, personally, would not use the word loggerheads to describe the differences which exist in discussions at this stage. Indeed, differences may be as much between exporting countries one with another, as between exporters and importers. The discussions are dealing with the technical questions, about price ranges and possible reserve stocks which may be written into an international grains agreement. Our position in Canada is that appropriate reserve conditions have to be written in so that the reserve is really a reserve out of the market, not overhanging it and causing lower prices for producers so that they do not get a fair return.
I am still optimistic that the discussions can lead to a basis for negotiations and at some point between the beginning of the year and Easter those negotiations may take place.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the negotiations concern maximum and minimum prices as well as assured supply, would the minister assure the House that there will not be a policy set of firm maximum prices at the negotiations in London? If this were the case it would certainly be detrimental to the long-term interests of western Canadian grain producers.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the position that some nations are taking that there should be firm minimums and maximums is one which I find not as workable, frankly, as the position put forward particularly by the United States that there be a target area of price, rather than a minimum and maximum and that the reserves be used as ways of holding the price at the bottom and at the upper levels. I think those nations seeking more firmness at those levels can accomplish that by arguing for a larger reserve aside from the regular stocks in our ordinary commercial channels. That is the position that I will be putting forward.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a report in the London Times which asserts
Oral Questions
that France has blocked an EEC desire to applaud the exemplary initiative taken by President Sadat to establish a lasting peace in the Middle East and the obvious willingness of Israel to co-operate, is it the intention of this government to express its concern over the unwillingness of France to further these peace advances in the Middle East?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. It would not be my intention to indicate to the French government or authorities anything relating to their internal decision making.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: They might give you a medal.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would hope they would show the same regard for our internal decision-making.


EXCISE TAX
Mr. Gilles Caouette (T6miscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the problems associated with the reimbursement of the excise tax on gas, and because the delays are due to the centralization of payments in an Ottawa computer centre, could the minister take the necessary steps to accelerate these payments and reduce the delays in reimbursement which sometimes may take two, two and a half and even three months?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am having discussions with departmental officials concerning this. I shall advise the hon. member of the outcome as soon as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the recent grant of $40 million under CIDA to Upper Volta which among other things according to press reports, included $14 million for improving the national railway in that country. Can the minister advise the House what opportunities Canadian steel companies will have to provide rails for this project with particular reference to the Sydney Steel Corporation which as the minister knows is undergoing some rather difficult times?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in this case as well as a number of

November 22, 1977
Oral Questions
others where CIDA is participating in the upgrading or the provision of railroad services, I have asked that inquiries be made and the necessary work undertaken to see if the Sydney Steel plant is in a position to provide materials. I will get an up-to-date report on this and provide it to the hon. member as soon as possible. I think the matter came up initially in September when I was in Cape Breton.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. I hope he likes Christmas cake because an angry constituent of mine is sending him this one which arrived via the Canadian postal system. The minister can see how well wrapped it is. Normally, one would expect that a cake in a tin well wrapped in cardboard and tape would not arrive looking as if it had been run over by a transport. Can the minister tell the House how things like this are happening in the post office at the present time?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, being mindful and knowledgeable of the high quality of cuisine found in the Parry Sound area, I am indeed very interested in ascertaining exactly how such a monstrous event could take place.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is appropriate that we move to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that in the Steveston spill last summer, the first report came in at 11 p.m. and the officials did not follow it up until the next day and it took 44 hours to get equipment there from 15 miles away, I wish to ask the minister if anybody responsible in his department has been sacked.


Len Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, no one has been sacked in relation to the Steveston spill. If the hon. member would like, I can give him a very good run-through on the events in relation to that spill.
I did this not long after I got the job. I was satisfied that everything possible had been done. There was a little delay in getting the spill reported, but once it was reported, Environment Canada officials were on the spot right away and did a very thorough cleanup.


PROPOSED KITIMAT PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS STUDIED
Benno Friesen: I beg to differ with the minister. There was no delay in reporting it. His giving me a run-through here will be of small comfort to the fishermen who lost their livelihood for a week or ten days. Shifting that emphasis to the Kitimat proposal, the Minister of Justice said that the Kitimat consortium is trying to do an end run around the government. Does this minister agree with the Minister of Justice? If so, does that not indicate there is a special requirement on his part to make sure that all the environmental implications are put in place and researched before they go ahead with this proposal?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there will be no end run around the government of Canada by anybody with regard to a pipeline application. All of the environmental implications relating to the proposed Kitimat pipeline or any other pipeline will be investigated by my department.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a request from the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport Workers to appoint a commission of inquiry to look into the fact that Canadian National Railways has in recent months laid off 6,000 of its employees and has instituted sharp cutbacks in service in fields such as express?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Can the minister indicate whether he will be appointing that commission and, if so, when and who will be involved?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I discussed with the railwaymen to whom the hon. member is referring the advisability of setting up an industrial inquiry commission. We came to the conclusion that the whole subject matter of layoffs could be dealt with in a more general way. We are trying to discuss the best way that this can be done. The process by which it could be done will be of particular interest to the railway people.
November 22, 1977


ELECTION EXPENSES ACT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. On December 6, 1974, page 1111 of Hansard I directed a question to the then President of the Privy Council, the hon. member for Eglinton, with regard to the Election Expenses Act. I pointed out that provincial party affiliates of federal parties were reaping the benefits through a loophole in that act and money taken off of federal tax payable was being taken down to provincial levels to fight provincial election campaigns. At that time the then President of the Privy Council said that they were very interested in closing that loophole and that private members' bill in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville would, he hoped, be debated very soon. The same recommendation was made in the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections on April 29 of last year. Why was that loophole not included in Bill C-5 presently before the committee? Why is there no provision included to cut off that loophole?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To be frank with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am not aware of the reason that particular amendment has not been proposed. Presumably any loophole that may exist in the law can be in practice closed by the operation of the national political parties and the candidates for whom collections are made. 1 suggest to the hon. member that this is a matter which might be considered in the committee because the bill is now before that committee. It might be a matter for consideration. Certainly, 1 will give it some thought and consider whether it would be necessary and desirable to move an amendment to bring this objective about if it does constitute a real problem.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, there was a private members' bill to cover this loophole and it was requested by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in their report of April 29 of last year that the government provide for this. The bill presently before the committee is silent on this. We cannot introduce an amendment of a provision which has not even been opened up in the government legislation before us. Will the President of the Privy Council take the necessary steps as quickly as possible to refer that subject matter or an amendment to Bill C-5 so that it can be considered at the same time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the representations made by the hon. member and whether at this stage it would be desirable to bring in an amendment, either by consent or otherwise in the committee, or have it done in another way. I still believe it is a loophole that can be closed by the national parties operating as they see fit in the management of collected funds.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs for some time. He appears again to be out answering the telephone. In his absence, I will direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister consult with his colleague with regard to the action of the minister in instructing his commissioner in the Yukon to disallow a bill to amend the inquiries ordinance there, which appears to be directly contrary to Section 20(2) of the Yukon Act which requires the Governor in Council to make such a decision? I ask the Minister of Justice to take up the matter with his colleague and refer it to the law officers of the Crown in the hope that that highly unconstitutional action will be rectified immediately.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to consult with my colleague along those lines, although I would presume that my colleague and the commissioner acted on the basis of legal advice.


POSSIBILITY OF REFERENDUM ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It deals with petitions that are being circulated to him and members of this House by Ontario municipalities regarding the issue of capital punishment. Now that the Prime Minister has modified his position in respect of the use of a referendum, will he take into consideration the wishes of the countless municipalities who have contacted him on this important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe I made it quite clear in the House when I answered questions on the proposed referendum that it would not be used in our mind to settle this kind of question, but would merely be used in a way that would deal with constitutional questions and the national unity question.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-REQUEST THAT VIEW OF ONTARIO POLICE ASSOCIATION BE CONSIDERED
William C. Scott: Knowing of the minister's interest in this important matter, will he assure the House that he will give serious consideration to the views of the Ontario Police Association who over the past weekend overwhelmingly indicated their support for the return of capital punishment?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I will give it very serious consideration but obviously the vote of this House, and my personal vote on the matter, indicate that 1 do not agree with that position.

November 22, 1977
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE OF COST OF IMPROVING TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the increased use of the Trans-Canada highway, if I can call it that, in Newfoundland the condition of which is worsening daily, and in view of the fact that the province of Newfoundland has requested a more generous share of funding rather than the 50-50 share offered by the minister, does the minister have the statistics to show the increased use and further deterioration? In order to give us that base, will he reconsider the cost-sharing on the strengthening program in Newfoundland?


Otto Emil Lang: We are fully aware of these transportation problems in Newfoundland and a commission is presently looking into the whole transportation situation in the province. As to the particular question the hon. member has raised, it is clear that the operating and maintenance of the highway to which he referred is a provincial responsibility. Our offer to share 50-50 is a fair and generous one; I hope the province will recognize that it is in fact a fair and generous offer and take advantage of it without delay so that the highway can be improved.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Jack Marshall: My
supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion-that minister is a little more generous in his highways agreements with the Province of Newfoundland which he is prepared to conclude on a 90-10 basis. I have in mind the new highway which is being built to take in the great northern peninsula. In view of the fact that the Trans-Canada highway should be part of this whole highway would the minister consult with the minister responsible for highways in Newfoundland and his colleague to determine whether a proper transportation base by road can be provided under a 90-10 sharing arrangement, or, at least, 75-25?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lersard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that the hon. member from Newfoundland recognizes how useful the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is in his province in particular. Indeed we are taking part in the development and upgrading of secondary roads in his province and we have done so for some time now.
Up till now the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has not in any way taken part in the construction,
[Mr. Basford.J
upgrading or expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway. We have merely upgraded or constructed roads which did not exist in some parts of his province, because we considered that that was part of our responsibility in pursuing our objective of improving the economy of the so-called underprivileged areas. Until we have completed-at the very least what is a basic need in his province-the road system in that province to serve the various municipalities now without any roads, I believe it would not be appropriate that my department be concerned with the Trans-Canada Highway.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have received notice from the hon. member for York-Simcoe of a question of privilege. Before he begins to develop the point, I might indicate to him, in terms of the citation to which he has referred, that what the minister said yesterday fell short of accusing him of anything illegal or unparliamentary. In addition, the minister did not directly make an accusation but simply raised a question. But if the hon. member still wishes to make the point, I will hear him now.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: As you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave you notice yesterday and this morning. In answer to a question of mine about the government's uranium cartel, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
Mr. Speaker, the real question in my mind is whether the hon. member is serving Canadian interests or whether he is acting as an agent of a foreign corporation that is contending with Canadian regulations. We are all aware that the issues which he has been promoting are the issues which Westinghouse of the United States have been promoting because they are looking for a defence for their own mistakes.
Mr. Speaker, because I feel the government has taken actions which are harmful to Canadian interests, I am accused of being "an agent of a foreign corporation" and of actively promoting its interests. I do not believe this kind of insinuation or smear is acceptable under our practices in this House. In this connection, I would quote Standing Order 35 which reads in part:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty nor of any of the Royal family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House or against any member thereof.
I certainly find the imputation that my motives and actions are against the interests of my country, and that I am under external direction from Westinghouse, to be offensive. I would further cite Beauchesne, citation 110 at page 100 of the fourth edition. The final words read:
-to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a member must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member and the conduct or language on which the libel is based must be actions performed or words uttered in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Bad faith must be imputed and the charge cannot be indefinite.
November 22, 1977

Mr. Speaker, there are four essential ingredients laid out in that citation. I would suggest to you that each of those four are met by my question of privilege. The fact, first, is there has been a reflection upon my character or conduct in my capacity as a member of this House. Second, the actions referred to or the words uttered were used in the transaction of the business of the House. Third, bad faith was imputed and, finally, the charges were very definite: the minister specifically said I was promoting the interest of Westinghouse and was acting as their agent. There could hardly be anything more definite than that.
Citation 111 refers to imputations of corruption against members, in the execution of their duties, as involving privilege. This is supported by May at page 153 of the nineteenth edition. These two citations are precisely relevant to the malicious slander which the minister put on record yesterday.
Further, we usually think of an agent as someone who acts on behalf of a person, or interest, for payment. This is particularly true when speaking of myself, a lawyer. In this connection 1 would refer Your Honour to the definition in the Oxford Dictionary. The dictionary refers to an agent as follows:
One who does the actual work of anything, as distinguished from the instigator or employer; hence, one who acts for another.
We then go on to read that it is a term commonly used in commerce, politics and law. The minister's statement implies misconduct on my part as set out and described at page 142 of May as follows:
The acceptance of any member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as such member, or of any fee, compensation or award in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any bill, resolution or thing, submitted or intended to be submitted to the House or any committee thereof is a breach of privilege.
In British usage, the term "parliamentary agent" has a very specific meaning and members are not permitted to act in that capacity. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the term "parliamentary agent" first began to be used in the British parliament in 1837. It consequently became part of our precedents under the British North America Act and is basically a function of our parliamentary system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member should dwell on his point about "parliamentary agent". The term which was used was not "parliamentary agent". That term has a very specific usage with respect to the sponsorship of legislation, and 1 think it ought not to be dealt with extensively.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am making this point about "parliamentary agent" because I believe it is relevant. May deals with the question of parliamentary agents at page 902. He makes two points. Parliamentary agents promote, and they are agents. Those are exactly the words which were used by the minister yesterday, and I believe those words were used after some forethought on his part.
There are several cases which I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention. This kind of charge was levelled by Mr. Ralston against the then prime minister, Mr. Bennett, in 1935,
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
as reported on page 3639 of Hansard for June 14 of that year. We find that the passage to which Mr. Ralston took exception was as follows. The prime minister stated:
The leading member who spoke for the opposition is a distinguished lawyer; he did not desire to make that speech; he has made his statements and they are well known, but he was told to speak, so he took the brief and made the statement. From whom did he get his facts that he referred to with their "ifs"? Who supplied them to him? Who gave him his brief and what does it represent on the back of it? That is the question.
Those words were challenged by Mr. Ralston and there are 10 pages of discussion in Hansard concerning whether in fact the words did constitute a question of privilege. The prime minister hastened to say that he did not intend to impute anything and, based on his statement that he did not intend to impute anything, the Speaker held that there was not a question of privilege. May 1 refer Your Honour to the statements as they appear in Hansard, specifically to the Speaker's statement which appears at page 3669 for June 14, 1935. The Speaker had this to say, and I would emphasize it:
If I had taken any such imputation I certainly would have requested the Prime Minister to withdraw. The Prime Minister has stated that he made no imputation in the matter and naturally I must accept his statement. He has stated emphatically on more than one occasion since the question of privilege has been raised that he made no such imputation and that is the statement I am bound to accept.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer Your Honour to United Kingdom cases. There have been a number of instances in the United Kingdom where cases of privilege or contempt have been held to exist when members have been accused of acting under improper influences, whether by another member or in the press. The appendix to issue No. 1 of your committee, sir, Rights and Immunities of Members, lists two such cases where a prima facie case was found. One was the Ashton case, where the member had said that certain members had accepted financial payment for binding their future actions. The other was the case of Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, a 1974 case, who was accused in a newspaper article of being improperly influenced by certain power brokers.
If I may refer Your Honour more specifically to that case and the report of it from the committee on privileges in the 1974-75 session in the British House of Commons, I think the words which were a question of privilege in that instance are quite similar to the words used by the minister yesterday. The words in question were these:
The question being asked is: What is the real significance of the Dunwoody broadside?
Is she speaking for the holidaymaker at larger when she claims they could eventually need protection from tour operator collapse by the intervention of a national government?
Or is she being used as a powerful pawn in a protracted battle of travel trade chess aimed at dethroning the present ABTA leadership?
I would ask Your Honour to note that those are all questions in the same sense that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was asked questions yesterday. When the matter was raised in the House, it was ordered that the matter of complaint be referred to the committee on privileges. There

November 22, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
was a full hearing in that committee, and a complete withdrawal from the editor of the newspaper involved was secured. The editor said in writing:
I wish to express my unqualified regret that the newspaper of which I am editor should have offended in this way, and to offer my unreserved apologies. Steps will be taken to avoid any repetition of such an offence.
That was signed by the editor. There is also the famous 1965 case involving the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who accused Conservative MPs of being spokesmen for large corporations and trusts. A prima facie case of privilege was found and Mr. Callaghan appeared in committee to explain his words. May I again put on the record those words, Mr. Speaker, as they appear in the third report of the privileges committee in England. Mr. Callaghan's words were:
1 have almost forgotten their constituencies-
He was referring to the opposition.
-but I shall never forget their interests. I wonder sometimes whom they represent? The constituents or their own or friends' particular interests?
Again Your Honour will note that the words were in the form of a question, and the British House found that they were words which required a reference to their committee on privileges. Again there was a full hearing in that committee and the then chancellor of the exchequer was invited to explain the words he had used. In view of the chancellor's explanation that-
-I did not have it in mind in my speech at Swansea either to state or imply that hon. members who possess interests are acting or were acting improperly in taking part in discussions on the finance bill-
-and his assurance that-
-nothing in my speech was intended to be derogatory in any way to parliament-
-the committee recommended that no further action be taken. Each of these instances, and in fact several other precedents that I could cite to Your Honour, support my contention that the words used by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are similar to words which have always been of great concern to members of the House. In all instances the words have either been altered or an assurance has been offered that they were not intended to be taken in the way that the person concerned had taken them. Almost invariably, if there was no withdrawal there was a reference to the appropriate privileges committee.
I appreciate that Your Honour has preferred in the past to deal with this sort of derogatory and insulting language as disorderly, but that you feel that withdrawal should first be requested. I so request such withdrawal from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. However, if that does not occur, based on the precedents that I have cited and many others that I would be pleased to cite to Your Honour, I submit that a question of privilege exists, and if so found I would move:
That the imputations by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the questions directed to him by the hon. member for York-Simcoe have been put because the member is an agent for foreign corporations and promoting their interests be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am concerned that we may be getting a little tender about statements made by one member

to another, and that we may have one of these questions of privilege every day. I hope that is not the result of my decision recently with respect to the Prime Minister. I did not hear the hon. member for York-Simcoe quote his comment which I have taken from Hansard as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who seems to be stoutly defending Gulf U.S. for reasons I am not sure of.
If I am to find that the minister has said something derogatory about the hon. member for York-Simcoe, can the hon. member tell me whether I should find that he has said something equally derogatory about the minister?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If you so find, Mr. Speaker, then I would be more than willing to withdraw that comment concerning the minister which I made yesterday. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that I feel I have made great efforts to try to bring to this House and the Canadian public information on exactly what transpired during this uranium cartel's existence, and I resent greatly any suggestion by the minister or anybody else on that side that I have been doing that for false motives or as an agent for anybody, let alone a foreign corporation.
Mir. Speaker: Order, please. I can take the hon. member's remarks under review, those he made yesterday and the arguments that he made today, to see whether or not they do, in fact, come within the terms of my previous ruling, which is as follows as reported at page 818 of Hansard for November 14:
The arguments which were made in defence at this time were similar to the ones made in defence on this particular occasion; that is, members are entitled to have certain opinions and to express them, whether or not evidence exists in support of them. In effect, that is exactly the privilege which members enjoy-
However, the fact is that when that opinion expressed turns into a direct statement-as it did in the circumstances of the hon. member for York-Simcoe-that an illegality has occurred, it is on that precedent clear to me that it goes beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in a parliamentary sense-
In examining the argument put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe today, and in examining the language which was used yesterday, I find that the question of privilege fails on two grounds. In the first place, it is not a statement, it is a question. In the second place, it is not an illegality. Therefore, the requirement I have set out on previous occasions of a statement of an illegality by one member against another fails because it is not a statement and it is not an illegality. What the minister did yesterday was to put this matter into question, and here is the language that was used:
Mr. Speaker, the real question in my mind is whether the hon. member is serving Canadian interests or whether he is acting as an agent of a foreign corporation that is contending with Canadian regulations. We are all aware that the issues which he has been promoting are the issues which Westinghouse of the United States have been promoting because they are looking for a defence for their own mistakes.
It seems to me that the minister put that into question, and it is, in any case, put into question and is not a statement. In the second place, even if it is put as a statement, which it is not, it is not an illegality to my knowledge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 22, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: It is a suggestion which calls into question, perhaps the interests that were expressed in the circumstances. It is not in any way an offence of any law or regulation of which I am aware. Therefore, on the basis of recent precedents, I find that no question of privilege exists.


MR. BROADBENT-ALLEGED RCMP BREAK-IN-PRIME MINISTER'S ANSWERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a question of privilege, and the ruling you have just made I find rather encouraging. The question of privilege on which I rise pertains to answers given in the Elouse this afternoon by the Prime Minister. Those of us in the House have grown, during the past month, clearly aware of just how this authoritarian master of the half-truth has handled the RCMP, security and ministerial responsibility issues. However, today I submit he overstepped the bounds of the rules of this House and was involved in what we euphemistically call here a misleading of the House-not only once, but twice.


An hon. Member:: Was it deliberate?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the first instance was in reply to a question I asked, in respect of which he made a totally irresponsible allegation that I had at any time said that the RCMP was involved in a break-in of the headquarters of the New Democratic Party here in Ottawa. That was the allegation the Prime Minister made. At no time, Mr. Speaker, either inside the House of Commons or outside, have I ever made such an allegation. My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, did move the following motion in the House on November 1:
That in the light of the fact that the federal office of the New Democratic Party was broken into on December 3, 1972, the government be directed to institute full inquiries into the searching or breaking into the property of any political party in Canada.
I know the Prime Minister has a vivid imagination, Mr. Speaker, but it would take one equal to his imaginative capacities to distort that into the suggestion that I had alleged the RCMP was involved in a break-in at our headquarters. That motion, I repeat, was moved by the hon. member for Greenwood. 1 had nothing to do with it-and the motion itself, of course, makes no such allegation. Any questions that have been raised on this matter, as the Prime Minister well knows, have always been in the form of questions, and not accusations, in any case. I submit that the Prime Minister, as I said, to use a euphemism that we are familiar with in the House, has misled the House by claiming that I made the allegation that the RCMP did, indeed, break into the headquarters of our political party here in Ottawa.
The second bit of misinformation came from the Prime Minister in response to a question I put to him as to whether or not he was considering at the time that it was proper he should exercise his prime ministerial responsibilities-he does that from time to time-when he discovered in 1974 and 1975 that the RCMP was involved in illegally obtaining information about the Parti Quebecois, making inquiries as to whether the
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
RCMP was involved in a systematic surveillance of any other political party. His reply to me today was, "Frankly, no."
The implication-and that is as far as it goes-was that he knew the answer, that there was not any surveillance of any other political party. He said the following on November 2 in the House, in response to a question put to him by another member, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot, who was making inquiries about the same subject matter, that is, whether or not other political parties had been the subject of unwanted RCMP intrusions, as recorded at page 561 of Hansard:
-I know of no surveillance exercise of any political party as such, only the one I referred to in the case of the Parti Quebecois and I had it stopped as soon as I learned about it.
In that answer he is saying he had no knowledge, or to his knowledge there was not any surveillance of any other political party. Today, in reply to my question as to whether he had made such inquiries of any other parties involved, he said, "Frankly, no"-he had never done it. He may get out of that aspect of my question of privilege by saying he did not put the question. But when he was answering on November 2, even though he left the impression with the House that he had not made inquiries, he never explicitly said that. That comes back to a half-truth, and therefore perhaps I would not have a question of privilege on that.
1 repeat that on the first part I do have a question of privilege. He said that I had said something which I had never said either inside the House or outside it. If you rule I have a prima facie question of privilege, I will move that this matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the second point raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party can be dismissed out of hand. Any reasonable reader would just say that the leader of the New Democratic Party was trying to interpret what I said, which is not substantiated by the texts. I do not believe I have to get into it any further. 1 answered then, as I answered today, to the best of my knowledge when I said that I knew of no surveillance. That is what it meant; I knew of no surveillance. The leader of the New Democratic Party admits that maybe that one is not very strong, in that sense.
He does put more attention on the first point that was raised today about the alleged RCMP break-in of the offices of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the New Democratic Party is now trying to back away from the position it has put itself in over the past few weeks. I believe the leader of the NDP met some of his people in Saskatchewan, I believe it is, over the weekend and has discovered that the position of his party in making all these hysterical allegations about the RCMP is not supported among them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada or, indeed, members of this party are not concerned with illegalities or illegal activities by some RCMP

November 22, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
officers. We have, I repeat, in each case referred them either to the attorney general of the province or to the royal commission of inquiry. We are concerned with these. We think they are of great importance as far as civil liberties are concerned.
Simply speaking, we have not on this side magnified a number of things. There may be a handful, or there may be five handfuls-I do not know-but when you have a force of some 20,000 people, which I believe it is, more or less, there are bound to be mistakes that happen. I believe this is now the position that the leader of the New Democratic Party took in the west this weekend when he said they are not accusing the RCMP. The majority of them are all very good people, but there is some minority which is not. This is the new position of the leader of the NDP.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 can understand-


An hon. Member:: That is really despicable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand that in this present frame of mind-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 can understand, Mr. Speaker, that in this present frame of mind, the leader of the New Democratic Party forgets what he said as little as three weeks ago. The accusation-


An hon. Member:: Where are the statements? Where are the responses?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, would you ask this hyena to be a bit silent over there.


An hon. Member:: And would you ask the Prime Minister to stick to the point?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I allowed him to make his question of privilege without interruption. Ele is now sensitive because 1 suggest he accused the RCMP of having been responsible for a break-in of the New Democratic Party offices and he says he never said anything of the kind. Perhaps he now wishes he had not said anything of the kind.
I have two quotations from reputable newspapers. I cannot vouch for their authenticity. If the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party stands up and says that he never said what he is alleged to have said by the newspapers, then of course I will say that we have both been badly served by the newspapers.
In the House, during an answer to the leader of the New Democratic Party, I was stating what I learned from the newspapers. I have two quotations in my possession of statements which were made outside the House. I will not look up

every newspaper from last week during the time when I was embarked on this operation; Your Honour has indicated that a few quotations are enough. I am sure I can get more. But the leader of the New Democratic Party did not fall behind the screen that the Tory party used last week when they were talking about the hon. member for Central Nova and said that he had never accused the RCMP outside the House and that what he had done outside was irrelevant to them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How old are you, Pierre?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At least the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party has been honest enough to say that he did not say anything either inside or outside the House. I should like to read from an article by Mr. Lawrence Martin which appeared in the Globe and Mail of November 3, 1977. It reads in part as follows:
NDP leader Ed Broadbent has alleged the Mounties broke into party offices in Ottawa in December, 1972, and an outraged Stephen Lewis, the Ontario party leader, says the provincial activities of the Mounties might warrant a separate Ontario inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, I am reading this from the article which appeared in the Globe and Mail. I do not know what the shaking of the head by the leader of the New Democratic Party means, but at least he will concede that it is saying the same thing as I said and it is quoting him.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not a quote. Is he quoting me?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: "Is he quoting me", is the outraged scream. There are no quotation marks.


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are no quotation marks, but I should like to read it once again:
NDP leader Ed Broadbent has alleged the Mounties broke into party offices-
What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to phone up the Globe and Mail and ask them why they did not put quotes in there, or what?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not saying that the hon. member actually said this; 1 am saying this is the basis of my assertion in the House. If he tells me he has been maligned by the Globe and Mail, then I will say my authorities are not reliable-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What else is new?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and I will not ask anyone in the House in the future to use the Globe and Mail as the basis of any fact. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the London Free Press. The by-line is John McKeough, and it is dated Wednesday, November 2, 1977. It reads as follows:
Asked if RCMP security forces could be suspected in the break-in, Broadbent replied: "there's now good reason to at least suspect that the RCMP or security services were involved''-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 22, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In one case there are no quotes, and it appears that it is a clear allegation. In the other case there are quotes, and the quote is that he at least suspects the RCMP or security services were involved. I do not know if the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party will try to hide behind that innuendo, because it is the kind of smear we have had from that party in the past few weeks. They do not quite accuse and they do not quite allege, but they suspect the RCMP is involved.
This is the basis on which I made my statement. Once again, if the leader of the New Democratic Party wants to withdraw his suspicion or his innuendo that the RCMP were involved, of course I will withdraw what I said; but it was based upon reported facts by reputable newspapers.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members will know, there is no process by which we can encourage participation a second time by any member in the same question.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has raised a question of privilege. The basis of his question of privilege is that earlier today the Prime Minister made an answer which contained a false statement and misled the House. The Prime Minister has responded to that question of privilege by saying that his comment was based on some authority. If that authority is to be called into question, then surely we are into a dispute as to interpretation as to facts.
The matter has been argued on both sides. In my opinion, it is a difference of opinion and does not constitute a question of privilege.


MR. PAPROSKI-PROCEDURE USED IN CONNECTION WITH S O. 43 MOTIONS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which has to do with routine proceedings and particularly Standing Order 43 where the Speaker says, "The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?"
With respect, we do have electronic media now. It is only fair that the people of Canada and the people of this House should be able to see on the monitors who the party is that says "No", and particularly on the government side. I have been accused of saying "No" to questions which have been put by my own party. I have noticed the hon. member for Outremont has said "No", and I have noticed the hon. member for Drummond has said "No". Both of those members are on the government side of the House.
With all due respect, perhaps Your Honour could indicate whether it was the government side that said "No" or whether the opposition said "No." This would clear the situation. Perhaps the cameras could focus on the particular individual who says "No", so that the people of the country will know who said it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Time Allocation for Bill C-11


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am perfectly prepared to entertain the idea of identification of the member who refuses unanimous consent on any occasion, so long as it is understood that the member must be given an opportunity to take the floor and explain his reasons for withholding unanimous consent. When we do one, we ought to do the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), a report prepared by an independent panel of experts entitled, "The Management of Canada's Nuclear Waste", in both official languages.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. Robert  Mc@: that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, November 17, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the notification which I gave to the House yesterday, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-11, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration in second reading stage of the bill:
That, at the end of the fifth such hour, any proceeding before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker, addressing myself to the motion I have just made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. Minister of State for Multicultural-

November 22, 1977
Order Paper Questions
ism and the deputy Elouse leader (Mr. Cafik), seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since a limited debate is provided by the Standing Orders, the House might agree that we should now take a few minutes to conclude routine proceedings, which would include the answering of questions on the order paper, and then go on to the debate of this motion. Is that agreed?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 211, 230, 234, 260, 273, 286, 290, 319, 450 and 472.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the National Capital Commission and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1.	The total number of persons under contract to the National Capital Commission on October 20, 1977 is eight. The number of retired public servants in this group is one.

2.	(a) The total amount paid in fiscal year 1975 to people under contract was $48,478.86. The amount paid to retired public servants included in that total was $2,300. (b) The total amount paid in fiscal year 1976 to people under contract was $48,056.56. The amount paid to retired public servants included in that total was $12,400.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the National Museums of Canada and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows: 1. 1977, 367 (No retired public servants).
2. (a) 1975, $963,869.71 (No retired public servants), (b) 1976, $1,181,989.35 (One retired public servant who earned $5,500).


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canada Council obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canada Council in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. The Canada Council has only dealt with private employment agencies located in Ontario, (a) 74 in 1975 and 52 in 1976. (b) 2 in 1975 and none in 1976.
2.	No. They are paid from the regular Council budget.
3.	Ontario: (a) (i) $6.00, (ii) $6.25; (b) This information is not available to the Council, (c) (i) $34,375 plus $1,232 for 2 permanent employees; (ii) $29,974.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
November 22, 1977

3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
Mir. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology): In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. (a) Part-time: (i) British Columbia, none; (ii) Alberta, none; (iii) Saskatchewan, none; (iv) Manitoba, 2; (v) Ontario, 9; (vi) Quebec, none; (vii) New Brunswick, none; (viii) Nova Scotia, none; (ix) Prince Edward Island, none; (x) Newfoundland, 2. (b) Full-time, none.
2.	No, they are paid from the main estimates of the National Research Council of Canada.
3.
(a) Average hourly rate paid to employment agencies 1975	1976
(iv)	Manitoba	5.20(v)	Ontario	5.85(x) Newfoundland	4.45
6.30
5.61
4.45
(c) Total amount paid 1975	1976
878
803
10,169
1,494
(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix): none, (b) Not known.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has Canadian Patents and Development Ltd. obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by Canadian Patents and Development Ltd. in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as Canadian Patents and Development Limited is concerned: 1. (a) (i) Nil; (ii) nil; (iii) nil; (iv) nil; (v) 2-1975, 1-1976; (vi) nil; (vii) nil; (viii) nil; (ix) nil; (x) nil. (b) (i) nil; (ii) nil; (iii) nil; (iv) nii; (v) nil; (vi) nil; (vii) nil; (viii) nil; (ix) nil; (x) nil.
2.	Operating Fund.
3.	(a) Ontario 1975, $5.16; 1976, $6.75. (b) Information not available, (c) 1975, $2,205.62; 1976, $160.31.


Mr. McKenzie: 1. Has the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v)
Order Paper Questions
Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has submitted the following: 1. (a)
	1975-76	No. of employees
(i)	British Columbia	1 part-time(ii)	Alberta	1 part-time(iii)	None	(iv)	Manitoba	1 part-time(v)	Ontario	39 part-time(vi)	None	(vii)	None	(viii)	None	(ix)	None	(x)	None	1976-77	Ontario	26 part-time1977-78	Ontario	20 part-time(b) Not applicable.	2. 1975-76-1976-77 Main	Estimates; 1977-78 Paid frommain and supplementary estimates.	3. (a)	1975-76 Province	Average hourly ratepaid to agenciesBritish Columbia	12.30Alberta	4.35Manitoba	8.00Ontario	5.501976-77	Ontario	5.601977-78	Ontario	6.05(b) Average hourly rate paid to employees is not available:	determined	by employment	agencies, (c) 1975-76, Totalamount paid by CRTC to employment agencies $36,825.01; 1976-77, Total amount paid by CRTC to employment agencies $23,409.62; 1977-78 to October 28/77, Total amount paid by CRTC to employment agencies $19,740.10.	
November 22, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Metric Commission obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Metric Commission in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: 1.
(a) and 3. (a) and (c):
Agency	Average	Total1975	Employees	Hourly Rate	CostBritish Columbia	6	10.00	5,880.00Alberta	10	7.50	2,100.00Saskatchewan	nil	nil	nilManitoba	4	10.00	600.00Ontario	196	5.97	433,845.00Quebec	18	6.00	3,240.00New Brunswick	nil	nil	nilNova Scotia Prince Edward	nil	nil	nilIsland	nil	nil	nilNewfoundland	nil	nil	nilTotal	234	445,673.00Agency	Average	Total1976	Employees	Hourly Rate	CostBritish Columbia	4	10.00	3,000.00Alberta	4	9.00	900.00Saskatchewan	4	6.00	1,440.00Manitoba	4	6.00	1,200.00Ontario	206	6.04	340,000.00Quebec	18	6.00	5,280.00New Brunswick	nil	nil	nilNova Scotia Prince Edward	nil	nil	nilIsland	nil	nil	nilNewfoundland	nil	nil	nilTotal	240	351,820.001.	(b) Not applicable.2.	All employees were paid from main estimates.3.	(b) Not known.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and those agencies that report to it?
[Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).l


Francis William (Frank) Maine: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: Nil return.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to the use of audio/visual tapes, scripts and the transmission and retransmission of broadcasts through closed-circuit television in elementary and secondary schools?
2.	(a) What services or programmes are available through the CBC to elementary and secondary school teachers for educational purposes (b) by province, what was the total cost for such services or programmes for each of the past five years?
3.	By province, what is the total amount of air time allocated per week to educational programmes for elementary and secondary school age children by the CBC?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the CBC as follows: 1. Under CBC's "Further Use" project, a substantial number of CBC television programmes have been made available for non-commercial use by schools, church groups, service clubs and other similar organizations. Additional titles are cleared for this purpose each year. Copies of these programmes may be borrowed at no cost or purchased by organizations from any of the 27 NFB libraries. No permission is granted to transmit any Further Use program, but closed circuit distribution throughout a school or urban school district is permissible. In some cases, where the rights can be cleared, scripts have been made available on request, although this service is limited by the internal resources which can be allocated to it. School broadcasts are produced cooperatively by CBC and the provinces for regional broadcast and by CBC and the Council of Ministers of Education for national release. In many cases the scripts would be the property of the educational authorities and could not be released by CBC.
2. (a) In addition to programmes released following broadcast in its "Further Use" project, CBC works jointly with the provinces and the Council of Ministers of Education in the preparation and distribution of television and radio school broadcasts for both regional and national use.
(b)	(000's)
1972/73	73/74	74/75	75/76	76/77Newfoundland	56	134	132	103	18Nova Scotia	318	404	389	692	611New Brunswick	16	26	20	-	Quebec	250	70	241	238	237Ontario	920	900	997	373	696Manitoba	128	282	154	225	244Saskatchewan	136	19	228	186	Alberta	202	227	116	177	154British Columbia	174	212	179	201	23Total	2,200	2,274	2,456	2,195	1,983
Note: About 28 per cent of these costs is recovered from the educational authorities.
November 22, 1977

3. While the quantity can vary, the usual amount of time allocated by CBC each week during the school broadcast year (in half-hour units) is as follows:
English Services: (in half-hours)	Radio	TelevisionNetwork (to all provinces)	1	2Newfoundland	4	3Maritimes	4	13Quebec	3	3Ontario	4	3Manitoba	4	3Saskatchewan	4	3Alberta	4	3British Columbia French Services	4	3Quebec	5	5 (plus 2x20 mins.)Other provinces	25 per year (average)


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 101 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Herbert: Were grants made by the Canada Council to the (a) aid to artists (b) aid to arts organizations (c) touring office (d) artists in residence (e) aid to the humanities and social sciences (f) aid to writing and publication programme and, if so, in each case, by province, what was the amount in each of the past five years?
Return tabled.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Should the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Time Allocation for Bill C-ll



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to government orders, perhaps I could intervene briefly to inform the House that at six o'clock this evening, pursuant to Standing Order 40, the subjects to be raised are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Works-Rideau Centre development-Date of termination of commitment to Rideau Viking group; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs- Reason for failure to increase basic disability pension-Possible reference to committee; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Suggested reconsideration by cabinet of increase in basic disability pension.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE TIME ALLOCATION FOR SECOND READING OF BILL C-ll
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cafik:
That in relation to Bill C-ll, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration in second reading stage of the bill; and
That, at the end of the fifth such hour, any proceeding before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address to the House a few remarks in relation to the time allocation motion that I moved under Standing Order 75C. First of all, when the House rose last night, Bill C-l 1 had been debated at second reading stage for nine separate days, for a total of 25 hours. My understanding is, in light of the extended hours that we have had, that this is the equivalent of a regular 11 days of sitting on the subject.
That, in itself, is a lengthy period of time. But when one bears in mind that the budget which was introduced in the last session of parliament, whicn constitutes the basis of the bill we have before us, was debated for six days last spring, and in the throne speech debate-which itself lasted eight days and dealt primarily with economic matters related to the original budget proposals-and that some of those remarks related to the recent proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), it seems quite evident, at least to me, to other hon. members and to the public, that an adequate period of time has been given to the debate on these provisions.
In addition, the Minister of Finance has been in the House in this session 19 out of the 22 days. He has dealt with 60

November 22, 1977
Time Allocation for Bill C-l 1
economic questions addressed to him, and has made himself available during this whole period in order to debate, in the various forms available to members of the House, all matters relating to these economic issues.
There is another point which I think is relevant at this time; that is, that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has had the supplementary estimates referred to it. That committee is very anxious to have the Minister of Finance appear before it to deal with matters relating to those supplementary estimates, and the minister, like all hon. members, finds it extremely difficult to be in two places at the same time. Therefore, while the debate goes on in this chamber regarding Bill C-l 1, it is, in fact, impossible for him to appear before the finance committee in respect of the supplementary estimates.
All of these matters, combined with the urgency of passing this legislation, make it imperative that the government take the necessary steps for time allocation under Standing Order 75C so as to deal with this question expeditiously.
There is no doubt that in recent days parliament has found it more and more difficult to deal effectively and efficiently with all the legislative demands imposed upon it and upon parliament. Therefore, the motion under Standing Order 75C at this time is, we think, a very responsible approach by the government in order to deal with this bill expeditiously.
Perhaps I should take a moment to highlight a few key elements of the bill which give rise to the necessity to pass it rather quickly. The purpose of the bill is not only to amend the Income Tax Act, but to increase the government's borrowing authority, both of which are important and urgent matters. It is designed to help solve short and medium-term economic problems, to establish a climate of confidence for business expansion, and to encourage job creation in the private sector, all of which are important and urgent matters.
Most important of all, the bill affects the lives and the affairs of millions of Canadians as well as the lives and affairs of almost all the business community. The changes in tax credits benefit over 7.5 million Canadians and completely eliminate the federal tax for a large number of low income taxpayers.
Private investment is to be stimulated by continuing the investment tax credit that was supposed to expire this year and in certain cases is increased in order to benefit those regions where unemployment currently is highest. The credit is also being extended to include capital and current expenditures on scientific research, and the proposed special 3 per cent deduction of the cost of inventories is designed to increase business cash flow by some $300 million a year.
The bill includes measures to help business borrowing abroad. It expands the $1,000 dividend and interest exemption to include capital gains. It introduces special rules for replacement of business and farm properties. It increases the offset for capital losses and provides a guarantee of capital gains treatment on disposal of Canadian securities.
[Mr. Cafik.)
The bill is designed to facilitate expansion by Canadian-controlled private companies through joint ventures, business acquisitions and plant replacement. It has special provisions for employee stock options and share purchase loans. There is special accommodation for provincial investment corporations. There are important provisions in this bill to promote investment in Canadian equity, which anyone who has ever been in business in this country will know is vital for the continuation and expansion of Canadian business.
These areas of genuine assistance to the business community and to taxpayers at large are important measures, and in order to provide some degree of certainty as to the direction that the government is taking under the tax laws it is imperative that the bill be passed with as little delay as possible. We have decided to bite the bullet, to take the bull by the horns, as it were, and to show the kind of leadership which we think the Canadian people expect of their government in the conduct of affairs in parliament. Therefore, I moved, on behalf of the government, the time allocation motion under Standing Order 75C in order that we may properly deal with the government's business in the broad public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I make no comment on the bovine quality of the minister's speech to which he himself alluded, but I will say to the minister that if the matters are as important as he said they were, and if this tax bill does what the minister says it will do, then I think it is the kind of legislation that should be debated in the House for a reasonable period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I do not think the government should move in and use the tremendous powers it has to cut off debate in mid-stream. The minister has been out in the country, and so have I, talking to my constituents and to people across the country in the last few days. What I have heard is that the people in the country are concerned that parliament is not dealing with economic matters: that is what they are saying.
Here is the only opportunity in this session of parliament when members of parliament representing Canadians all over Canada, in fact, debate at some length matters relating directly to the economy which affect the welfare of the people we represent-the people in our constituencies.
What does the government do when we get to a point in these proceedings and it is the only occasion when we can deal with matters economic? The government moves in after an unreasonably short period of time, in terms of the nature of the bill, to move closure, to cut off debate, to put a gag on parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 22, 1977


An hon. Member:: I hope the hon. member is not referring to it as closure, which is a different rule.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: 1 think the deputy House leader of the government should know better than to intervene on something that is not point of order. Let me answer it this way: A gag by any other name is still a gag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The effect on the bill is going to be just that. My friend says there has been an inordinate period of time to debate major problems facing the country in this House. Of the nine days, six of those are long when we sit during the day and the evening; three of those days are short days. When we have that period of time to debate such a major matter, as the government House leader says it is, then 1 think the government are being unreasonable. They are going to be criticized very badly for that kind of attitude.
In addition, the government introduced a budget in March, 1977. It was going to do wonders for the country; people were going to be employed; the industries would be working well; there would be all these things. Yet this House sat from March, 1977, through to August, 1977, and did not debate on one occasion the bills that arose out of that great economic statement, so-called.
Now, having come to the House when the country did need a budget, and having bootlegged into the throne speech what the government called a major economic statement but what most Canadians are calling a farce and a fraud, thereby depriving members of parliament of a normal budget debate, the government terminates the debate in nine days. I think if the minister checks the precedents he will see that a period of nine days for what the government has termed a budget is not a long period at all, considering one would be dealing with the budget and legislation arising therefrom.
Take a look at this bill, Mr. Speaker. It contains 212 pages of legislation. There are a great number of sections in this bill. It is a tremendous piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I mean, in volume of paper used, not in terms of what it is going to do for this country. That is the issue. It covers billions of dollars of revenue of this government, and the government decides parliament cannot debate that. It decides that nine days is too long a period for parliament to debate it. That is utter nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: This is the issue respecting which Parliament is now being gagged because the government has become somewhat uncomfortable in terms of this economic debate. The members go home, see their own people, see the concerns in the community and just how little is being done.
Time Allocation for Bill C-l I
The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) talks. He has mines closing in his area. In Newfoundland, mines are closing. The pulp and paper industry is flat. The electronics industry is in trouble. The whole manufacturing sector of this country is in trouble. Canadians are asking this parliament to deal with economic matters. When we attempt to deal with economic matters, this minister today moves with the obvious support of the hon. member for Algoma who is making one of his greatest speeches just sitting on his rear end-


An hon. Member:: Don't sputter.


Walter David Baker: This government proposes that we cut off that kind of debate. There is no way that can be justified. The minister in his submission tried to make it appear that the opposition was holding up this bill. That is not quite true. During the course of the debate there have been some Liberal members speaking each day, except for the last two days. Why are they speaking? They are just as dissatisfied as everyone else-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -with respect to the operation of their government. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) criticized the government, quite properly, and I replied to him in the course of the debate. He criticized the government and said what a ridiculous attitude they are adopting toward this country, toward jobs and the future of Canadians. There is no doubt about it, by whatever criteria you view it, Mr. Speaker, whether it is the meanest of the Canadian standards that have been applied to debates of this nature, this has been a short debate-what the government itself has called a major economic bill but which may be somewhat doubted by Canadians in terms of that description. It is a short debate wherein Parliament has already been denied the appropriateness of the government coming forward and introducing a budget where members of parliament, not just the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), adequate or inadequate as the case may be, but all members can examine in a constructive, critical way, the economic program of the government. The government has failed to bring in a budget, and then has relied on the throne speech debate to bootleg in what they choose to call a budget, and now call a halt to the debate within a very short period of time.
The ministers of the Crown have spoken. They have tried to use this in a surreptitious way in terms of promoting their own causes. If this is the attitude the government is taking to parliament, to shorten debate on the major problem concerning Canadians, then I think the government ought to be ashamed of itself. I think the people of Canada are suddenly going to have a new opportunity because the proceedings of this House are now televised across the nation and people can see the attitude of this government.
There are towns in Canada where plants are closing. This is what is happening in Canada. There are young people of this country who cannot get a job. These are the people we have educated and told the world would be their oyster if they

November 22, 1977
Time Allocation for Bill C-ll
received their education. And they cannot find a job! There are opportunities wasted. There are mayors and reeves, people all over Canada who are concerned about the economic matters facing this country. They have asked this parliament to deal with them. That is why we came here. They have asked this government to deal with them, and when we have tried to advise the government, they decide that we cannot deal with the problem at all. They say, "We are not going to allow you to discuss it. In a short period of time debate is going to be cut off". Mr. Speaker, if that is the attitude of the government, then it has befouled this chamber with that attitude and it will hear from the Canadian people at the next opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the House leader of the Conservative party in his arguments against this motion which the deputy House leader has introduced.
Mr. Speaker, to oppose this motion one has to deal with the substance of the bill and argue, as did the House leader of the Conservative party, that a bill of some 200 pages brought before the country at a time when there are one million people unemployed-a bill that has as its stated purpose job creation-requires more discussion than we have given it. 1 say this in view of the glaring and, to us if not to the government, obvious injustices and banalities of the bill. 1 want to deal with that point as the central point of my remarks opposing this closure motion.
This bill is supposed to deal with job creation. That is what the tax measures are all about. The evidence, however, is overwhelming that this government and the two previous ministers of finance, going back to John Turner in 1974, have said that the way to produce jobs in Canada is to give out, in an indiscriminate way, tax concessions to the corporate sector and hope that spreading around billions of dollars to corporations will translate into jobs being created.
The argument against this approach is not an ideological one to the effect that there should not be a tax policy for the corporate sector. Of course, any mixed economy must have a tax policy that is relevant to the corporate sector that is interested in job creation, particularly when there is high unemployment. I say, however, that this is the wrong tax policy if the purpose is to create jobs. The best evidence of the glaring inadequacy of this package of proposals is to be found in the report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce last week pertaining to the findings on the investment intentions for next year of the 300 largest corporations in Canada.
If the arguments the government made when they introduced these measures last March were sound, and were when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) trotted them out again last fall, we would instead have these 300 corporations announcing an intention to extend their investment considerably. A tax proposal that has as its purpose the stimulation of
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).l
jobs and new investment should be able to bring that about. This report, which I think is the most disturbing document to come out in recent weeks, was unfortunately buried in the financial pages of the press. That is often where we find out what is really happening in the country. It indicated that the investment intentions of these large corporations for next year showed an increase of only 6.4 per cent over this year.
One might say that is not so bad, because it is an increase. These companies, of course, consider the rate of inflation when making their investment plans, so what we have is really a negative factor. There is going to be less investment in the Canadian economy in 1978 than there was in 1977. That is very serious indeed. It confirms the point I have made on behalf of my party, and which other people have made in this House and outside it for many weeks, that things are going to be worse next year in terms of job creation. There could be no more serious indictment of this bill than the alarming fact that investment in Canada next year will expand by only 6.4 per cent. Most of us assume that inflation will be at least 8 per cent, and even if it is down to 7 per cent it will eat up the expansion of these companies, when expressed in real dollars.
These give-aways to the corporations do not necessarily lead to expansion, and I do not blame them. If there is a fall-off in demand, businessmen are not going to overexpand their production facilities and shoulder the cost of keeping them up if it just means more unused capacity. If industry is operating at only 83 per cent capacity, as is presently the case, corporations will not, naturally, be willing to expand further. When we have 28 per cent unused capacity, it makes no economic sense to expand. That is not criticism of the corporations. They know what they are doing. It is the government that does not know what it is doing. It is giving away the people's money in a futile cause.
Not only is industry not expanding next year, but in fact it is contracting. I should like to put on the record some information about the companies which will benefit from this $1.2 billion tax package the government has introduced. Out of this tax proposal that is supposed to create jobs, Alcan will receive a tax credit of $4.5 million. Meanwhile, they are laying people off, the most recent case being 170 workers at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, in a mine that is being shut down, not because it was losing money but because the corporation could make more money using some other facility elsewhere in the world.
Canadian General Electric will receive a tax credit of $2.5 million. They already owe the government some $11 million in deferred taxes which has not been paid. They have not created more jobs, but in Peterborough have laid off 2,000 employees. Northern Telecom owes the government $41 million in deferred taxes and will receive $2 million as a tax credit through this bill. It has laid off 2,000 workers at Bramalea, Ontario. Falconbridge owes the government $34 million in deferred taxes, and through this bill will receive $2 million in tax credits. They are laying off 4,000 employees on a temporary basis, and 500 on a permanent basis.
That is how four companies have responded to this tax bill-not by job creation but by laying off about 8,000
November 22, 1977

employees. I suppose the king of kings, in response to this kind of measure in recent weeks, is Inco. It is a case unto itself, a veritable monstrosity demonstrating the genius of the economic policies of this government. So far Inco has made $93 million profit this year, and in the past decade it made $1.7 billion. The previous minister of finance announced $75 million in assistance to Inco through the Expert Development Corporation. This will provide jobs-but in Indonesia and Guatemala, not in Canada. When they had to announce some shutdowns, they said the government of Indonesia would not put up with it but the Canadian government would, so they would lay off Canadians.
A month ago the Minister of Finance, with a flower in his buttonhole, stepped into the House and announced on that fateful day that the government would reintroduce the bill we are now debating which would give Inco another $10 million. The very day the government announced the $10 million additional gift to Inco to create jobs, Inco was having a press conference in downtown Toronto to announce the lay-off of some 4,000 Canadians in Ontario and Manitoba. Nothing could demonstrate economic stupidity in more vivid terms than that announcement.
We oppose this package of proposals because, at a time when we have over one million unemployed, they are the wrong policies at the wrong time. Jobs will not be created in Canada, at a time when demand is slack, by giving corporations the capacity to expand even further. We should increase demand. That means tax concessions, and all of this money should be going to the consumers of Canada.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat what the two previous speakers of the opposition have said on this motion of closure as a motion of closure is ever unpopular because usually the government always imposes it when it has an unpopular law to pass. This Bill C-l 1 amending the Income Tax Act is clearly incomplete. When we go through our ridings we see that people do not take the government seriously on this act. What does a tax cut of $100 a year mean? A tax break of $2 a week, and that makes people laugh and turns them against the government and this bill. People realize that the government is not thinking about them but others.
So I think the government instead of applying its motion of closure today could have waited a few more days and allowed the members of this House to continue to make suggestions and propose amendments, and the government should be considering those suggestions from the opposition and put to a vote the amendments introduced by the opposition because the truth does not lie only on the side of the majority. It can also come from the other side of the House. It was said that this is a bill of about 1,000 pages and one-inch thick containing many words but little substance.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amending the Income Tax Act contains many tax breaks for big businesses seemingly to allow
Time Allocation for Bill C-l l
them to create jobs but there is nothing in this bill to help small and medium-size businesses. There is nothing of substance. The government does not even want to define what a small business is. The government does not know at present. I asked the Minister of State in charge of small business (Mr. Abbott) if he could define what a small business is. His answer to me was: no, he had not gone that far yet. There are projects, studies, but nothing concrete, nothing ready.
Mr. Speaker, I think bills like Bill C-ll could go much further. They should not be limited to proposals such as those which were made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) the other day, namely an additional $150 million through government programs to create temporary jobs, jobs that are going to disappear after a few months.
Mr. Speaker, we realize that all these temporary job creation programs are not what is needed, that they do not meet the objectives of Parliament to fight against the employment crisis that has been going on for too long.
The government proposes programs to fight against unemployment and create jobs, but each time we realize that this is useless and that unemployment still increases. The same holds true for inflation. Every time the government suggests programs to fight inflation, the rate of inflation goes up, to such a point that I am tempted to ask the government to stop fighting against these problems because the more it fights, the worse the problems get. The government should change its programs and accept the proposals of opposition parties and existing agencies, such as the Canadian chambers of commerce and small or medium business associations, which make really valid suggestions. The government should agree to consider those proposals.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that instead of bringing in closure like it has done today and like it always does for unpopular bills, the government should be patient for a few more days and allow not only opposition members, but also government members to offer suggestions so that the opposition members can learn what suggestions government members have to make.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am against the use of Standing Order 75C, which should be used only in extreme situations, since in my opinion, Bill C-ll certainly does not represent at this time an extreme situation.


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to speak long in this debate. 1 rise to support Standing Order 75C and the five hours further debate that will be allowed in this House as a result of it. This parliament is based on Westminster, the mother of parliaments, yet we have not modernized to any degree whatsoever our monstrously inept rules to deal with the lightning-quick world in which we live.
It is evident to me that the opposition House leader finds it necessary to represent the great electors of Ottawa-Carleton day after day with histrionic delaying tactics. I have no intention of using this time allocation to further his woolly-

November 22, 1977
Time Allocation for Bill C-l 1
thinking in the House, his extraneous data or unctuous manner. The unctuous manner in which the hon. member continuously addresses this House is really quite shocking. I find that the hon. member finds it impossible to do anything but rise and delay. Perhaps he will get the ACTRA award this year for the best television performance.
I supported television in this House for two reasons. The first was to inform the Canadian public. Ours is the party that has brought in and made possible television in this House of Commons so that the people of this country will know what is happening within this chamber. My second reason for supporting television was so that the rules of this House would be changed and these inoperable, blunt nineteenth century rules which we insist on using in the House will be changed when the public has looked at this place and seen with what ineptitude the debates grind on.
In Westminster, this bill would have passed seven days ago, yet we continually talk and gather wool around a subject that is only too clear to the people of this country. The people of Canada, looking in on these discussions, will not tolerate further delay, sophistry and repetition. The clear obstructions that are evident as continued regurgitation of the same tired arguments come forth for the third, fourth and fifth time, will not be overlooked by the public of this country. My faith is in the people watching, who will say to us clearly, "Cut the nonsense. Have a sensible debate and make a decision."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to point out that Aimee Semple McPherson, the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), does not know the difference between bombast and reason.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I consider that a matter of privilege. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) continually makes reference to Biblical ethics. He, of course, is a member of the Biblical cast. He is from a part of the country where this is very much respected and he is very much admired for his feelings. However, to combine my name with Aimee Semple McPherson is a sexist remark which I know the people of Surrey-White Rock, North Delta, would not like to hear.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to participate in this debate. The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) has made her contribution to the debate. The fact is that she has certainly taken the precedent set by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this chamber and outside by giving us, in her own way, an argument that as far as parliament is concerned, it is rather irrelevant. Also, that as far as the rights of members of parliament are concerned with regard to expressing points of view strongly held about the very pressing issues in our country today, we have no rights and that it is the all-powerful government which is going to sit around and dictate to parlia-

ment precisely what is going to happen in this chamber, and thereby curtail the right of freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We know that the minister, by putting forward that point of view, is only echoing the position which was taken time and time again by the Prime Minister who likes to think that when members of parliament-as he likes to term it-go 50 yards off Parliament Hill, they turn into nobodies. I am concerned about this government and this group of people who want to manipulate parliament, who want to take parliament and turn it into simply a little, private sounding-board for the cabinet. They are going to provide improvements, as they see it, which will make members of parliament nobodies on Parliament Hill, as opposed to being nobodies off Parliament Hill.
I am going to fight this particular tendency of the government, a government which forgets easily and readily the traditional and proper function of parliament, which is to be a forum for some of us who represent people, or who try to represent people as best we can, to stand up and express the positions they are experiencing and which they take in various parts of our country, the attitudes they take toward legislation which is brought forward, and so on. This is not, as someone said, a sausage factory were the government can bring its legislation and think two hours' debate is fine, and that every four years they will go back to the people, at which time there will possibly be a reassessment of the way in which the government has conducted our affairs.
Parliament has a role to play. Parliament is a forum giving us an opportunity to stand in our place and bring forward, not only criticism of our government but also suggestions. We have a twofold obligation. I am amazed that this move at this point in time is being supported by those on the government back benches who are not members of the cabinet. They have very little opportunity to express their points of view and to bring to the attention of the cabinet the changes which they believe are necessary in the interests of the people of our country.


An hon. Member:: We don't complain.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, that is a very sad state of affairs. The parliamentary secretary, aspiring as he does to greater things, would naturally go along with almost anything the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said. We know that if he stood up and really expressed his feelings or the feelings of his constituents, it would very much hinder any chance of advance he has, as far as the motion is concerned, so we always qualify what some of these parliamentary secretaries say with respect to criticism of government policy. We know that their position is one of merely being yes-men to everything that happens as far as the cabinet is concerned.
As a result, they are limited in their ability to speak on behalf of their constituents. I simply say to those who are not parliamentary secretaries that I know how difficult it is for them when they realize there is television coverage of this
November 22, 1977

House. It ignores them. I understand the kind of pressure they get back in their constituencies when their constituents say, "You represent us. Why don't we hear you speaking up once in a while, making suggestions to the government by way of economic policy?"
We understand the pressure which is placed upon those who sit on the back benches. We realize how they feel about the limitation on opportunities available to express themselves on issues which come before the House. We do not expect very much more, because they are all sitting there squirming around, waiting to get up and debate this particular issue, to get their five or ten minutes in on this particular debate. They know that if they are good boys, chances will come their way and they may have an opportunity to advance to a parliamentary secretaryship or possibly even to a cabinet post. I say this simply by way of introduction to the main point I want to make.
I very much regret that the government is veering very severely from the traditional precepts and concepts of Liberalism. Anyone who observes parliament ought to sit down and watch this group of technocrats, so-called, who want to bring everything into parliament, speed it through and get rid of parliament-because it is a nuisance to the government, after all, having members stand and discuss the policies they bring forward. It is a nuisance to the cabinet to have a question period, for instance. But that is really what parliament is all about. The exercise of power without opposition is an unhealthy and unsatisfactory situation.
The most amazing thing about this motion is that there is no evidence of any inefficiency on the part of this chamber. All of us on this side who have participated in this debate have tried, as well as we are able, to make suggestions, to point out instances where we feel there are shortcomings in the legislation. We are responding to the cry which comes from our constituents to discuss economic matters. That is what the bulk of my mail is about. I do not know whether members on the other side receive that kind of representation from their constituents.
If this government had its way, we would talk for five or six minutes, look over a list of legislation and then retire from debate and they would merrily carry on in their own way. But do we not have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to come forward and make suggestions to try to improve legislation? That is the role of a member of parliament. Although the members of the executive are part of this parliament, it is their responsibility to propose legislation and it is ours to criticize and make suggestions with regard to changes which we feel ought to be made.
As I began to say a few moments ago, the incredible part of all this is that the motion before us to terminate discussion on this bill does not reflect any inefficiency on the part of this chamber. It shows the helter-skelter way in which the cabinet has conducted its affairs and the way in which the business of the House generally has been conducted. It would be laughable if it were not a serious matter.
Time Allocation for Bill C-ll
The budget was brought forward in March of this year. We finished the session, and the tax bills from that budget are only now being brought forward. One is led to ask: What kind of strategy is the government following? What kind of legislative program has it in mind, so that we can assess it in a responsible manner?
The answer, I am afraid, is that the government has no idea what it is doing. It goes from one bill to another for no apparent reason. Apparently they wait until Senator Keith Davey is ready to advise the Prime Minister as to the advantages of one course of action compared to another. It is the height of irresponsibility, in the first place, for the government to bring forward such an important piece of legislation as this at such a late date and then to talk about its urgency.
1 notice that both the House leader and the deputy House leader have left the chamber, having made their little speeches. They are not very interested in what goes on now, because they know that members on the back benches over there will support any action which is proposed to them. But if there is some urgency about getting this bill through, let the House leader give us some indication of the legislation they wish to bring forward, so that we may know precisely what programs they have in mind and what measures they consider to be of consequence. But let them not bring forward a closure motion to shut down debate contrary to the wishes of most of the people in Canada who want us to discuss economic matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Government members laugh. Of course they laugh, because they have the tendency to reject anything which might be of consequence. The people want us to address ourselves to economic matters. If the members supporting the government feel that the economy is of secondary or tertiary consequence, they will continue to support the government. If they feel the rights of members of the House are minimal, of course they will support the government.
All I say to them is that we could conceivably have got through this debate. We are now wasting time on this motion. We could have had speakers dealing with the bill before us and be finished by the end of this week. We could have had a full discussion of the matter. This motion demonstrates, once again, the contempt of the government and the Minister of Finance for this House of Commons.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take a few minutes to talk about the inconsistencies in the attitude of the opposition which is being ever more ridiculous with its abuse of the standing orders of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I have here the names of the members who have risen and expressed their views about Bill C-ll during the last nine days. In fact, twenty-seven Conservative members have talked. About fifty speeches have been made in the

November 22, 1977
Time Allocation for Bill C-11
House concerning this bill. I for one think that it is a shame that the business of the people of Canada cannot be dealt with in the House or, at least, go through the various stages in the parliamentary system.
Frankly, I am not the least surprised to hear that the people of Canada are worried about the parliamentary system when 1 see the opposition and more particularly the Conservative party take nine days to repeat, speaker after speaker, the same thing 27 times over.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many times we have to repeat what we say in the House.

I find the comments of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) very difficult to follow. First of all, he gives this rather grandstand performance about members on this side not having an opportunity to discuss the legislation before the House. I take it from his remarks that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, in the several years he has been in parliament, has failed to understand the parliamentary system. This is unfortunate. For example, we on this side of the House have meetings with the minister, as do members on that side. We have an opportunity to discuss these matters with the minister, without taking up the valuable time of this House of Commons.
1 think the Canadian people would be interested to learn that the Canadian House of Commons sits the second longest number of hours of any chamber in the democratic world. Yet we have a legislative program which is continually disrupted by the opposition. It is no wonder that the people of Canada wonder-and I am sure, having seen us on television, they are wondering even more-just what it is they are sending their members down to Ottawa to do, when they hear the same speech made by members of the Conservative party 27 times. Twenty-seven times we have heard the same old, sad story.
They do not have the sense to assist in the passage of a matter of such importance as a tax bill which is designed to create demand in the economy and give a $100 tax cut which will be of benefit to over IVi million Canadians. The Conservative party is not even interested in sending that kind of legislation to committee of the whole. When members talk so bravely of going to their constituencies and hearing what they have to say, I hope their constituents will tell them that there are issues which are more important than the RCMP, about which we have heard nothing but for the last three weeks. We are interested in getting on with business of the House and improving the economy. What we would like is some co-operation from the opposition parties.
We are trying to stimulate private investment and create jobs. Therefore, we would like those people who want to invest to have some idea where they stand. But not the Conservative party; they do not want to give these people any idea where they stand. They would prefer to talk, talk, talk in this House, always saying the same thing. I have looked through some of the speeches which have been made over the last nine days of this debate and have concluded that hon. members opposite must have only one speech writer. I do not believe there are 27
[Mr. Stollery.l
different lines of thought, so they must have one speechwriter whose speech has been given 27 times. When they go to their constituencies and try to explain why their constituents cannot make the kind of investment decisions which are needed in order to create jobs, I hope they are also prepared to explain why they make the same speech 27 times.
Following the advice of the government, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into the bill before the House, because what we are trying to do is to get Bill C-11 into committee of the whole so it can be discussed in detail. How can you deal with members who contradict themselves? On the one hand, for three weeks they have been downgrading the RCMP; on the other hand, they do not want to deal with the real issues in this country and the economy; they only want to talk about them. It is the old story, Mr. Speaker-they do not want to do something, they only want to talk about it, and they say the same thing 27 times. Frankly, I think that is a disgraceful performance.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear a member for whom I have some regard make such foolish remarks in the House as those made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Since I have a decent regard for him, I shall not refer to him further during the few minutes at my disposal.
We must be taken to understand, from the fact that the government has brought in closure, that the government have tremendously important, world-shaking legislation on the other paper of this House that they are dying to have the House pass. Otherwise, why would they try to rush through this legislation which really encompasses two budgets? One was brought in by a wolf in sheep's clothing when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) spoke in the throne speech debate several weeks ago. The other budget was brought down by a wolf who has now become a sheep and who will be going off, we understand, at the end of the month to McCarthy and McCarthy, where doubtless he will restrain his demand for greater compensation in the interest of government policy which he has been espousing in the last year or two.
Just what is it for which we are waiting with bated breath, Mr. Speaker? What is this fantastic legislation which will change the face of Canada and which the government wants to have passed by putting closure on the income tax amendments? As far as we kow, there are two pieces of legislation. One is CALURA, not "coloratura", or whatever it is, which we hear over in the National Arts Centre, but CALURA- which has to do with amendments to labour legislation and is of infinitesimal importance. I say it is laughable, Mr. Speaker. Having brought forward that piece of legislation, I can see hon. members opposite committing collective hari-kari-and I will supply hon. gentlemen with the knives if they want to do that.
The other world-shaking piece of legislation which will rock this House to its foundations, and which justifies our being televised, is legislation having to do with petroleum corporations, legislation that will tell the oil companies that they have to do what they have been doing for the last 18 months, but
November 22, 1977

which only now they will be doing in accordance with the force of law rather than in accordance with the force of the proclamations of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) which have the force of law. They will now have to give information to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on how they spend the revenue they bring in.
This House is being cut off from debate. Our members are being prevented from debating these tax measures, puny as they are. Closure is being brought in. The government House leader, God bless him, has only been back with us for 24 hours, but I have to tell him that we "inappreciate" the fact that he has come back here and slammed down closure so quickly. We "inappreciate" that fact, just as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) "inappreciates" the Cape Breton miners and says they "inappreciate" working, that they don't want to work and that they "inappreciate" labour and work. We, too, "inappreciate", we do not appreciate, we do not agree with, we do not go along with, we are not capitivated by, and we are not enamoured of the fact that the House leader comes back and within 24 hours puts the iron heel of closure on our necks. We do not see why it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because we do not see any legislation coming before this House in the next few weeks that is of any importance.
The hon. gentleman who just spoke mentioned that we had 27 speakers. Yes, we are not afraid to speak on this side of the House-and we are not afraid to run into power if the voters will endorse what we say and what we believe in. He forgot to mention that his own Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke in this House for an hour, or in excess of an hour, on opening day, or the day after opening day-whenever it was-on October 19. He spoke for over an hour and a half. That gentleman not only looked tired, but he was morose, he was mournful, he was in a misogynistic mood, he was dispirited, he was dismal, he was dull and he was dejected. In fact, he was downcast and he was dumpish, meaning he was in the dumps, and he felt that the Canadian people had to examine themselves and realize that they themselves were at fault for all that he and his government had done or had failed to do.
He was decidely dejected because the Canadian people were not rallying around him saying, "We are to blame, Mr. Prime Minister; it is our fault". So he was very dejected, he was slumpful, he was sluggish, he was singularly pained, Mr. Speaker, when he gave us his message. Not only that, he was painful, he was peeved, he was peevish, he was decidedly non-productive, pedantic but unperturbed. The Prime Minister is always unperturbed; nothing perturbs him, nothing shakes him.
The Prime Minister is going to Newfoundland in 48 hours' time, and the fact that we have got the worst unemployment we have ever had in our history, with 29,000 people out of jobs in Newfoundland, does not perturb the Prime Minister. He is unperturbable. He is going to get off his jet plane at Torbay airport, with his rose in his lapel, or whatever other sprig he chooses to wear at that moment, unperturbed over the fact
Time Allocation for Bill C-ll that Newfoundland is in the throes of the worst unemployment that any Canadian province has had since the 1930s; and is going to give them his message of good cheer, that they should be concerned about national unity and should blame it all on Premier Levesque of Quebec.
It is not Prime Minister Trudeau's fault, or his government here in Ottawa, that they are unemployed, that their economy is in tatters, that they are treated like second-class citizens, that they are treated like peasants, that the mines are permitted to close at St. Lawrence, that the linerboard mills are permitted to close at Stephenville, that the whole place is permitted to close! It is not the Prime Minister's fault; it is the fault of Premier Levesque! And it is their own fault! The Prime Minister singularly "inappreciates" the fact that they might blame the Prime Minister and his government or think that they might have something to do with that. He is going to find out that they don't like being discriminated against, that they do not like to see Gulf Oil with a plant at Shawinigan, in the Minister of Finance's district receiving grants and loans of great generosity from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and from DREE.
They "inappreciate" that while their linerboard mill, with 1,500 jobs, is allowed to go while the government of Canada says "We cannot help you because our job is to create jobs, not to save jobs". Then we pick up a release which says that this money is being spent to save jobs in Shawinigan. I say fine, let us save them in Shawinigan, but let's save them in Stephenville and throughout Newfoundland also. Let us save them at Shawinigan and save them at St. Lawrence. Let's save the jobs in Newfoundland as well as in Quebec. Then we pick up a release that says that the Valley field Chemical Products Company Limited is going to have lashed into it $11.25 million from ITC and DREE to save 300-odd jobs in Valleyfield. This is to save jobs, not create them. We realize that not a hand is lifted to help save jobs in Newfoundland at Stephenville, and it is no wonder that the people get perturbed. I know that the Prime Minister is unperturbed and that nothing perturbs him.
Today the Prime Minister assassinates the administration of justice in the province of Quebec. He does not want that discussed in this House. He does not want these things discussed in the House. He wants us to discuss CALURA-have you had your CALURA today-or petroleum corporations. He likes non-controversial things. He does not want us to discuss the economy and the miserable shape the hon. gentleman opposite has got this country into. He does not want that discussed-no, cut off the debate. He brings back the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), knowing we have a sneaky regard for that elderly gentleman. He thinks we won't protest if he brings down the iron heel of closure and imposes it on our necks as he is doing here today. The Prime Minister had all the fire and fervour, when he discussed our economy, of an emasculated buck rabbit.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, why gentlemen opposite do not want to participate in this debate any further. They cannot defend their actions on the economy. Nor can they defend what they are doing today with the Keable commission by
1136

November 22, 1977
Time Allocation for Bill C-l I
saying, on one hand, that the administration of justice is provincial, as we have heard so many ministers answer here when they are asked questions: they say the administration of justice is provincial, but when the provincial administration in Quebec investigates the administration of justice, which includes the RCMP-and surely it is part of the system of justice-the minister is now going to say they cannot investigate the RCMP because it is not the administration of justice. This is the administration of what-mercy?
He is afraid that the Keable inquiry will be independent. He knows it is not under the thumb of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) and not under the Prime Minister's thumb. He knows the Laycraft inquiry in Alberta is not under his thumb, so they will not co-operate with those commissions. We hear today that the Solicitor General will co-operate with the federal commission of Mr. Justice McDonald. The government is going to co-operate with that commission which the government itself appointed and which will not get down to the brass tacks, the meat and the nub of the question, until after the next federal election is over. They are not going to co-operate with the two provincial royal commissions; they are not going to co-operate with anyone but Mr. Justice McDonald, they say now.
We will see in a few months how much they co-operate with Judge McDonald if he shows any signs of independence whatsoever. It is a sad day for Canada when we see the iron heel of tryanny again imposed in this House today by a government which has nothing to offer, nothing coming up, nothing on the agenda, but sneaks in a budget speech and tries to prevent the House from discussing these measures brought in so pitifully by the Minister of Finance several weeks ago.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not want to have matters discussed here. He said the other day in Winnipeg, according to the Free Press of November 9, that he wished the federal government would borrow less in order to make the money market more accessible to private industry. Did you ever hear anything more hypocritical? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wants the government to borrow less, yet the bill we have before us authorizes the government to borrow $9 billion because of this spendthrift administration.
Why doesn't the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce get together with the Minister of Finance and get on the same wavelength. One minister says he wishes the federal government would borrow less in order to make the money market more accessible to private industry. I hope the Minister of Finance goes along with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Of course, that minister rides in every direction. He is not riding on the Mounties, but he is riding in every direction. In order to get power, he did not ride on the Mounties; he rode on something else I won't mention here this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I see you rising. May I carry on, with unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Crosbie.l


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to compete with the hon. member who preceded me. I was impressed with his vocabulary, particularly with the words he invented during his discourse. I was even impressed with the words he initiated, because they are like words my House leader accuses me of using all the time.
We are again faced with closure. I was impressed with the statement of the minister for amateur sports and fitness (Mrs. Campagnolo) about the British parliament. It is an interesting thing that, while it is true there are limitations in respect of the length of speeches in the British parliament, they at least know where they are going. If this parliament were to get cracking and pass this bill tonight, and probably two or three other little bills, we could do what I overheard an hon. member opposite say he would like to do-that is, go home. He can go home at any time, because his contribution is very limited. We were sent to this parliament to discuss a number of things. Obviously, one of them should be the economy of the country. The government has handled things so badly recently that we are still working on a budget from a year ago, and a pseudo budget from a few weeks ago, neither of which will solve any of the problems. In the opinion of my party it would be wise not to pass these particular bills, because we do not agree with the distribution of the tax structure which will give more to the corporations and less to the people.
In the British parliament there is an order of what is going to be decided. I heard a couple of hon. members say that we should carry on this debate on economic matters until Christmas. The reason for doing that was simply because they did not want to get on to the subject of national unity. These are two subjects which have been handled very badly by the government. While economics may not be as devastating as far as our country is concerned, to get on to the other one is even less appetizing than staying on this one until Christmas. By that time they might find other problems to solve.
Canada has an immense unemployment problem. My colleagues have referred to the 3,000 people who will be laid off very shortly in Sudbury. Last year, in my constituency, we lost probably 1,700 or 1,800 jobs in approximately four plants. An entire industry was closed down in my community within the last ten years. No one cared and no one paid much attention to that. With the way the dollar is going today, perhaps they will rue the day that they neglected that industry and realize that stockpiling would not have been such a bad deal. That would not have been a bad deal for most governments, but this one could not see it.
When we allowed the gold mines in Kirkland Lake to close, gold was worth $35 an ounce. We were subsidizing the production of gold to a limited extent. In fact, it was to such a limited extent that mining of gold could not be continued. If it had been subsidized to an extent at least twice as much as it now is, and if that gold had been stockpiled, we would have eliminated many of our troubles. It is a fact that the price of
November 22, 1977

our dollar in relation to the American dollar would have been very close to par, in that event.
Gold went up from $35 an ounce to almost $200 an ounce. Now it is approximately $162 an ounce, and in my opinion, it is headed once again for the $200 an ounce level. Therefore, it would not be a bad idea to consider doing something about gold, as it is an activity which requires high employment. It is not the kind of activity which requires immense equipment. It is not the kind of mining activity where there are large veins and the use of large equipment is required. The industry requires a lot of employees. It should be thought about, especially when the currencies of all the countries in the world are very shaky and many of them are taking their lead from the Canadian economy, which is the worst in the field.
This government talks about bailing out corporations; it talks about giving out $ 1 'h billion in tax concessions to corporations. These corporations are not working to capacity. They do not have foreign markets and they do not have sales for their products. It seems somewhat ridiculous to give them more money, without any controls. If assistance was provided to the resource sector, whether it be in the forest or mining industry, a lot of secondary jobs would be created very easily in this country.
How many jobs could be created in Sudbury by the establishment of smelting and refining plants there, rather than the shipment of raw materials to Norway and other ports? How many jobs would be created in northern Ontario if lignite is not developed in the Cochrane area? Iron ore should be brought in from the Adams mines at Kirkland Lake, the Temagami mines and from Belcher Islands to be produced in northern Ontario. That would result in the production of six times as many jobs as would the use of very elaborate, costly and heavy equipment to mine, with a minimum of employment and a maximum of profit.
Members opposite may want to have a national emergency debate on the state of our nation, but those interested in employment should honestly participate in this debate. I am sure some hon. members opposite are faced with unemployment in their constituencies. The only reason they do not participate in this debate is that they depend upon the national Liberal party to provide them with funds for the election which will come up very shortly. They do not want to rock the boat. Since this session started, only the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) felt strongly about the wishes of his constituents to rise and vote against what he knew was a bad bill. In fact, 50 per cent of his colleagues from the northern regions of this country realized this was a bad bill. That hon. member voted against it. His colleagues should be proud of him for the guts he displayed.
This is an important debate. The economy of Canada has not been in such bad shape since the last depression. If the government knows nothing about the economy, it should talk to the people who are unemployed. They know about the economy and would be willing to participate. Also, they would be willing to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to provide the economic leadership that would provide jobs, and
Inflation
not just vote for an inept government which happens to be in power.
May I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse) moved: that Bill C-205, to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there is an order to which there has been no answer. I ask on behalf of the government that the order stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. But I would insist that the hon. parliamentary secretary do so when orders are called, otherwise we would establish in the House a practice which will be very difficult to follow. As long as we do not decide on a new procedure, when the Chair goes to the trouble of calling an order, I wish someone would speak up because that creates a problem. I think that those who have the responsibility to speak on behalf of the government should do so. The House has heard the hon. parliamentary secretary who asked, on behalf of the government, that Orders Nos. 2 and 4 stand.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand the remark you have just made so that it could be useful to us in the future. Do you want me to stand up each time you call an order to ask for such and such order to stand or do you want me to advise you right at the beginning by saying: do not call orders, proceed directly to such and such order? I am prepared to make your task easier but I should like to understand the nature of your request.
80027-3%

November 22, 1977
Inflation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary is aware that the programming of the private members' business hour is being studied by the Chair and that the Chair has initiated a debate on the procedure. By the way, such a debate will be held and hopefully we shall arrive at a formula which will be acceptable to all hon. members and which will enable us perhaps to avoid situations such as the one we are in now. Meanwhile, however, if the hon. parliamentary secretary wants to ask, when calling the hon. members' hour, that some orders stand, it is his privilege. If not, the Chair calls the orders and at this time if they are not allowed to stand, and if they have been called for the second time, they will automatically be removed from the top of the list on the order paper. They will go to the bottom of the list or of the orders, as the case may be.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne that was delivered at the opening of this session, the government established a few things of which we were already aware. I believe all hon. members had been aware of this situation for a long time. Let me quote the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which deals with unemployment and inflation and which reads as follows:
High rates of unemployment and inflation are clear signals of the inadequacy of economic strategies appropriate to simpler times. They are also signals of the urgent need for important structural adjustments in the economies of Canada ... More than that, they are the symptoms of an illness which can be cured only by a readjustment of our values, and by a re-discovery of the merits of self-discipline and fair sharing.
Further, they make a few more obvious statements regarding the effects of inflation and unemployment. One can read the following:
The human hardship imposed by the current level of unemployment in Canada is deeply disturbing. It is neither just nor tolerable that in this country there should be so many men and women deprived of the dignity of self-supporting work, unable to meet their financial commitments and plan confidently for the future. It is intolerable that so many are deprived of their right to secure and productive lives, and that their families bear an unfair burden of worry, uncertainty, and deprivation. On a national scale, unemployment now constitutes a very serious obstacle to economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, as result of these statements, the government has also stated through its spokesmen at the ministerial level that we shall have to resort to new methods to face the situation in order to restore a proper balance in our economy and make sure that each and every Canadian can live a proper life in this country as a result of his work. 1 think of those who are able to work. The serious economic situation which we are facing demands emergency measures and the very purpose of the bill I have the honour to introduce in the House is to tackle in a straightforward manner the real problems of inflation and unemployment. This bill, Mr. Speaker, advocates positive steps instead of idle talk to put an end to this serious problem.
We in the opposition are often accused by the majority that we are very critical but that we never suggest anything concrete. Well, Mr. Speaker, when we do suggest anything they are not taking enough notice of it. I hope that Bill C-205 will show them it is a concrete measure, a positive thing that could be applied in situations similar to the ones we are experiencing now. For a while, it seemed that the Anti-Inflation Board had
[Mr. Pinard.l
taken worthy measures, and during the second semester of 1976 the consumer price index showed an encouraging downturn but the little optimism that it elicited soon disppeared in 1977, the situation has even deteriorated because we do not have the mechanisms required to obtain truly valid results.
The consumer price index went up 1 per cent in October 1976. This index for the month of October 1977 was at 8.8 per cent. We are far from the 6 per cent target set up by the board. In addition, the average salary increase authorized by the board from October 1976 to October 1977 was 7.5 per cent. That leaves Canadians in a very bad situation, specially the majority of workers. There is a 1.3 per cent salary loss which is disastrous for individuals, but mainly for families which can hardly secure the strict minimum. It might look old fashioned to make such a statement when one hears sometime that there is no poverty in Canada. But there is a difference between real poverty and insufficient income to meet one's obligations and that is the situation which confronts the majority of people.
Since 1973, the real increase in personal income, and I insist on the word real, went down 3 per cent. On the other hand, the productivity went up some 3 per cent. A system which allows for such contradictions ought to be corrected immediately. Canadians are making their own effort but get no reward out of it. Indeed they are penalized in many instances. Then we pretend we live in a just society. We tried to establish this just society. 1 am convinced that when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was saying across Canada in 1968 that it was his intention and the intention of his party to establish a just society in this country, he was quite sincere. And later, during the next election campaign, when the Prime Minister was saying across the country that it was impossible to establish this just society, I believe he was right again because with our present means, with our obsolete economic system, it is obvious that nobody can succeed in establishing a better society in Canada because we are facing an economic dictatorship. High finance controls the economy of this country and directs our policies to satisfy the craving of those who hold the reins, those dictators of our economy, forgetting that a sound economic system must serve every level of the population and that the efforts of all Canadians must be rewarded so that each Canadian citizen can satisfy his essential needs, wherever he lives. And the government was right when it told us in the Speech from the Throne that we will have to use new methods to redress the present situation, methods which should necessarily give some short term results, but also be planned in order that in the long term we should have adequate mechanisms to make an unbiased and constant analysis of the efforts of the Canadian population, of our productivity and of the purchasing power distributed among the various levels of production as well as an analysis of the difference, of the lack of purchasing power of the same people who find themselves unable to buy the products made by and for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the aim of Bill C-205 is precisely to give the government the power to make those adjustments, to find a
November 22, 1977

regulating mechanism to give the consumers who need it an additional purchasing power without involving any increase in wages and prices. This is by way of a discount.
Yesterday during the question period I was listening to the right hon. Prime Minister's answer to a member from the opposition to the effect that the purchasing power of Canadians should be increased in order to spur the consumption of goods produced in this country, to stimulate the economy and help in solving the unemployment problem.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was right. We have told him so for a long time, but it must also be understood that this increase in the purchasing power must take place at the level of those families who have a real need for it. The compensated discount, the type of discount which we recommend in this bill, is a means with which to reach that objective, because when a family buys five pounds of butter, five quarts of milk or a pair of shoes or some clothing made in Canada, by consuming these goods, this family will automatically benefit from a discount, therefore an increase in its purchasing power and this discount, according to this bill, will have to be set at the dealer's level, because it is at that stage that one can truly evaluate the needs of families and individuals. And if there is consumption, there will automatically be a discount, but the question lies as to who is going to pay back that discount to the dealer. Is the dealer to lose because he grants a discount to the consumer who has just bought a pair of shoes in his store? Absolutely not. It is where this bill provides a whole mechanism for the creation of a national credit board which would be responsible for the management and the implementation at the consumer's level of this measure which will enable Canadians to increase their purchasing power inasmuch as there are needs to be satisfied, and periodically-it may take one or two months- those merchants or dealers could present before the banks or the credit unions, on an official and well established formula and along with any necessary justifications, the amount of discount which they would have granted after a period of a month or some three months, as will have been stipulated by the national credit board. The banks or credit unions having served as go-between for the government, the Department of Finance and the dealers, through the Bank of Canada, following well established official figures, the government will be able to create new estimates in order to reimburse the credit unions and the chartered banks which, following a well established type of accounting, would have paid out in compensation to the dealers those amounts which the dealers would have granted to the consumers. This is what is called, Mr. Speaker, a regulatory discount. In the same way, as some hon. members have seen a steam engine work, as for instance, in a sawmill, and incidentally there are still a few left in our country just like in my own riding, which used to be called steam engines and that is the same thing.
And that machine is equipped with a system called a regulator. The regulator drives the circular saw. When a big log is going through the saw, more power is needed. Then the regulator provides more power to allow the saw to split the log.
Inflation
Once the job is done, the regulator gets back to providing the usual amount of power since no extra power is needed anymore. Mr. Speaker, our economic system works the same way: the principle of the regulator is applied in the form that we advocate here, a discount system. Should the House accept the bill, study it thoroughly, refer it to a committee for examination, that would call for economists to appear before it-not the ones who have put us up to our ears in trouble-but economists with an open mind for new formulas that would enable the government to come up with a legislation that would pull us out of the chaos we are in and of this misery which is totally unjustified in times of abundance.
Mr. Speaker, we are going in the same direction as we did after World War I; the older members must remember that. Last Sunday the CBC French network gave the history of the years 1920 to 1945. I wish all Canadians had listened to that program because the young would have learned that history repeats itself.
After World War I, because of the war effort and the production of war commodities, the government had to boost the money supply. Prices for everything had increased and consumer goods were more expensive. After the war, we had an inflation period, prices were very high and people borrowed money believing that the situation would last. But thereafter we had the 1929 crash. Investors were so panic-stricken that they refused to invest and that was the beginning of the depression, as that period was called. After inflation it is deflation. From 1930 to 1939, all governments, whatever the party, resorted to many measures; back to the land, workers earning 20 cents in Valcartier, all sorts of plans, band-aid programs to lure people and save the system which did not meet people's needs at that time.
And in 1939 the war broke out as had been predicted by Major Douglas here in Ottawa when he appeared before the finance and commerce committee at the government's request. On that occasion he had stated, and that was proven, that if they did not change the way to finance the public sector, we would have within ten years at most another world-wide war. Unfortunately, those predictions became true. In the first years of the war, we saw the government appealing to patriotism, to all those who starved in poverty in the years of plenty. They urged them to become patriots, to save a system which maintained them in poverty, a system which again is dragging all Canadians down to the most unqualified poverty.
It is precisely to save a sick capitalist system which must be reformed-and that will never be said often enough because it needs to be reformed-and it is to help the government reform that system before it is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Bellechasse should have introduced Bill C-205 which provides for new and imaginative measures to urgently correct the economic difficulties we are experiencing. This bill is very interesting, especially because

November 22, 1977
Inflation
our debates these days are not particularly relevant to the economy at certain times. The hon. member should be commended for bringing us back to a crucial question which should be the focal point of our daily concerns.
Of course this bill features clauses or provisions with which I agree entirely and others on which I have certain reservations. 1 think the introductory sentence of the remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse who quoted an excerpt from the Speech from the Throne was perfectly attuned to the measures he is proposing. The Speech from the Throne reminded us of the reality of the economic situation and told us that we should not be looking for the way to correct that situation in the conventional means. I also believe that indeed the hon. member's bill does not draw its proposed solutions from the conventional means of economic theories.
However, we are often told and often reminded in this House that the government has been and is still unduly involved in the direct conduct of economic affairs. The government is being blamed for its constant interventions in the economic mechanisms not only through fiscal measures but through many other government endeavours. More especially when discussing with small contractors and businessmen, they tell us that quite often a high percentage of their administration costs goes for filing forms coming from the municipal, provincial or federal governments.
Mr. Speaker, in that case I believe they are entirely right. When the bookkeeping section of a business which has about fifteen employees devotes 25 or 30 per cent of its time to deal with the Quebec Pension Board, the medical insurance scheme, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the excise tax and all kinds of forms from the various governments, I think we have reached a saturation point as a result of the interventions made by various departments and governments.
Mr. Speaker, the first reservation I have about Bill C-205 is that it will add a new mechanism which at first sight seems to be really complex and sets really heavy restrictions on the various agencies of our economy. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note some points which I find highly interesting. In particular, we find this provision in subclause 5(h) at page 4 of the bill:
Every Canadian citizen over 18 years of age shall be entitled to apply-
-under this bill-
-for a basic security income of $ 100 per month-
The colleagues of the hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. member himself have often emphasized the need for such a program. I would not want to misinterpret this clause of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Bellechasse, but I would interpret this as a form of guaranteed minimum income. In my opinion, the government should urgently implement such a program.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) made some comments on this issue recently, but 1 believe that the time for comments or proposals is passed and that we must now take some action. I know that several members on this

side of the House share the interest of the Social Credit Party of Canada in a guaranteed minimum income program and I hope that my colleague will continue to urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the members of Cabinet to develop such a program as soon as possible.
What I like particularly about subclause 5(h), Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the hon. member has mentioned in his bill certain existing government programs, such as the Unemployment Insurance Program, which could help finance this plan. If we examine the expenditures of the government for the programs mentioned by the hon. member in subclause 5(h), 1 believe there would be enough money to finance a universal guaranteed minimum income which would assist all Canadian citizens equally. In my opinion, this provision of the bill is extremely interesting and we should consider it seriously.
I was also interested by something that the hon. member for Bellechasse said in his speech, for instance that an economic system must serve the people. I think that the hon. member often says that the people should not serve economic systems. 1 suggest that this is a basic truth that we should keep in mind all the time. I feel that he is right when he says that he does not believe our economic institutions and our present system are really and primarily geared to serve the public, for indeed they are geared to serve themselves. In other words, this system looks at itself in a mirror and tries to please itself and provide benefits to itself, instead of providing them to the citizens.
According to the hon. member for Bellechasse, serious-minded economists, not the kind who tries time and again to find solutions to cyclical and permanent problems, in other words economists who are not limited in their originality, should take the time to consider these proposals. I think it would warrant the trouble, and the proposals which could prove detrimental should be cast aside. I feel that there are many very interesting measures in this bill, and that we should seriously consider putting them to work to remedy our current situation.
Mr. Speaker, if we recognize that the situation is new and different, it is not by falling back on outdated economic measures, to quote from the Speech from the Throne, that we will be able to correct the situation, but rather through innovative measures, as stated in the Speech from the Throne. I believe that proposals put forward by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) are innovative measures, and as such they deserve to be considered.
Another reservation I would like to make, in addition to those expressed at the beginning of my speech, is the proposed reversal of the inflation of land values, as opposed to other property values. This in my view could create difficulties. It is proposed for instance that they should be brought back to the level of 10 years ago. In Neuville or Saint-Raymond or Pont-Rouge, in the riding of Portneuf-and I believe conditions are similar in the hon. member's riding-a farm costing $15,000, $16,000 or $18,000 ten years ago is now worth $100,000 or $150,000. So I do not believe it would be such a terrible help to the owners of such farms if their values were
November 22, 1977

November 22, 1977
Inflation
rate sector, combined, of course, with the increase in consumer expenses, will give a badly needed impetus to corporate investments. A higher rate of investments means therefore that the existing productive capacity will have increased when the demand has picked up and also that an added capacity will be needed. Conversely, an increased capacity entails a greater price stability. Moreover, before the March 31 budget, the federal government introduced a set of expansionary tax measures, namely tax cuts on personal income tax through indexation, lower unemployment insurance benefits and the development of job creation programs.
These measures combined with the initiatives contained in the budget will help maintain the expansionary thrust of the federal tax policy put forward originally in the November 1974 budget which, incidentally, enabled us to face the world recession better than any other industrialized country. Besides, the OECD mentioned it in its report, alleging that Canada had a better economic performance on average than other industrialized countries. Therefore, in the 1977-78 fiscal year, the liquidity requirements foreseen by the federal government will be in the order of $8.5 billion. This large liquidity requirement Mr. Speaker, will start to decrease considerably as the economy recovers.
I must point out that these liquidities, given the present circumstances, are not inflationary. They are rather an essential support for the economic activity. In my opinion, an early attempt to reduce them would jeopardize the recovery of production and the decline of unemployment which are both under way at the present time.
In short, the present taxation policy is both anti-inflationary and expansionary. It is anti-inflationary because it is based on restricting federal administration expenses and expansionary because it involves a sizeable deficit. In my humble opinion, it is the policy that must now be applied when so called stagflation constitutes our number one problem. Concerning the monetary policy, which is the other major element of the demand management policy and which the bill proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) would rather radically modify, I quote a statement made recently by the Bank of Canada governor in his 1975 annual report:
The basic principle underlying Canadian monetary policy continues to be that the money supply should grow along a path capable of accommodating a satisfactory rate of real economic growth accompanied by some slowing in the rate of increase of prices.
And in this same statement, the bank spelled out what it meant by announcing three ranges for the growth rate of the money supply and demand deposits which are progressively decreasing, as we all know. The first rate was not less than 10 per cent but well below 15 per cent as measured from the average level of the three months centered on May 1975. Up to summer 1976 and after two increases in the discount rate, the bank had succeeded in lowering growth back to the lower limit.
By the end of August, the Bank of Canada, taking into account the intentions it had expressed, announced a drop of 8 to 12 per cent of the intended range. In order not to exceed

that range, the Bank had to lower the discount rate on four occasions, thus bringing it to its present level of 1'h per cent, which was supposed to encourage firms and individuals to increase their expenses and spur the economy. In October, the Bank of Canada announced another reduction in the range of rate gap which varied between 7 and 8 per cent from June 1977. Mr. Speaker, that is our present national monetary policy.
1 stated that a careful demand management policy rather than the continuation of control measures is essential to the reduction of the inflation rate. Temporary control measures were necessary to allow a fast reduction of the inflation rate. Had these control measures not been imposed in the fall of 1975, and had salary increases remained at the level of 15 to 20 and even 30 per cent that they reached before the imposition of control measures, costs, in terms of loss in production and jobs, would have been enormous. In such a situation, strong pressures would have been exerted upon the government to force its decision regarding the demand management policy which, by being adjusted to excessive salaries and price increases, would have caused further inflation and would have made the final and necessary adjustment even more costly.
The most important contribution that control measures brought in the fight against inflation is that they have made it possible to avoid that dilemma. Thanks to the control measures and to a careful demand management policy, that risk no longer exists. We can now terminate these control measures and rely instead on tax monetary policy in order to solve the problem.
I recognize that, given high food prices and the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, we have recently faced some difficulties in lowering the inflation rate. For instance, official figures for October unhappily showed that consumer prices have gone up by 8.8 per cent during the year ending in October. For the same period, food prices have increased by 12.7 per cent. On the other hand, non-food products chopped further and stabilized at 7.3 per cent. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that last week, I was reading a report of the Economic European Community which said that the total rate for the whole of the common market countries was around 2 per cent above the Canadian average, for all common market countries, that is.
The decrease in non-food products is due to lower wage demands. Whatever index we use, all wages registered a remarkable downturn since the inception of the anti-inflation program in October 1975. At last Canadian wages have stopped outgrowing wages in the United States-our main economic partners. The slowing rate of wage hikes combine with the recent devaluation of the Canadian dollar-which as you may recall is one of the factors responsible for the recent short-term deterioration of our economic performance in terms of prices-should contribute in a big way to reestablish our competitive position on international markets. It will be the only way for us to benefit from the increasing world demand and the only way to prevent our producers from giving away their products at lower prices on our domestic markets.
November 22, 1977

This is what we must do, Mr. Speaker, if we are to reduce our significant current account deficit and ensure the future growth of our production and of our employment. We have to accept the fact that our costs must stay competitive in relation to those of our economic partners in order to reduce the present unemployment rate. The reduction of the anti-inflation guideline on wages to 6 per cent after October will force us to accept that fact while controls remain in effect but once they are lifted we will have to accept it on a voluntary basis.
I think we need a monitoring agency to help us contain inflation through the demand management policy. That monitoring agency was described in the Agenda for Co-operation and the Minister of Finance recently stated his intention of proceeding with its formation in the economic and fiscal statement he made in this House. The monitoring agency has been called by some a "toothless watchdog" and consequently, very inefficient. Perhaps deservedly so, but although it may not have teeth I assure you it will be able to bark quite loudly.
As its name indicates the monitoring agency will control cost and price movements in both the public and the private sectors of the economy.
It will be its duty to call attention to cost and price increases which it feels are unwarranted in the present context. Even though the agency will have no coercive power or any teeth enabling it to prevent inflationary price and income increases it will be able to rely on its capacity to announce such increases and its "barking" and thus discourage those who would want to boost prices significantly. Large corporations in particular avoid undesirable publicity. Consequently their leaders will probably hesitate before imposing a major price hike.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is very little time remaining but 1 want to make a couple of remarks about this interesting bill which has been put before us today. In introducing it, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) said that after all the time that the government has been asking the opposition, when criticizing the government, to come up with something concrete, the Social Credit party has come up with something concrete. My observation about that is that it is not concrete, it is dynamite. If in fact a bill along these lines were to be enacted by this parliament, the economic situation in Canada would be very considerably worse than it is now, not considerably better.
I have so little time that, instead of talking in general terms about the dangers of solving or trying to solve economic problems with the money printing press, when our problems are more underlying, more structural, more related to productivity, to regional disparities and a growing labour force- things which monetary policy alone cannot solve-I think the best way I can discredit the bill and the approach which is proposed by the Social Credit party is to refer to some of the provisions of the bill which ihey have put before us.
Adjournment Debate
The hon. member for Bellechasse talked in very glowing terms about the general effect of the package, about bringing on the just society, about what he called the failures of government policies. But did he draw the attention of this House to clause 4 of his bill? Clause 4 provides that for a period of one year from the time the act comes into force a state of national emergency will be deemed to exist, and all power over legislation will be, in effect, taken away from this House and transferred to the cabinet during that period, provided that within three months any measures introduced by the governor in council are laid before parliament.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how serious the hon. member is about putting forward a proposal like that. Is this a time of national emergency? I do not think so. Can the members of this House be convinced that they should not have the right to pass legislation for a one year period, that that right should be taken from this Chamber and turned over to the governor in council?
Let me turn to clause 5(a) to give another example of a proposal about which I do not think the hon. member opposite can be serious. During this period of national emergency for one year, transfer of funds out of Canada for any purpose whatsoever will be prohibited-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The time allotted to private members' hour has now expired.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, November 18, I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) a question concerning a most important project in my riding called Rideau Centre. The minister did not give me a very clear answer and that is why I asked to be put on the late show. In his answer the minister said that, barring complications with permits and other actions of other levels of government, his target date was April, 1978. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to tell me today what is the termination date of the commitment to the Rideau Viking group so that it will be clearly established for all
1144

November 22, 1977
Adjournment Debate
interested parties as April 30, 1978. Otherwise 1 have some very important questions to ask.
If April 30, 1978, is not the final date by which the Rideau Viking group must obtain all necessary clearances for their proposed development, then I have some very serious questions to put this evening to the parliamentary secretary. If the Rideau Viking group encounters objections and difficulties with permits and, to use the minister's words, other actions of other levels of government which would not be forthcoming, then it could mean that they would get an extension of this commitment until these conditions would be favourable to the agreed development proposal. If this is the case, then I strongly suspect the Rideau Viking group have obtained from the Department of Public Works an open-ended and exclusive contract for development of federal properties, and that we could in time be in some difficulties. I shall await the answer of the parliamentary secretary before making further extrapolations on this matter.
In its simplest terms, the Rideau Centre is a bold, imaginative, and very endearing scheme to revitalize the sector of Ottawa which for many years has been in a state of decline relative to other parts of the centre of the capital. Rideau Centre was an initiative undertaken by the National Capital Commission. Over the years it has required consultation, substantial input and commitment from all levels of government. The private sector and citizens' committees were involved.
Over the years the Rideau Centre has been the most announced project. I was not even elected in 1972 when it was first announced, and I believe it has been announced four or fives times since then. I agree it is a project which has required extensive consultation and which we all hoped would be exemplary of innovative urban design and development. We hoped it would act as an example of multilevel government and private sector consultation and co-operation.
Admittedly there were problems. Readjustments were required from all levels and from all groups. I know we are still going through the process of consultation on the ways and means of implementing this most important revitalization.
In effect what all those involved in the Rideau Centre are trying to do is to reverse a North American trend toward the dying or sick city core. We want to make the centre of our capital the lively, social, cultural, and commercial place it used to be before the exodus to the suburbs began.
The suburbs are all right, but they are no great substitute for a city's heart where action and life are. A Parisian or a Londoner does not seek substance in some suburb, no matter how elegant. He looks to the Champs Elysees or Piccadilly Circus, as do the tourists who visit those great capitals. We want the centre of the national capital to become a tourist attraction, a lively and dynamic centre of activity.
What a lively core needs is people. It needs people living in it. People will gravitate to it because of its attractions. They will gravitate to it because of its theatres, restaurants, friendly

and comfortable taverns, or even university lectures. Possibly people would gravitate to it because of a speech in the House of Commons. The last thing we want to do is anything which would drive people out of the core, to make life so exasperating through increased traffic, noise, pollution, and what have you, that the residents flee to the alleged peace of the far suburbs.
We must continue to emphasize the need for a lively, economically sound, and stimulated downtown area. It must become a people place, where people can live and work in peace and security. Experience has shown that downtown areas of large cities, which were neglected and poorly planned, are places which become vacated after the normal business hours and are the preferred dens of crimes and vandalism.
In 1961 the central business district of Ottawa enjoyed 65 per cent of the total departmental store type merchandise expenditures in the Ottawa-Hull area. In 1971 this dropped to 31 per cent. In 1976 the percentage dropped further to 22 per cent of DSTM-departmental store type merchandise expenditures. In the face of increased incomes, salaries, population and disposable income, this is the sign of a dying central core.
In these times of economic difficulties and changes, there is a need to act immediately to counter the effects of decentralization and relocation of the employment centres on our local economy. We must seriously study alternative economic generators. There needs to be diversity in the private employment sector to compensate for the loss of government jobs. The core of the city is uppermost in everyone's mind.
It is estimated that 2,000 jobs will be created in three or four years in the building of Rideau Centre, that there will be 1,500 permanent new jobs, and the tax revenue will be more than 5 million a year. It is an interesting and challenging project, and I hope the parliamentary secretary can give us the final date on this project.


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much more that can be added to what the minister has already stated in his reply to the oral question the other day. There are certain planning consideratons still to be resolved, and the minister is hopeful that a decision will be reached rather quickly. The planning considerations relate primarily to traffic movements and their impact on the surrounding areas. These studies are proceeding concurrently with our negotiations with Rideau Viking Corporation for the development of a Rideau Centre on federal lands. Hopefully all planning considerations will be resolved so that when the negotiations leading to an agreement with Rideau Viking have reached the final stages, the major planning concerns will have been resolved. In the meantime, as I have stated, we are proceeding with negotiations.
At a meeting in September, 1977, with Canadian Pacific Hotels, officials of the department were assured that CP Hotels remain interested in proceeding with the their plans for an hotel within the proposed Rideau Centre development.
November 22, 1977


VETERANS AFFAIRS-REASON FOR FAILURE TO INCREASE BASIC DISABILITY PENSION-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and those members who are here are aware that the topic on which I will speak now is one that I brought up on many occasions before, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). 1 advise the parliamentary secretary to give the following message to the minister, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I will continue to bring up this topic until we can impress on the government the necessity of changing the basic rate of pensions in the formula which was established in 1973 in line with the different categories in the public service.
I brought up this question on a number of occasions and I do not want to repeat the arguments that the minister gave to support the fact that the government was not going to increase the basic rate of the pension and that the veterans would accept this as good Canadians. On the last occasion the minister told me that the government will wait until there is an improvement in the financial situation, at which time it will look at the matter again.
What I wish to ask the minister through his parliamentary secretary is how long the veterans will have to wait to get equity. How long will it take the government to fulfil its commitment toward the veterans? I can remind him that it is 60-odd years since World War 1 and 30-odd years since World War II, but those who suffered incarceration in prisoner of war camps were granted the basic rate of pension only in 1973. How long will we have to wait before the government is in a financial position to grant the veterans' request? I say to the minister that he cannot equate, balance or reconcile the suffering of veterans with the financial capabilities of the government. How long will these people have to wait?
I ask the parliamentary secretary to compare the figures in the annual report of the veterans of Canada for 1975-76 with the recently tabled report which we received a couple of days ago. According to the first report, there were 12,404 World War I veterans receiving disability pensions in 1976. According to the new report there are only 10,889 veterans receiving disability pensions this year. There is a difference of 1,515 veterans who did not receive the increases, and now they are gone.
Also, I would like to mention those who receive 48 per cent pensions. In 1976 there were 8,947; this year it is down to 7,885, a difference of 1,062. How long will their widows have to wait before the government is in a financial position to fulfil the commitment it made to the veterans many years ago? Now even Second World War veterans are dying out at the rate of 50 a year. How long will their widows have to wait to receive the equity they were promised?
The minister indicated with respect to the mail we have all received concerning the feelings of veterans across Canada that he realizes what is going on across the country, and that he is aware of the views of veterans and veterans' organiza-
Adjournment Debate
tions on this subject. He realizes what is going on across the country, the consideration and the wonderment of veterans and veterans' associations, and how they feel about the answers we are getting from the government.
I was looking through some of the speeches of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), and in a speech given on July 16, 1977, he said to the Hong Kong Veterans Association of Canada-and I will read just one brief sentence.
Ralph Waldo Emerson ... A great poet and essayist... once described a hero as a person who was brave five minutes longer than an ordinary man.
He was brave five minutes longer, but he has been waiting many years to get the quality he deserves.
I know that the parliamentary secretary is going to give us a list of the pensions in existence now, and they are generous. They have been generous, but they have not been generous while these First World War veterans suffered over the 60-odd years and did not come up to equity until quite recently.
The National Veterans' Organization of Canada have submitted a brief and the minister has received it today. They are recommending that the minister introduce an amendment to have the effect, not only of raising more disability pensions to a level which is reasonable and consistent with the wishes of the Canadian public to ensure fair and reasonable compensation, but to avoid any repetition of the serious deficiency in the present rate; and to avoid having to update the basic rate from time to time. This would avoid the necessity of veterans' associations having to plead with the government for essential increases in pensions every few years, a responsibility which they are pleased to carry out on behalf of veterans, but one which is distasteful, and one which carries with it the implication that sacrifices of disabled veterans, by reason of war service, have been forgotten and neglected.
I know that the parliamentary secretary is very reasonable and compassionate. I hope that he will help myself and the member from Winnipeg North Centre to try to convince the minister that this amendment is due right now, not later when the government is in a better financial position, because, to take the example of the waste that is going on in Canada, that should not be taken out on the backs of the veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for bringing up this topic once again in the House.
This question has been brought up repeatedly in the House, and it is not because of lack of interest that we have not proceeded with the legislation. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has stated that disability pensions will increase 7.2 per cent as of January 1, 1978. I know the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) are
80027-4 Vi

November 22, 1977
Adjournment Debate
aware that in the last five to six years pensions have increased dramatically. I guess it is the old story-what have you done for me lately? Notwithstanding the fact that the minister and, indeed, the cabinet, have been discussing the matter of the increase in pensions, it still remains a fact that now in Canada we are in a time of restraint. Can I agree with you any more when I say that "No, it should certainly not be put upon the backs of the veterans. Neither should it be put on the backs of the other workers in the country; it should not be put on the backs solely of the people who are in the professions; nor on the backs of big business. Surely a restraint program is one which emcompasses all Canadians. As such we should be willing to bear not only what we can-and this is not to say over the years, and in time of need, the veterans did not indeed give more, which was above and beyond the call of duty. I simply say that perhaps with patience, with a little time, this particular matter will clear itself up.
I am sure hon. members are aware that the minister has said he would be willing to have this discussed in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, a committee on which the three of us have served for a number of years. With us it has never been a question of whether we will bring this about by raising each other's political hackles. We have always tried to work for what was best for our Canadian veterans. It is in this spirit that I tell the House that the minister is considering, inasmuch as he can, an increase in pensions for veterans. Rest assured that I sympathize with what the hon. member suggested today. Given a little more time I hope this problem can be cleared up.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION BY CABINET OF INCREASE IN BASIC DISABILITY PENSION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), in making this appeal to the government once again. We make it as strongly as we can.
I have to say to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Parent), that the answer he has just given to my hon. friend's question was completely unsatisfactory. If we were asking for something new or proposing a brand new idea there might be some point to the suggestion that we be patient and wait for some of the problems to be sorted out. But what we are dealing with is an issue that has been around for longer than the parliamentary secretary has been alive.
For 60 years we have been working on the proposition that disabled veterans should receive pensions to repay what they lost in terms of wages that they might earn. They are not handouts, not allowances to enable them to buy goods, but pensions to replace the earning power lost because of disability. The scheme was started that way at a low level at the end of World War I. It slipped behind until at the end of World War II the rate of the disability pension was far too low.
(Mr. Parent.]
In 1973, after a tripartite committee made recommendations in 1972, the government accepted the principle that the basic disability pension should be equivalent to the take-home average pay of five designated categories of public servants. Four years have gone by and the 100 per cent disability pensioners, are more than $500 behind.
It does not wish to say that this is something for which we should wait. The parliamentary secretary says the minister was willing that it be discussed in committee, and that it be discussed in the late show this afternoon, but when I pressed the point that he should take it back to cabinet he says he has to wait until the dust clears. To say these things this long after World War I and World War II just is not good enough.
When the parliamentary secretary answered the previous question he did not do what he did the other day and give us figures as to the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension. Maybe he thought I would have an answer to that and would remind him what members of parliament were getting when the veterans' pension was a lot lower than it is now. What we get now makes what they now receive look pretty sorry.
When word gets around as to what the present level of 100 per cent disability pension is 1 think it should be pointed out- and it is in the same book of statistics that my friend referred to a moment ago-that in the case of World War I veterans only 7.87 per cent are getting the 100 per cent pension. In the case of World War II veterans only 3.72 per cent receive the 100 per cent pension. In the case of veterans of both wars, more than 60 per cent get pensions of 20 per cent or less. We are not talking about a few privileged persons who are drawing a lot of money from the federal treasury. We are talking about scaled down benefits which, at least in terms of value, should have kept up with the level in the Public Service that was agreed to. That is why we say that the answer that we should wait, that there is a period of restraint, is not good enough. If we had raised this issue just last month or last year maybe that would be an appropriate answer, but this issue has been around for all these years.
In the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1972 and 1973 when we fought for this we made the point that unless the government not only put the pension at that time at a level equal to the wages of the five categories of public servants but agreed to keep it at that level, in no time at all the veterans would be behind. Here we are today, already behind.
One answer I have heard in recent times is that that 7.2 per cent increase that will take place in January will narrow the gap a bit. Instead of being $530 odd behind, the 100 per cent pension will be only $390 behind, or something like that. I have no reason to doubt that statistic. However, when the Public Service salaries go up in 1978, as they will, instead of the gap being $537 it will probably be $600. To us this is an act of bad faith.
I am prepared to agree with my friend across the way, and my friend to my right will agree with me that in general terms our veterans legislation is good. It is not as wonderful in
November 22, 1977

world-wide terms as some of those on the government side try to make out. Some countries do better. It is good, but it is not good enough for us to take all these years to get firmly established a principle that was agreed to after the end of World War I, and agreed to again long after World War II, in 1972 and 1973.
Promises were made to those who went overseas in both those wars, and to those who went to serve Canada in other wars, that they would be looked after. In particular, they were told that for their disabilities they would receive compensation in the form of pensions related, as I say, not to consumer prices or some kind of allowance, but to the loss of their earning power. Unless the government puts these disability pensions back on that level I say, as my friend and as veterans' organizations across Canada are saying, the government is breaking faith.
I say to the government, why spoil a fairly good record? Why spoil a fairly good package of legislation that we have known for years as the Veterans Charter by breaking faith on this issue? Let us have action now.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am not going to quote the figures as to what a person with a 100 per cent pension should be receiving. Hon. members are as aware of these figures as I am.
These men have indeed paid the price that must be paid for our freedom and the freedom of our children. My colleagues and the minister share the quality of fairness and understanding. I can understand the point the hon. member brings forward that such an answer is not acceptable now.
Both hon. members were here when we together, and I do not say just on one side of the House or the other, but we as a House and as a committee-I was not here, but it was surely done by the person who held the position I now hold-helped to bring our veterans pensions up to where they were comparable with any pensions in the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were comparable.


Gilbert Parent: They were comparable until a very short time ago. What do you want me to say about a generous pension? What is generous and what is not generous? Can we put a price tag on the years that these men defended our country and all that we believe in? What is the price tag? What is the amount we should pay? Should the price tag be $500 a month or $5,000? I suggest that both of those figures are fair. How do we arrive at a figure?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Keep faith with what was promised.


Gilbert Parent: I think we are keeping faith. The fact that we do not answer a problem right this minute does not mean we are breaking faith. Surely we can say "We are willing to keep
Time Allocation for Bill C-II
faith but we must take our time and see what other priority must be dealt with." Yes, the veterans are indeed a priority for this government. We have listened to the veterans. We have received the reports which have been mentioned, though I have no knowledge of one of the reports which has been mentioned. But when this goes to committee and when the facts are brought out there, and when we sit down and consider this together, I believe the solution will be acceptable to our veterans. I have been out to the coast and I have met with the veterans there-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what they told you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been withdrawn. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. tonight.
Motion withdrawn.
At 6.28 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cafik:
That in relation to Bill C-11, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration in second reading stage of the bill; and
That, at the end of the fifth such hour, any proceeding before the house shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe, after the kind of debate that took place this afternoon, that we have already spent nine days on this bill, about 26 hours. With the day that the opposition took off for their national policy convention, the total is about 11 regular sitting days spent on this bill. This debate is a follow-up to the Speech from the Throne and the budget debate on this same legislation which took place last spring. Now we have to use a time allocation motion to get this bill simply past second reading. It is not as if when you pass second reading the bill is automatically through; we then go into committee of the whole for

November 22, 1977
Time Allocation for Bill C-II
clause by clause study, and that will take perhaps several more weeks.
It seems hard for me to believe the opposition really wants to debate this bill on second reading for many more days when we have already debated it for nine days, especially when there are so many good things in the bill which the Canadian people are waiting to see adopted and put into legislative form. Yet we have to use a time allocation motion and use up two or three additional hours today debating whether or not we are going to limit debate on the bill.
Some hon. member mentioned this afternoon that if this bill had been introduced in the House of Commons in the mother of parliaments at Westminster, it would have had only two days' debate at the most and then be sent to committee of the whole and be passed, though perhaps with extended sittings. Be that as it may, we have spent nine sitting days on the bill, with extended hours. In addition, in his statement on the economy during the throne speech debate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) spent a great deal of time dealing with the provisions of this bill.
I cannot imagine why the opposition does not want to see the provisions in this bill implemented. For example, we have the provision to cut taxes by $100 during the first two months of next year, at a time when consumer spending is often down. This tax cut would provide stimulus to the Canadian economy to the tune of $700 million, and 7.5 million taxpayers in Canada would benefit. In view of that provision I cannot understand why the opposition does not just pass second reading of the bill so we can go into clause by clause study. There may be a couple of t's to cross or i's to dot, but we can do that during clause by clause study of the bill.
Likewise, Mr. Speaker, the $150 million which the minister mentioned in his economic statement will create more direct jobs this coming winter. This is in addition to the $450 million provided by the manpower program of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) last year and will total this year and next year over $1 billion for direct job creation.
That is the kind of active, positive program for which the Canadian people are asking. That is why the Tories have sat on that side of the House year after year after year. All they want to do is talk, talk, talk, not take action. What the Canadian people need, Mr. Speaker, is action, and this government wants action so it can pass this bill and implement the tax cuts for which Canadians are waiting as well as the investment tax credit which will create jobs.
Let me point out to the House that one very important aspect of this investment tax credit is that it provides an additional 2.5 per cent investment tax credit, making a total of 7.5 per cent, for slow growth areas of Canada. This is an important change and is an indication of the kind of commitment which the government has to the slow growth areas of our country. It is the kind of positive action that the government wants to implement, action which has already created some 254,000 jobs during the year October, 1976, to October, 1977.

Looking back over the six years between 1970 and 1976 we see that Canada has a pretty impressive job creation record compared to other OECD countries. According to the OECD report last summer, the average increase in Canada was 3.2 per cent during these six years from 1970 to 1976. On the other hand, the increase in the United States of America was only 1.8 per cent, in Japan 0.5 per cent, in France 0.4 per cent, in Italy 0.4 per cent, and in the United Kingdom 0.1 per cent. West Germany is often held up to us as the country that has very low unemployment and inflation, yet their actual job creation picture showed a decrease of one per cent averaged over the last six years.
I recall about a year ago meeting with a representative from Switzerland who was talking about their very low inflation rate during 1975, which he said was about 4 per cent. This was at a time, Mr. Speaker, when we in Canada were facing an inflation rate of over 10 per cent and had to implement the wage and price control guidelines. I asked him how Switzerland accomplished such a low rate. He replied, "Well, we had a minus 7 per cent growth rate in our economy in 1975". I asked him what had happened to their unemployment rate, and he replied, "It did not really go up because we sent about 200,000 of our employees home to other countries in southern Europe". Of course, Mr. Speaker, that does not really solve the problem, it just exports it to some other countries. Therefore I suggest Canada has really had an impressive growth rate during the last six years in terms of jobs, certainly the best of the OECD countries.
There are other reasons why we should get on with this legislation. The Standing Order 75C motion which is before the House tonight does not pass this legislation; it gets it past second reading stage only. We then go on to clause by clause study which could well take several more days, even a week or two. If it should go on for much longer than that we would get to the position where this parliament, which opened on August 18, would have passed only one bill before Christmas, a pretty poor record, one that we would have to lay at the feet of the official opposition.
There are other important pieces of legislation waiting to be passed, such as amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and the competition bill which will ensure that consumers are fairly treated and that the market place is healthy and productive. Canadians should have a very competitive market place. We look at the labour standards legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) on a point of order.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, in the midst of this ill-prepared and unprepared-


Some hon. Members:: On, oh!
November 22, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 am prepared to listen to a point of order, and I should like to hear that point of order.


Howard Earl Johnston: The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) referred to this House being in session in August. The House did not sit in August of this year. I am sure the hon. member would not want to leave that erroneous impression.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is a point of argument and not a point of order, although it is debatable.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I said "August". I meant to say October 18.
I have referred to two or three pieces of legislation which are waiting. There are many others, such as the legislation respecting reporting by petroleum companies on their profit picture. We have been castigated by the New Democratic Party and the Tories in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for the last two years, saying that there were windfall profits that weren't being reinvested back into oil and gas exploration in western Canada and the high Arctic. This legislation is before parliament waiting to be passed.
In this session we want to deal with the legislation concerning the Alcan pipeline, the largest project which has ever been undertaken by free enterprise in Canada. That important piece of legislation will be before the House within the next few weeks. If we do not move rapidly on this bill, we will not get to that important piece of legislation before Christmas.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this unfortunate motion before the House, I should like to straighten the record with regard to a few things. The speaker who immediately preceded me has indicated that he feels the debate on Bill C-ll has been prolonged. Also he feels certain legislation is being held up.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If that hon. member and other representatives on the government side feel that way, they had better take it up with their House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They had better ask their House leader and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) exactly what went wrong following the March 31, 1977, budget.
I am sure hon. members will recall that the budget came in on March 31, and that there was a bill which was the forerunner to the bill now before us. I am referring to Bill C-56. It received first reading on June 15, 1977, and has not been heard of since. For hon. members opposite to come into the House and suggest the bill before us should be passed expeditiously is balderdash, and the Canadian public should be made aware of that.
There is a very serious thing happening in this House. This government, with a sad economic record to face, is determined
Time Allocation for Bill C-ll
to stifle debate in this House. On every occasion possible members opposite are stifling debate and refusing to allow hon. members to deal with issues that should be dealt with, as far as Canadians are concerned. The last budget introduced in this House which received a full debate at budget level, and on the bills arising out of it, was the Turner budget of June 23,
1975.	In the debate arising from that budget, 51 speakers were allowed to participate and express their views.
On May 25, the then minister of finance, Mr. Macdonald, brought in a budget and, by coincidence, exactly 51 speakers were allowed to participate in that budget debate. The various bills arising out of that were passed by this House without undue delay.
The next budget was on March 31, 1977, and 56 speakers were given the privilege of participating in that budget debate. The government chose not to advance the legislation, Bill C-56, which arose from that. It touched on income tax amendments. At that time there was no budget debate.
On October 20, 1977, the Minister of Finance introduced a so-called statement in the House during the throne speech debate. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated, they telescoped two things: the throne speech debate and the budget debate. Bearing in mind that the House has not had an opportunity to debate the October 20, 1977, statement, to now turn around and use closure in order to cut off further debate with respect to Bill C-ll is unforgiveable and must be resisted by members in this House. This is the only opportunity we have had to debate what was said in that October statement.
The last time we received an opportunity to speak on an income tax amendment bill was one year ago in November,
1976,	on second reading. To suggest a year later that closure is necessary is another clear indication that hon. members opposite are trying to stifle and squelch debate in this House.
In 1975 there were government expenditures of $26 billion and a deficit of $1.1 billion. According to the statement of October 20 the expenditures have zoomed to approximately $43 billion and the deficit is $9.2 billion. Is there any question as to why the government wants this debate stifled? It does not want that information conveyed to Canadians in the form of a parliamentary debate.
If I had more time I would take the House through the inaccuracies in the various budgets that have been brought forth. If we compare the March 31 budget with the current forecast of the Minister of Finance, we will notice a change of $2 billion in their estimate of the deficit Canadians will face at the federal level. On March 31 the government estimated the deficit to be $7.1 billion, and now feels it will be $9.2 billion. The government is urgently trying to prevent further information on this being conveyed to Canadians. To suggest that there are not enough provisions in Bill C-ll to debate is totally overlooking the fact that the bill includes some tax credits proposed by my party over a year ago. I am referring to tax credits of at least $100 per person. Unfortunately those tax credits will only occur in 1978.

November 22, 1977
Time Allocation for Bill C-l 1
1 bet there are not ten members on that side of the Elouse who have read the bill and 1 bet they do not fully realize that the proposal they are now blindly endorsing is only a suggestion to have a tax credit in 1978. We feel it would be preferable to have it now. We believe a tax credit of $100 should be given now. What is wrong with members in the House showing their concern about the government's proposal to tax life insurance in the form that is proposed in Bill C-l 1? Why should we be cut off from expressing our views on that provision in Bill C-l 1?
I should like to point out half a dozen other matters. For example, what is wrong with members expressing their view on the fact that this government needs a further debt borrowing authorization of $9 billion in spite of the fact that only last spring it sought a $7 billion borrowing authorization increase? Those are the types of things that members have been dealing with in speaking on Bill C-ll. What is wrong with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) making a clear argument as to why he feels the farm roll-over provisions, certainly from the corporate side, are inadequate? 1 thought he made a forceful argument.
What is wrong with two or three of my colleagues pointing out that the so called SIN system could be easily changed if the government saw fit? Now is the time to do it under Bill C-ll.
In short, I think that some basic arguments have been advanced by members of my party as to why this bill should be considered further. We believe that more thought should be given to it, and surely nobody would disagree that the proper time to express these views is on second reading, and that is what we have been doing. Instead of listening to members of the Liberal party supporting this incomparable, incompetent government, I hope that we will see them tonight stopping to act like sheep and standing up to vote against this closure motion, as we will.


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, having sat through every minute of the debate so far on Bill C-l 1-I believe 1 am the only member in the House who has done that, and also having read the record of every single debate on this bill-1 am amazed at the comments I have heard in the past hour and 45 minutes from opposition members. I do not know whether I have heard more rhetoric in this two-hour debate than I heard on Bill C-ll in total.
When the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), as did some of his colleagues, indicated that there has not been enough time to debate the tax bill, let me point out that from March 31 or June 1 there were six days spent on the budget debate to start of the discussion. Then there was debate on the Speech from the Throne which lasted another eight days. A great percentage of that discussion was based on the economic situation in the country, but still they have not said anything worth while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lumley:: In the second reading debate on Bill C-ll we have had nine days with extended hours which, as the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Cafik) has pointed out, is equivalent to 11 days. So up to now we have had 26 full days of debate.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe said that there has not been enough discussion on economic problems in this country. My minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), has been in the House 19 of the 22 days of sittings in this session and has fielded 60 questions on the economic situation in the country. If the opposition has not had enough time to date to debate the economic problems, 1 feel very sorry for its members.


Mr. Woolliams:: What a weak argument.


Edward C. Lumley: Hon. members on both sides of the House have indicated that one of our greatest problems with respect to our economic situation is lack of confidence. 1 believe that speeches made by the opposition members in the debate on this bill totally undermine confidence in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: A distinguished journalist from our press gallery commented after their conference in Quebec City several weeks ago-I think he called it "Canada bashing". Obviously the debate we have heard here in the past hour and a half has not contained one positive statement from the opposition.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe spoke a minute ago about time allocation. Perhaps he will recall that in the last budget the government introduced time allocation both in committee of the whole and again at third reading. The opposition House leader, for example, indicated today that that is not what he hears in his riding. What I hear in my riding is, "What are you doing up there? Who is running the government? Get on with it and cut out the rhetoric in the House".


An hon. Member:: That's good coming from you.


Edward C. Lumley: The rhetoric is not coming from this side, Mr. Speaker; it comes totally from the opposition benches.
In the last nine days the opposition has tried to bootleg the RCMP into the budget debate. If opposition members are so interested in discussing economic matters, why have they not stuck to commenting on the proposals in Bill C-ll? Why have they diversified and talked about everything under the sun but economic matters? I can only think of one word for it, namely, rhetoric. When the opposition House leader goes to his riding, as I do, I am sure he hears just the opposite of what he said in the House today.
Let me set the record straight. For example, the NDP has indicated six or seven times that Bill C-ll allocates $1.2 billion in tax incentives to corporations as well as to the wealthy. 1 would like to set the NDP straight on this. First of all, approximately $500 million under Bill C-ll goes to per-
November 22, 1977

sonal tax credits in the year 1977-78, and a further $1.2 billion in 1978-79. There was an increase in the federal tax credit of $50 for dependent children under the age of 18, and a further income tax cut of $100 for middle and lower income people. I do not see how these are tax incentives to corporations or to the wealthy to which the NDP members refer.
The official opposition has expressed its philosophy with respect to the free enterprise system. The criticism we have received from the NDP for the last nine days, and I can go back to the original six days of the budget debate, is that we are giving too many tax incentives to industry. Let me illustrate some of the tax incentives on which many investment decisions are predicated, and the longer the House procrastinates in approving this bill, the more the opposition will be held responsible by the business community. What are some of the incentives that opposition members are talking about? They want more incentives for small business. They say we have to do more for small business. Obviously they have not read the bill and they do not know what the government has done for small business in the last two tax measures.
Let me list a few of the tax incentives. One is the introduction of the 3 per cent inventory allowance for cash flow. The hon. member for York-Simcoe, who is a former businessman, understands cash flow problems. Does he not want to encourage the 3 per cent inventory allowance? There is the three year extension to the investment tax credit. Hon. members opposite are always talking about tax incentives for regional development. It is this government which for the first time used fiscal measures to increase investment tax credits to 7.5 per cent and 10 per cent in designated areas of the country. Does the opposition not want to encourage regional development in this country?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lumley) tell the House the reason why the government wishes to borrow another $9 billion, and to what purpose it wants to apply this great amount of borrowed money?


Edward C. Lumley: That was a phony question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. member wishes to take a look at the national debt of this country. If he looks at the public debt as a percentage of the gross national product he will find it has not changed more than two per cent in the last ten years. If he wants to do an analysis of debt in this country, perhaps he should go back to the book, Mr. Speaker, and take a good look at it.
I believe the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) indicated today that the official opposition has had one official speech writer for 27 speeches. One of the points that is made continually throughout their speeches is that this nation is the most overtaxed nation in the world. If you look at the facts, the OECD figures show that we were not the highest, we were not the lowest, we were somewhere in between-another distortion of facts or selective statistics. One of the points that
Time Allocation for Bill C-ll
remains supreme in every one of the NDP party speeches is the argument that this budget should be a job-creating one. Everybody forgets that this government has the greatest record for job creation of all the western industrialized nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: It is not just the best record, it is almost twice as good as the second best nation, which is the United States.
Today, in his opening statement, the honourable leader of the NDP Party said a budget is for job creation. There were 292,000 jobs created in the first ten months of this year. If that is not job-creation, I don't know what is.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Sir-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Speaking of job-creation, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the hon. member would accept a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Chair did not hear the question. Order!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary could please tell us how have they done such a job in job-creation, as manufacturing employment has fallen 6.3 per cent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member is now seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question, and he did not ask for it for that purpose originally.


Edward C. Lumley: In my short participation in this debate, I think it is obvious, based on some of the points which I have made, exactly why we want time allocations on this bill. The Canadian people want some action. This government is going to give them action. We are not going to be held up by planned rhetoric by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Having started off this debate with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) some two weeks ago, in the interim there were included only four debating days a week, and notwithstanding what the rather ambitious parliamentary secretary has had to say-he says nine days of debate-I have just taken a look through Hansard and it has added up to a total of 28 hours. At the time this debate was initiated, on the very first day, after there had been a vote on an Air Canada bill, his own minister started at 4.30 in the afternoon, and I barely got started at 5 o'clock when private members' hour intervened. I have checked through Hansard and the following appear: 1630 hours; 1612; 1610; 1610; 1605. There is not a day with 3Vi hours and the total is 28 hours.
There were ten Liberal speakers, and eight NDP speakers. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) will be the first to acknowledge that the Minister of

November 22, 1977
Time Allocation for Bill C-11
Finance himself stated that he would be making a budgetary statement, that he was introducing a budgetary measure in the midst of the throne speech debate. The March budgetary proposals of the former minister of finance are totally irrelevant in the picture-do not talk to us about that-and there was debate on those. They came to absolutely nothing.
I find it rather amazing, for instance, on the subject of social security members, that we do not get an intelligent participation from a caucus which let this provision slip through due to the July closure on that bill. Even a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance I believe did not even know that new section 65 in Bill C-22, extended the use of the social security numbers. He did not know it, but he voted yea. They are just a bunch of blessed sheep; that is all. They know the volume of correspondence they receive, each and everyone of them. In Ontario and western Canada they were deluged with correspondence. It was a false principle, going back on the solemn undertaking of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Lester Pearson, on the use of the social security numbers. That is the problem.
In the steering committee of the standing committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) asked the Minister of Finance to appear on a certain number of dates to debate the supplementary estimates. With respect to the most important ones in the supplementary estimates-yes, the minister would appear. Then the answer came down the line-no, he would not appear until Bill C-11 passed. What kind of blackmail is that to exercise on a committee? The minister, who has an obligation to appear, has absolutely no right to tell any committee of this House that he refuses to appear before it. It is his duty to appear to have his estimates passed and not to have them fall into line under a guillotine. As a matter of fact the rules are so stacked that if every minister of the House could refuse or could find some excuse not to appear before the appropriate standing committee before December 5 or 6, the guillotine would fall, and the rule says that unless the estimates have been reported back, they will have been deemed to have been reported back.
In theory and in practice for a lot of ministers, particularly in this administration, there is often a refusal, couched in nice terms, I will admit. We can never get ministers on Thursdays, which are one of the best days for committee hearings. Why? They are in cabinet. On two of the four best days available ministers will not appear and the committees are denied.
We have these hundreds of millions of dollars in supplementary estimates and the House is supposed to pass them like this. The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley), parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, says that these are government proposals and their passage ipso facto will be good for the country. That is the biggest act of total misrepresentation to the public of Canada in all the years of performance by this government.
Then we heard somebody say that there is some consumer protection legislation to come, that there is now Bill C-13.

We know that Bill C-13 is the misbegotten grandson or great-grandson of other pieces of legislation. Some bastardry has been perpetrated in its presentation. The minister has inherited it from the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott), and I wish he would say publicly what he thinks of Bill C-16 and Bill C-42. The government was glad to see the end of the last session because of those two pieces of legislation which have now reappeared as Bill C-13. Even backbenchers were apologetic about the legislation, but the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) extolled the virtues of it and said the House should pass it for the benefit of the Canadian public. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Bona-venture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) and others who interject now had participated in the debate on this bill they would have said that strangely enough the government dared present such legislation. We on this side of course are used to this sort of tripe.
The opposition saved the Canadian public from a fate worse than death in the last session so far as Bill C-16 and Bill C-42 were concerned. The government is wrong when it says there is good legislation waiting to be passed. If its record is any indication we must look at all legislation more closely. I find it strange that the Minister of Finance, having presented a bill of some 216 pages which, I am sure, for the vast majority of government backbenchers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat I noted the extravagant remarks made by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). To hear him and some other Liberals speak about Bill C-ll you would think it was a ticket to the millennium and that all we need to do is pass the bill and we will have justice and peace for a thousand years.


Mr. Stanfield:: We would still have the same old Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of a tax bill is supposed to be at least three-fold. First, it is naturally a means of raising money. Second, it should be a means of providing jobs. Perhaps even more important is the fact that a tax bill ought to straighten out the unfairnesses, the inequities, and injustices that exist in our society.
I suggest that the only one of these conditions that Bill C-11 meets is that it will raise money. As for providing jobs, it does not do that at all. As for straightening out unfairnesses, as we have pointed out many times this bill makes things worse because it provides handouts to the wealthy and to large corporations of $1.2 billion per year.
When we ask for improvements in pensions for senior citizens or veterans, or for legislation to take care of the handicapped, the blind and others, we are asked where the money is to come from. Yet when the government wants to give hand-
November 22, 1977

outs to corporations it brings in a bill and asks us to pass it under closure. Nothing in this bill will solve any of the unfairnesses in our society.
We have a system at the present time under which certain persons, between the ages of 60 and 65 receive a spouse's allowance, but for spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers there is no such allowance, and there is nothing for them in the bill. There is nothing in it to straighten out the government's finances so that the promise to increase the basic pension for veterans may be met. There is nothing in the bill to improve the position of the working poor, those for whom a guaranteed annual income is supposed to be on the drawing board.
What is the hurry to pass this bill, Mr. Speaker? It is not a ticket to the millennium. It is a bill that will take us in reverse. That is why I join with others in saying this closure motion should not be supported by this House of Commons which is supposed to be part of a democratic parliament.
There is one other reason why I am opposed to this closure motion and to all closure motions. They never go to the heart of the problem. The only way the government knows to deal with extended debate in the House of Commons is to cut it off-to deny it. Surely the time has come to find a better way of arranging the debates in this House so that we can deal with things on a proper basis. All the government does is close off debate. That means it is not even prepared to look at the proper ways of improving the procedures of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 8.49 p.m., the two hours allotted for the consideration of the motion now before the House pursuant to Standing Order 75C have expired.

The question is on the motion of the hon. Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Motion (Mr. Cafik) agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-ll, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, 1 notice that all the right people are leaving. Usually they come the other way when I get up to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if those hon. members who are rushing out to see the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) on television might spare a couple of minutes.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I will make it a point to show only my good profile to the camera. Yesterday when 1 was addressing myself to this bill I said that I think we have a Minister of Finance who, at least at the outset, wants to listen to what members of this House have to suggest in the way of improving the tax laws for the benefit of Canadians. I was nearing the end of my remarks when I called it 10.30.
I will close my remarks with one final point. I believe there is need for a major revision of our approach to the whole taxation policy regarding personal incomes. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) made a very important point yesterday. He said that, under our present system of tax deductions, nearly everyone who files his income tax return is concerned that maybe there is some point that he missed. He may be entitled to a deduction, but because of the complicated system of taxation, he misses that. Therefore he loses some of his spending or saving power. I agree with the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand on that point.
The other side of the coin is that there are a lot of people who get tax deductions which are not due to them. It is easy for people who are determined to involve themselves with tax evasion to find tax deductions that would not be considered legitimate, or at least would be considered spurious or marginal in their validity.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
A number of my constituents have come to my office asking me to intercede on their behalf with income tax officials because they have appealed tax decisions. They felt the tax officials were giving them really short shrift. They had legitimate deductions which they included in their tax assessment, but the tax officials refused to accept those legitimate expenses and deductions.
A whole array of grievances are piling up because of our very complicated system of deductions under the personal income tax system. It is time for the members of this House, and certainly for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and those in his department, to take a fresh look at the system of personal income tax deductions.
I have a suggestion to make. I must confess it has not been thoroughly researched. I have not had the time to look at it as thoroughly as I would like. Rather than continue the complicated method of personal exemptions in income tax, I suggest we do away with this kind of system and completely eliminate the whole array of personal tax deductions. 1 suggest we have a straight percentage tax on personal incomes. There may be one exemption for health or medical reasons. Only that one deduction would be a legitimate deduction for personal income tax.
There is one large body of citizens who would object to this method, the accountants. A large part of their income is derived from us poor souls who cannot figure out the complicated income tax system. We are dependent upon them to figure out our income tax for us, and they derive their living from that. That is fine under the present system. I do not blame them for making their living that way. But this is one body which would probably object to the simplification of the income tax system.
Another group which might object consists of civil servants who work in the department and whose jobs depend on the complexity of the system we have today. In my riding the department is building a brand new office. I am proud of the building they are putting up; it will be a fine addition to my constituency, and the department will employ there about 400 people on a regular basis, and possibly another 800 on a seasonal basis. I am glad that these additional job opportunities will be available to my constituents. Nevertheless, I believe those employees would prefer to be working at a job which would be considered creative, and I cannot see that there is much satisfaction to be gained by sitting in an income tax office and looking over a mountain of receipts. Even people who are good at that kind of thing must find it a little boring, and sooner or later ennui must set in. Then again, they must constantly listen to the grievances of people who file their returns and who feel the government has bilked them out of a few dollars.
Why not simplify the operations and eliminate the frustration of April 30? The result would be a whole new approach, a whole new attitude to taxation on the part of the Canadian public. A large portion of the bureaucracy in the taxation
November 22, 1977

department could be eliminated, the public would benefit, and the revenue flowing to the treasury would not be affected.
I know this proposition has been examined in years gone by, and studies show that the government would get just as much money from the taxpayer. At the same time millions of dollars would be saved. Much of the present operation is sterile- thousands of persons are employed in the civil service doing something which does not need to be done. That is the kind of make-work program we do not need. My suggestion to the Minister of Finance is that we take a fresh approach to taxation policy within the Department of National Revenue and eliminate, by and large, personal deductions, and simply adjust the percentage of the tax rate on personal income in such a way that the income of the federal government would remain approximately the same. Expenses would be reduced by hundreds of millions of dollars and I believe all the taxpayers in the country would thank the hon. gentleman for it.


William Arnold Peters: Even at this late hour it is pleasure to speak on the bill before us. We have a very unusual situation in Canada, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as many hon. members, particularly those in my own party, believe that one of the ways of ending the major problem facing us, the problem of unemployment, is by providing the workers with more money with which to buy goods and services. It is the belief of many that there should be tax deductions in favour of individuals to make this possible, and, in addition, transfer payments to persons in poor circumstances so that consumer goods can be purchased by them more regularly.
The other side of the question is the legislation before us which provides $200 million in favour of corporations with the object of enabling them to create more jobs. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the former minister of finance, along with most of the institutions, are well aware of one simple fact, that is to say, when you give corporations a tax concession which will allow them to increase production, it is only of assistance to them if they are able to increase their production. Obviously that is going to be very difficult. There are very few companies in this country which can increase their production to 100 per cent of capacity, yet we are allowing them tax concessions to increase capacity at a time when they are not using more than 80 per cent capacity.
One of the ways we can put people back to work is to start projects which will provide the maximum number of jobs at the least capital cost. In many cases these are the kinds of jobs which are closely related to the resource industries. In my part of the country during the last two or three years there have been many closures of plants and mines, and reductions in the number of jobs in the resource sector. This has been highlighted particularly by recent developments in the Sudbury basin. Three thousand employees laid off in Sudbury will mean that those left in employment in the area will have to carry the tax burden of the community. There will be a great deal less money in the community to provide the necessary goods and
Income Tax
services. This is not unusual in the resource areas of our country. Most of these areas have a one industry community which depends on lumbering, mining or some other resource. And when something happens which adversely affects that community, the community is in exceedingly difficult circumstances.
I received a letter the other day from a lady who told me that her father had been laid off one year ago in the town of Kirkland Lake. During the intervening period he had searched for other kinds of jobs because he did not want to go on welfare. He owned his own house in the community. He had been there a number of years, had raised his family, and his roots were in that community. Although he did all of the menial jobs he could in the town, such as cutting grass, painting fences and doing rough carpentry work, his skills did not provide him with a sufficiently paid job to keep his family. His wife went out to work as well, but she certainly was not young and was not very well. Between the two of them they were unable to provide enough income to keep the family in the community, and so they had to leave.
Quite legitimately, Mr. Speaker, this family blamed not only the federal government for the lack of employment in the are but also the provincial government, since neither the federal government nor the provincial government pay much attention to the resource areas of our country. This is also true in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and the northern parts of our country which depend mainly on resource based industries which are subject to ups and downs.
The people in Timmins are still quite happy. Over the last three or four years they have benefited from a very fortunate incident. In the main, the gold mines of this country have ceased operation all across the country. There are two gold mines which operated in my area, and occasionally a new one is contemplated. Raising capital for gold mining is very difficult, and communities dependent upon gold mines have been in a very serious situation. Timmins was more fortunate than Kirkland Lake and some of the other mining communities, because Texas Gulf found zinc and copper in its very large development at Porcupine.
It is interesting to hear that Inco is laying off people in the copper and nickel industries at Noranda and Falconbridge. Also it is interesting to note that several months ago Texas Gulf was informing the people of Timmins that there would be no lay-offs. In fact that is the only town which is in a resource boom era and condition at the present time. But there was a very large construction project going on there, and Texas Gulf made an announcement that it would cut back the construction crews working on the development of a smelter. As I have indicated, this is the only boom area in the resource field in Ontario. However, employees are now receiving those nice little pink slips indicating that their jobs are terminated and their services will not be required in the future.

November 22, 1977
Income Tax
Often we forget about the problems of unemployment. It is all well and good to say that there are a million unemployed in Canada. If you are not unemployed, it does not mean very much to you. What happens to a person when he is laid off today? It is not like the old days during the depression when people could return to the farms. Another cup of water could always be put into the soup. Today that is not the case. People live in the cities and they have payments to make on their houses, cars, boats and television sets. The government had led them to believe that everyone is entitled to a fair share in society.
When people are laid off today their standards of living must change. The days go by very quickly, and the time arrives when there is no more unemployment insurance benefits for them. Although these people walk the streets of the resource communities, there are no jobs. Even the most menial jobs are not available. People have to decide to pull up their socks and leave their communities in an attempt to seek employment elsewhere.
Where can Canadians find employment which they are qualified for when their experience has been in mining, bush work, sheet metal work, veneer factories, smelters or foundries? When people were receiving a fair wage at their jobs and suddenly they have to leave their community and go elsewhere, without any qualifications, they are faced with thousands and thousands of other people looking for work. It must be the most demoralizing thing which can happen to people and their families.
What happens to young people when they are unemployed today? The Liberal government has told people that Canada is a very rich land and is strong. They have used other expressions and have "b-ss'd" people for many years.


An hon. Member:: Explain!


William Arnold Peters: I do not have to explain that to the million people in this country who are unemployed, or to their dependants. They know exactly what I mean.
Surely there is a solution to the problem, and it is not to do the same thing over and over again. The official opposition is saying it will support the $1.2 billion in tax concessions being made to business. There are many businessmen in the Conservative party and I would like them to explain how those concessions will change the situation. Most of the companies have more capital now than they need. They have no markets, they are limited in their export abilities, and I do not think they need more capital.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: I see one businessman who disagrees with me. Maybe he has applied for his share of tax concessions. Maybe they will do something for him, but I suggest they will do very little for the unemployed people in this country. Consider Sudbury, for instance. We cannot say that Sudbury is not very well off. That company in that city has received millions and
(Mr. Peters.]
millions of dollars in tax concessions over the years. It is not long ago that members of parliament, even if they had no other income, were paying more in income tax to the government than was Inco.
Inco had a bad year last year, but even after taxes it made $70 million. They have had no difficulty in getting capital when they saw they did not have enough. They were given it by the Export Credit Corporation. They went into other countries, and we allowed them to do so. Surely it is time we took a look at our industry, particularly our natural resource industry, and decided to do something to husband that industry.
It is true that if Inco continues to mine the way it does today, there will be employment in Sudbury and Sudbury will continue to be a progressive little town for another 30 years, but then the mineral will be gone. We should provide for the people of Sudbury out of the gain that was made from that God-given resource. We should provide for a future for that community. The cost to the people in that community has been very great. It may be the normal course of events, but when you hear Inco saying that they wish to go to Indo-China, Guatemala or somewhere else where they will make more profit for their shareholders, and they do not care what happens to the mineral that is left in the ground in the Sudbury area, and we agree to that, then we deserve what we get. There has always been a way for the government of the day in this free enterprise system to end depressions-by means of war. But surely most members of parliament would agree that is not the way to end the current problems.
The reason I am sure that the way to deal with present economic problems is not by giving corporations another $1.2 billion is that we have tried this for a number of years, and it is not working. Mr. Speaker, if industries in general did not have the capital to develop to a level where they would meet their full capacity, then it is quite possible it would be necessary to give them capital or allow them to get the capital whereby they could reach the maximum of their producing ability.
Several years ago we agreed that the pensioners of this country-the war pensioners-if they were receiving 100 per cent pension, should receive the average of five of the positions in the civil service, the lowest positions in the civil service. Right now, they need $30 million to bring them up to where they will get a fair and decent pension. But we do not have $30 million, says the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). And the Minister of Health (Miss Begin) says we will have to curtail family allowances because we do not have the money to provide for the escalation in our social services.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: I am glad to hear the backbenchers, who always vote with the government, say this is wrong, that they have the money, they are going to pay the indexing, they are going to provide that, they are going to continue the family allowance benefits. I suppose the government has enough money to pay
November 22, 1977

the veterans. 1 am glad to hear the backbenchers who know less about what the government is going to do than I do. They can make lots of noise, but they do not make that kind of noise in caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: I am very happy to hear many of them feel very incensed about this subject and they will make some noise in caucus tomorrow. If they do, we will see this bill withdrawn and the direction changed.
Income Tax
There are ways of helping industry. One of the ways is to provide consumers with the amount of money-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


William Arnold Peters: May I call it 10:30 p.m.?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being 10:30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10:30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Wednesday, November 23, 1977