1977-02-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because the Department of National Defence has not given a reason for the forthcoming move of the Canadian Airborne Regiment out of Edmonton, and because the city of Edmonton has requested an "impartial study" of the financial impact of the transfer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the House refer this matter to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and that the airborne regiment move be halted until the committee has presented its report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the Auditor General has expressed dissatisfaction with the terms of the option given to Mr. Shaul Eisenberg as an exclusive agent in the event of the sale of a second CANDU reactor to South Korea, and in light of the fact that he has expressed similar dissatisfaction with the terms of the postcontract services documentation under which Mr. Eisenberg would be paid a yearly sum for the next six years, and has suggested that he may be forced to make similar comments in his next report about the arrangements between Mr. Eisenberg and AECL as he made about the original agreement, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government instruct AECL to renegotiate the present arrangement between AECL and Mr. Eisenberg, and instruct the management of AECL to ensure that the accounting standards and level of documentation in this and all future agency agreements, are acceptable to the Auditor General of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important and urgent matter.
As the April, 1976 dairy policy of the Minister of Agriculture led to an income loss of roughly 20 per cent for milk producers and the lay-off of many farm labourers; as agricultural producers must now bear the attacks, wrong-doings and iniquities of the Department of National Revenue and the Unemployment Insurance Commission; as civil servants would seem to have decided to do away with that agricultural sector by refusing to insure that type of work, which could lead to its complete disappearance while depriving it of the assistance required for its development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House order the Minister of National Revenue and the head of the Unemployment Insurance Commission respectively to take all necessary steps, as soon as possible, to remedy the many weaknesses that exist with regard to unemployment insurance in the case of farm labourers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

February 9, 1977
Unemployment


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of reports of an anticipated loss of nearly S50 million at Mirabel Airport for the current fiscal year and bearing in mind the announced intention of the Minister of Transport to impose a user-pay policy in connection with transportation facilities in this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to make a statement on motions outlining the exact amount of the loss suffered by the Mirabel Airport this year, the precise basis of compensation for the loss, the measures, if any, anticipated to meet this substantial loss, including any plans for diverting business from Dorval Airport and exactly who will be absorbing the substantial loss referred to.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that since the present administration took power in 1968, unemployment levels in Quebec have been approximately one third higher than the national rate while in the Atlantic provinces the unemployment level has been 50 per cent higher than the national average, and since, to judge from an answer to a question put to him yesterday the Minister of Finance is apparently unaware of these facts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That there be an immediate reference of the question of the level and nature of unemployment in Canada, particularly in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which has been sitting idle and not reviewing economic matters for months.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That parliament express to the government of the U.S.S.R. its concern about the arrest and imprisonment of Soviet citizens, including the two members of the Helsinki monitoring group in Kiev who worked for the release of Valentyn Moroz, Mykola Rudenko and Oleksii Tykhyi; Alexander Ginzburg who dispenses aid to political prisoners and their families, and Amnur Zavurov, tried and imprisoned for his attempts on behalf of Alexander Solzenhytsyn to leave Russia, and that the U.S.S.R. be urged to live up to the commitments it made when it signed the Helsinki agreement which would guarantee freedom of movement to all citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of pressing necessity.
Since tension is constantly increasing in Quebec penitentiaries, especially at Saint-Vincent-de-Paul and at the CDC, and since that condition has reached its climax and we can no longer tolerate the fact that prisoners are kept in their cells 2V/2 hours out of 24,1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That this House unanimously recommend to the Solicitor General: first, the construction in the shortest possible time of a penitentiary in Quebec to prevent crowding of inmates in existing penitentiaries; second, the establishment in that new institution of an adequate rehabilitation program; third, the use of available premises in existing penitentiaries for preliminary rehabilitation programs; and finally, the setting up of a mechanism enabling inmates to receive visitors.


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:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.
February 9, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It arises from the report today by Judge Aylesworth to the Board of Directors of Polysar in which he says the corporation's Swiss subsidiary took action which included aiding unnamed companies to evade taxes, defraud minority shareholders and break currency regulations. Does the right hon. gentleman believe that the action he took in 1973, almost four years ago, when this matter was first brought to his attention, was at all adequate? Can the Prime Minister also say whether or not we in the House can believe that the sort of thing that he did then is indicative of the way that allegations which are brought to the attention of the government are now handled?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to read the allegations made by the hon. member. I am sorry that they have not been brought to my attention before now but I will look into them.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as in those allegations made in the report it is suggested that through the action of a Crown corporation, wholly owned by the government, companies in other countries were permitted and able to avoid taxes and break currency laws, is it the policy of the government to inform other countries of the names of such companies with which a Crown corporation in Canada was involved, so that those countries can take appropriate action against those companies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the question, and I repeat that I do not know on what it is founded. From the way the question was phrased, it appears that foreign companies have broken laws in foreign lands. So far as Canadian companies are concerned, if they did not act illegally or improperly I fail to see the connection with this allegation about what would happen in foreign countries and what Canadians might do about it.


James McPhail Gillies: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The only way that the foreign companies were able to break the law in their own land was through the co-operation of a Canadian company, a Crown corporation which was wholly owned by the government. Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister whether he feels that the government has the responsibility of telling those foreign countries the names of the companies which broke the law with the co-operation of a Canadian Crown corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sympathetic to the wave of purity which is apparent on the other side, but I would
Oral Questions
still prefer to look at the facts before giving an answer to what to me, at this stage, is just a hypothetical question.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister. In spite of the fact that this important report was hand-delivered to the Prime Minister's office at nine o'clock this morning and he still does not know anything about it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: What were you people up there in the gallery doing?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In any event, the Prime Minister will remember the allegations which were placed in his hands at the end of 1973 in a letter from the then auditor general. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell the House whether he has knowledge of any other allegations that have been made to him in respect of any other Crown agency, Crown corporation or subsidiary which relate to a similar rebate, deal or transaction with customers, which has now been amply proved by the report that was delivered to the Prime Minister this morning at nine o'clock?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen the report, I am sorry. Possibly it did arrive at my office at nine o'clock but I spent most of the morning in caucus. I probably will not be able to read it this afternoon because I have to go to the Governor General's for an outstanding achievement award.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark:: Is the award to Polysar?


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I may have time to read it, but I am not certain because I have a cabinet meeting tomorrow morning and I have a lot of cabinet documents to look at of more urgent priority, dealing with such things as provincial needs. So, perhaps tomorrow when the House meets again I will not have read the report, but I will do my best.


AUDITING OF CROWN CORPORATIONS BY AUDITOR GENERAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the award is obviously not for speed reading I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform the House if the government is giving

Oral Questions
consideration to this obvious need for all Crown corporations, all Crown agencies and all subsidiaries of those agencies and corporations to be audited by the Auditor General instead of an outside auditing firm? Is the government giving any consideration to that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is being considered. On the conduct of Crown corporations, we issued guidelines a little less than two months ago and these certainly would apply to the cases which are alleged by hon. members opposite.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister referred with a sense of self-satisfaction to the billion dollars transferred disproportionately to upper-income Canadians as a result of the indexation of our tax system. He suggested this would be an added stimulus to the economy to create jobs. Since this billion dollars relates precisely to a change in the cost of living and was designed to do so, would the Prime Minister now admit his error and acknowledge that there is no new stimulus to the economy in this at all, precisely because there is no change in purchasing power. If he makes such a rare acknowledgement of error, would he agree that such stimulus is now required?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the allegations of the hon. member about this being payments to upper-income Canadians. In the $1,700 million which were enumerated by the Minister of Finance a very large part is for family allowances, another part is for old age pensions and a third part for unemployment insurance deductions. On that basis, I think it would apply to lower-income Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, even the Prime Minister should know that when the Minister of Finance used the billion dollar figure which the Prime Minister picked up, he was referring to the effects of indexation. I should like to get back to that point. Would the Prime Minister agree that because of that change there is really no new stimulus to the economy coming from it. Even so, accepting his own implied argument yesterday that some stimulus is required, would he take steps to ensure that a tax credit applied to the 1976 tax returns which are now coming in, would be made available to middle and low-income Canadians so that we can get the required stimulus?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the four items that I enumerated again today. I think I see the economic point that the hon. member is trying to make. I suggest it would depend on the propensity to save and the propensity to spend of the various people receiving these funds. Until one

can ascertain that one cannot draw the conclusion advanced by the hon. member.


MANPOWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On Monday in the House the minister said that he would "welcome input" from myself and my party dealing with unemployment and said that he had not heard from us on "how things might be improved." Notwithstanding the point that we have been presenting precisely such detailed proposals since last October, I should like to ask the minister if he would follow up his suggestion of Monday and agree to meet with me tomorrow morning or next day at his convenience to discuss in detail the kind of information he allegedly wants?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I commend once again to the hon. member that he read the answer to the question. I indicated in my letter to all members in dealing with allocation criteria under the Young Canada Works and Canada Works programs, the procedures we had used. If the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party had a better method or something he felt to be more equitable, I would be prepared to listen and take this to my officials. It was to that I was referring. I have not had one letter from the New Democratic Party on that particular subject.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Notwithstanding the appointment of Mr. Michel Dupuy as head of CIDA, thus replacing Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, and considering the huge budget of this agency, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he will introduce legislation to make this agency into distinct department?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the government does not intend to do so.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Speech from the Throne made such an allusion, does this mean that the government changed its mind or is it simply for later?
February 9, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I do not understand the hon. member's question.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question might seem a little ambiguous, but in any event I understood that this matter had been dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. Has this scheme of making CIDA a separate department just been delayed or is it completely abandoned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows how much respect I have for monarchy. I would not want to say that what he thinks was said in the Speech from the Throne was not in it but, if I am not mistaken, this point was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, with all due respect to Her Majesty.

[English}


POLYSAR
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I hope that he has had a chance to read the Aylesworth report concerning Polysar. Since the minister told the House in November when the matter was first raised that in his opinion there was no impropriety in the actions of Polysar, will he now reconsider and withdraw that remark and admit to the House that behaviour based on what you can get away with is not propriety?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not quite right. I was quoting the statement of the auditors and legal counsel of Polysar.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: What action will Canada, as the largest shareholder in CDC which controls Polysar, take to discipline the officials responsible for the behaviour complained of?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the board is responsible for this and we have nominees on the board. I received the report just before coming into the House. I would have to look very fully at the allegations. It may well be that the officers in question of the company will have to be subject to censure or other action by the board, but I reserve my opinion on that question until I have had a chance to examine the document.


DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF BY-ELECTIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Since all of us are conscious of the six vacancies to be filled in this House, six ridings not being represented at the present time, and in view of the recent visit of the Prime Minister to Quebec City where he probably got some pertinent information, could the Prime Minister tell the House, in the interest of the people who are not represented, whether he will soon announce the by-elections and, if so, does he intend to announce by-elections in the six ridings involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my intention is to stick to the official regulations and to announce the date of the by-elections within the time requirement provided by the legislation, but if I have delayed this announcement, it was to give the hon. member for Joliette and the leader of his party the opportunity to strengthen their relations with the PQ.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. In view of the massacre of missionaries in Rhodesia by guerrillas, and in view of the admission by Cuban officials that their Montreal offices are used for training guerrillas and the fact that these guerrillas are destined for Rhodesia and carry on continuing murder and harassment of missionaries, will the Prime Minister reconsider Canada's relationship to Cuba as well as its generous financial and material aid to that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the question is based on a non sequitur. He might just as well ask if we are going to reinforce our delegation to the Vatican and help from that side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: What a stupid answer!


RHODESIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTEST SLAUGHTER OF MISSIONARIES
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External. Affairs. If the government is not willing at least to reassess our aid program to Cuba in light of the fact that that country is training guerrillas in Rhodesia, will the minister at least tell this House and the Canadian people what steps the Canadian government is taking to express the outrage of Canadians at the slaughter of missionaries in Rhodesia?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most appropriate place in

February 9, 1977
Oral Questions
which to do that is here, and I am perfectly delighted to say at this time that I find the conduct shocking, reprehensible and every other condemnatory adjective one could imagine. In so far as what action we can take I will examine the appropriate avenues through which we can make representations, but whether these will be conveyed directly to those responsible it is difficult to say. However, certainly there is no question about our attitude.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the House whether it is still government policy to establish a national forum including labour, business and government, which definite proposal was put forward by the Minister of Labour on October 28 last?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might look at my answers of last week to his leader, and he will see that we have active negotiations under way for a multipartite meeting with business, labour and provincial representatives.


John Allen Fraser: I asked that question because I looked at the minister's answers, and on January 28 the minister said that there was no definite proposal in this regard. Perhaps the minister could explain that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are in the process of discussions with the various groups, and we have recommended to them that they should be prepared to meet at such a generalized meeting. As I said on the 28th, we have not insisted on a single formula in this regard, and we have sought from them some response as to the manner in which they feel they can most effectively represent the various viewpoints they do. The objective remains, however, to try to bring about a substantial consultation of all the economic decision makers.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Press reports indicate that the Auditor General has expressed dissatisfaction with the accounting procedures in that part of the agreement between Mr. Shaul Eisenberg and AECL with respect to the yearly payments to be made to Mr. Eisenberg during the post-contract period. Objections have also been made by the Auditor General with respect to the reporting of expenditures by Mr. Eisenberg in the event of a

second CANDU reactor being sold to South Korea, in which case Mr. Eisenberg would be the sole and exclusive agent of AECL.
Is the minister prepared to urge AECL to renegotiate these two aspects of the agreement with Mr. Eisenberg, and will he guarantee that in such a renegotiated agreement there will be complete provision for the accounting standards and the levels of documentation to be acceptable to the Auditor General?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between myself and senior officers of the corporation, just as there have been discussions between senior officers of the corporation and Mr. Eisenberg with respect to this matter. I believe there will also be discussions between the senior officers at AECL and the Auditor General's department, and that is for two reasons: he is the Auditor General of Canada, and he has reported on these questions-indeed, before the committee he made certain comments, to which the hon. member has referred-and the second reason is that he is the auditor of the corporation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Have minutes been kept?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that the agreement between AECL and AECL's agent in Japan, the Merubeni Company, are being renegotiated with respect to that company's role as an agent for AECL. In view of the Prime Minister's statement on December 2 that the guidelines enunciated by the President of the Treasury Board merely formalized the existing conditions, why was it necessary to renegotiate the agreement? What are the changes which have been made in the agreement, and would the minister assure us that in that negotiated agreement with Merubeni the accounting procedures and the documentation levels will be discussed with the Auditor General in order to ensure that they are acceptable to him?


Alastair William Gillespie: On the last point I think it would be premature to seek that kind of assurance from the Auditor General. In fact, I am not sure whether the nature of the agreement provides for detailed documentation. I have had an opportunity-although, regrettably, only a rather brief one-to read the transcript of the hearings of the Public Accounts Committee earlier this week. As I recall, there was a good deal of questioning on the part of members to the senior officer, Mr. Campbell, the chairman of AECL, seeking an understanding of why there was a renegotiation of the Merubeni agreement, and I believe that Mr. Campbell provided his reasons in some considerable detail. However, if they are not as detailed as the hon. member would like them to be, I will seek further explanations from Mr. Campbell.


REASON FOR RENEGOTIATING CONTRACTS WITH AGENTS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wonder if the minister would clarify the point. Since the Prime Minister said on December 2 that the guidelines which had been laid down for Crown corporations merely formalized
February 9, 1977

existing conditions, why was it necessary to renegotiate the agreement, and in what respect was the agreement renegotiated? Surely the minister can give us a clear statement on that.


Alastair William Gillespie: There is an obvious inference in the premise of the hon. member's question that this was formalizing the status quo. Quite clearly, the guidelines which the Prime Minister tabled in the House were to do a lot more than formalize the status quo. They were a new set of guidelines which would apply to Crown corporations in their appointments of agents and the process of appointing agents.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He will recall the motion proposed last Thursday, which received the support of all hon. members on this side of the House, that he intercede with the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway in an effort to prevent or at least delay the implementation of cuts in commuter passenger train service west of Montreal. Has the minister been in contact with CPR company officers, and if the answer is in the affirmative, can he report to the House the results of his conversations?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Following the strong expression of opinion, certainly from this side, but generally from all parts of the House, I made contact with Canadian Pacific, as indeed did the provincial minister. I am now informed that Canadian Pacific will retain three trains on the run beyond Vaudreuil and not cut the number to one as was previously announced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it has to do with the outrageous conduct of Cuba in mobilizing insurgents in various countries and thereby contravening fundamental canons of international relationships. Apparently canoodling with Castro has produced no results, and I ask the minister therefore whether he will not, on behalf of Canada, send a protest regarding Cuba against this type of conduct in which Cuba acts as a puppet of the U.S.S.R. in undermining governments all over the world.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members on the opposite side for that splendid round of applause when I rose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is not often that I can tell the right hon. gentleman that I have anticipated him, but I can assure him that on at least two separate occasions recently I have made the strongest possible representation-


An hon. Member:: In public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Is anything more public than the House of Commons in which I am giving the right hon. gentleman my answer? I believe I answered the question during what I may call the unavoidable absence from the House of the right hon. gentleman. I believe I answered it before. I made it perfectly clear to the Cuban authorities that Canada wishes to be clearly on record as opposing their intervention in Angola-


Mr. Rodriguez:: What about the intervention of the CIA in Chile?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -and has indicated to them, as well, that their troops should be withdrawn from Angola as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not been here, for a very good reason.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I said, unavoidable.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read every line of Hansard and I have yet to read an answer by the minister that there has been a protest made to the government of the U.S.S.R., and also to Cuba, over this kind of working together to undermine responsible governments all over the world. Is Canada going to protest or are we still canoodling with Castro?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the right hon. gentleman. I thought what he asked me in the First instance was whether representations had been made to Cuba. I do not know what the date was and I would be glad, if he wishes, to look it up in Hansard. I said, in connection with the reply, that I had given it in the House some weeks ago. However, I did not-


An hon. Member:: What about more recently?


An hon. Member:: You covered up.


John R. Rodriguez: What about the CIA intervention in Chile?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With the greatest of respect to the right hon. gentleman, if not to me, he at least deserves a full reply to his question.

Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: When some hon. gentlemen have been around here as long as the right hon. gentleman has been, they will learn that the advice he gave me was very good. It was, not to speak unless I had something worthwhile to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Sit down then.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to answer the right hon. gentleman, I have not made direct representations to the U.S.S.R. I thought his question was about Cuba, and in the case of Cuba I have done so.


Donald W. Munro: When?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Within the last three or four weeks, certainly, and prior to that on another occasion, and I will be pleased to find the date. In so far as the U.S.S.R. is concerned I am sure, from other conversations I have had, that they are perfectly well aware of our position and I will be glad to make it more emphatic to them, if that is desirable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been here a long while, and watched the minister for whom I have great respect. This was the first time he completely lost his equilibrium.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now that it has been restored, I ask him, what did Cuba say? What was the report and what was the summary of Cuba's reaction to this protest on the part of the minister?


Donald W. Munro: Silence.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the kind of answer I can give in the question period. Incidentally, if I have lost my equilibrium, I can only say that if the right hon. gentleman has read every word of Hansard this last little while, perhaps he has, too. I have the same problem, because 1 have been reading his books.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will concede that the books are substantially more interesting than Hansard. In any event, as the right hon. gentleman knows from his long experience, these matters are delivered and presented to the emissaries of the foreign country. There is not at that time anything other than an acknowledgement of receipt of the protest. I will have to inquire, to see whether within recent days there has been any written response.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport who reports for Canadian National Railways has to do with the purchase of steel rails by Canadian National Railways from Sydney Steel Corporation, a matter which I have raised previously and which, apparently on one occasion, the Prime Minister considered with favour. Since we have had massive lay-offs of steelworkers from the Sydney steel plant, would the minister investigate the report that Canadian National is purchasing rails from Colorado Fuel and Iron in Pueblo, Colorado? If this report is correct could he, as minister responsible, try to have these rails purchased from SYSCO, in order that we can get our steelworkers back to work?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course I will investigate the report, but I ought to say right now, in order to meet the suggestion that there may be truth to the report, that I am convinced the report is completely untrue. Following meetings I had with my colleague, the government House leader, and meetings I had with people from the Sydney area, I held discussions with Dr. Bandeen. He was very much concerned about the position of SYSCO and the employees of that region, and he entered into immediate discussions with SYSCO. I have not had a detailed report about the complete conclusions of those discussions but look forward to receiving it soon.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his reply. It is true that there have been discussions. Indeed, an order was placed for slightly more than 79,000 tons of rail, which is trivial. If we are purchasing rails from American firms and our steelworkers are walking the streets, indeed, some of them losing their homes, would the minister and the government not impress on Canadian National Railways that we should "buy in Canada first" on this occasion when over one million of our people are unemployed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it was obvious from my answer that that, certainly, is my view as well. I really think it would be better not to found questions and answers on a rumour about a certain action until we have checked the facts, otherwise we may unnecessarily concern people and influence unfavourably their attitudes toward the railway.


Robert Muir: The situation could hardly be worse. Workers are losing their homes.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the minister, instead of referring outside the House to a
February 9, 1977

program which repudiates an undertaking given by his predecessor, would be prepared to make a statement on motions about the government's policy relating to cadet uniforms?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any need for a statement on motions. The decision has been made. It was pending for some time. It caused some people concern; however, in general I am certain that it will be to the benefit of all the cadet forces and the armed forces with which they are identified.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I echo the comment, that it is nonsense. In light of the serious unemployment facing Canada and the crisis through which the Canadian fibre and textile industry is going, is the minister not prepared to review this undertaking and live up to his predecessor's undertaking, in order that naval and air cadets may go on wearing the uniform they prefer?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to review the matter. I have had discussions with leaders of cadet leagues. All are not happy with the decision. But I am sure our youth will be challenged more by meaningful, exciting programs than by the uniform. I think they want to be more in line with the thinking of the twentieth century, and how the armed forces are conducted today rather than how they have been conducted.


Mr. Hees:: You mean, they will forget the old uniform.


AIRPORTS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the reports of senior airline officials saying that Mirabel airport will lose nearly $50 million in the year ending March 31, 1977, because of the federal government's faulty planning with regard to the number of passengers who would use the airport, and since the ministry of transport is now considering who should absorb the loss, can the minister say if he agrees with the estimate, with the figure I mentioned, and indicate what party or parties will be absorbing the losses incurred as a result of his own department's error with respect to this elephant blanc?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, passenger arrivals at Mirabel did not reach the levels which it had been thought might have been reached, for several reasons, including the general drop in air travel in North America as compared with trend line projections. The reason also has to do with certain local transportation difficulties and inconveniences.


George Harris Hees: It's too far from Mirabel.
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: I am referring to connecting services to the west to Montreal from Mirabel. The result is a figure carried, you might say, as an actual accounting figure of a total loss in the area of perhaps $47 million. I should emphasize that of that amount, $43 million is an item carried as the interest charge on the construction costs. It is carried as part of the full analysis of our major airports and air costs. The amounts involved are related directly to the airport revolving fund against the principle that we generally should be very clear about the cost of maintaining these major airports as a facility for air travel.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not address himself to the part of the question as to who will be paying for this very substantial loss, including the interest carry over. Will the minister indicate what plans he or the department have to bring this up to a break-even proposition at least, if he is in fact introducing a user-pay concept? Is he going to move more flights from Dorval? Is that his plan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the use of Mirabel is under examination in terms of the speed with which various flights should be brought into that airport in order to give the best service to people and, indeed, to add more connecting flights at Mirabel to encourage its use, thereby avoiding an overloading of other airports such as Malton and Dorval. The accounting figure, which this year shows as a loss, is really based on the difference between costs and revenues, including the total interest charge on the original construction. That was balanced in the same way in other years in other airports where a net figure is shown and where there is a surplus. The total of these amounts in the airport revolving fund approach is, of course, carried and progressively in due course will more closely be charged to those who use airport facilities where there is high capacity. That is the plan. That is the intention. Frankly, the total airport service is best paid for in that manner rather then put upon the backs of those who may choose to ride the bus and who may indeed be your average Canadian.


THE ESTIMATES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister give a more precise indication today as to when he expects to table the main estimates because as time goes on, we run into a much shorter season. May 31, which is the date the guillotine falls, is not that far away.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my present plans are to table the estimates on February 16.

Oral Questions SMALL BUSINESS


REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FORM IMPORT QUOTAS ON TEXTILES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State responsible for small businesses. In view of the fact that thousands of small and specialty import shops, who by the way are in no way attempting to compete with the large textile industry, are in fact on the verge of extinction as a result of having to comply with the government's new import quotas on textiles, can the minister advise whether he has made any representations to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to have these quotas exempt for the small businessman in order to allow this large group to survive.


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. We have been extremely concerned about the effects of this policy on the small business community. With regard to the allocation of the quotas and the treatment of the so-called hardship cases, I think we have treated them very well. In the short time available to me I cannot give the hon. member a complete rundown. However, I would be happy to do so later if he wishes. If he knows of any particular cases or groups of cases he would like me to look into, I would be happy to help him.


Otto John Jelinek: Being responsible for small businesses, surely the minister must know there are thousands of companies across the country that are on the verge of dropping out. Has the minister asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to exempt these companies from the quotas, whether these exemptions will in fact take place and when can the small businesses which are hanging on expect these exemptions to take place? They cannot last much longer and the minister knows that.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to give the hon. member a detailed rundown later. However, I am satisfied that the small business people who are involved as a result of this new policy are being treated as fairly as possible. I am advised that there is undoubtedly some hardship, but it is being kept to a minimum.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: 
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. There was no reaction to a statement by the fishermen which points out the fact that in deploying surveillance and patrol capability to Newfoundland, the minister left the widest area of Newfoundland without protection. Will the minister reconsider his decision and extend the surveillance and patrol capability to include the west and southwest coasts which is the largest area?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, if there are any situations that have not been covered, we would certainly like to know about it. Our patrols go where they are requested to go by the Department of Fisheries. That area is not left uncovered. Indeed, it is well covered from Summerside, P.E.I. as well as from other operations. If I recall correctly, basically it is within the jurisdiction of our patrol aircraft from Summerside, P.E.I. when it is requested.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister tell the House whether the government intends to oppose the nomination of Mr. Mario Arnello as Chilean ambassador to Canada because of his alleged fascist background and his admitted activities in the secret police of General Pinochet?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have had this question called to my attention. To date, however, there is no official action that has been taken because to the best of my knowledge no formal request for accreditation has taken place. I will make further inquiries and advise the hon. member.
February 9, 1977



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, with my thanks to Dr. Robin Badgley, Dr. Marion G. Powell and Denyse Fortin Caron, in both official languages the report of the committee on the operation of the abortion law, and a summary thereof.


INCOME TAX ACT
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice yesterday of my intention to propose a motion under Standing Order 75C for the purpose of allocating time on Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. As the House knows, this bill has now been under debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister, having given notice yesterday in accordance with the Standing Order is, of course, at liberty to move the motion today, but I wonder whether the House would agree that before he proceeds we should dispose of questions on the order paper and notices of motions for the production of papers. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,020, 1,024, 1,093, 1,094, 1,125, 1,126, 1,127, 1,129, 1,136, 1,271, 1,272, 1,290 and 1,305.


Mr. Howie: As of November 1, 1976, how many persons in the Constituency of York-Sun-bury were receiving Unemployment Insurance?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: as of November 1, 1976, 3,473 (estimated figure.)
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: As of November 1, 1976, how many persons in the Constituency of York-Sun-bury were registered for employment with local Canada manpower offices?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Approximately 5,600. Because the area served by the Fredericton Canada Manpower Centre does not include all of the Constituency of York-Sunbury, registered clients residing in Sugar Brook, McAdam and Ste. Croix are excluded from this Figure. Conversely, the Canada Manpower Centre serves a portion of the constituency of Fundy-Royal and the above Figure includes registered residents of Bronson, Chipman, Newcastle Creek, Cumberland Bay, Newcastle Bridge and Minto.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, how many claims for unemployment insurance made at Fredericton, New Brunswick were (a) accepted (b) rejected?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a) 12,653 claims for which beneFits were paid; (b) 2,016 claims for which no benefits were paid.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For each month from April 1, 1975 to November 1, 1976, how many persons were registered for employment at each Manpower office in (a) Woodstock (b) Fredericton (c) Minto, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the breakdown for each office?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1975	1976
April	8782	January	6713May	9526	February	7882June	8261	March	6943July	6584	April	8238August	6487	May	8835September	5929	June	8387October	5250	July	6789November	5321	August	7264December	6018	September	7089October	5005November	57111975	(a)	(b)	(c)Woodstock	Fredericton	MintoApril	1491	6173	1118May	1910	6422	1194
Order Paper Questions
1975	(a) Woodstock	(b) Fredericton	(c) MintoJune	1357	5846	1058July	1229	4598	757August	1234	4334	919September	1089	3906	934October	884	3564	802November	962	3645	714December	1167	3981	8701976	January	1339	4358	1016February	1353	5212	1317March	1395	4888	660April	1488	6185	565May	1513	6443	879June	1275	6602	510July	1164	4855	770August	1049	5591	624September	832	5476	781October	743	3561	701November	818	4173	720


Mr. Yewchuk: What research projects is the Department of National Health and Welfare sponsoring or conducting on the effects of Carbon Black (food grade) on human health?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: At present, the Department of National Health and Welfare has underway studies to1 assess the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content of samples of food grade carbon black presently used in Canada. Results of this study are not yet available. Recently, the U.S. has placed restrictions on the most common methods of producing food grade carbon black. There is evidence in the literature to suggest that the carbon black may actually protect experimental animals from the effects of PAH impurities. The Department of National Health and Welfare, in addition to conducting studies, is continuously surveying world literature on carbon black.


Mr. Yewchuk: What research projects is the Department of National Health and Welfare sponsoring or conducting on the possible existence of co-carcinogens in the Canadian food supply?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of National Health and Welfare has ongoing research programs to identify co-carcinogens in the food supply. These programs involve testing of food additives, environmental contaminants, pesticides and natural toxins, for potential mutagenic (carcinogenic) effects both singly and in combination with known carcinogens or mutagens. Analytical methods are being used in an attempt to identify suspect co-carcinogens in foods and food additives. These research programs also involve extensive review and evaluation of world literature on co-carcinogenesis on a contin-
[Mr. Cullen.)
uous basis. This includes maintaining liaison with experts in the WHO and FAO, U.S. National Cancer Institute and the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. Scientists of the Department serve as advisors and consultants to these groups with respect to carcinogenesis in general.


Mr. Yewchuk: What research projects is the Department of National Health and Welfare sponsoring or conducting on the combinatory effects of additives in the Canadian food supply?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of National Health and Welfare does not have a research program specifically on the combinatory effects of food additives in the Canadian food supply. To be effective, such a program would require massive concentration of resources and is feasible only on an international scale. Attempts are being made by Canada and other countries, to initiate international collaboration on such research. However, the department tests many food additive combinations as part of the research programs on co-carcinogens in the food supply (See Parliamentary Inquiry No. 1126). In addition, departmental scientists continuously monitor world literature to obtain all available information on the combinatory effects of food additives.



RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS WHICH ARTIFICIAL FOOD


Mr. Yewchuk: What research projects is the Department of National Health and Welfare sponsoring or conducting on the effects which artificial food additives may have on human moods and human emotions?


Marc Lalonde: Changes in human moods or emotions may be associated with allergenicity and/or hyperkinesis and behavioral problems. The Department of National Health and Welfare, in conjunction with an outside agency through a health grant, is sponsoring a research program to identify food constituents which may be responsible for the induction of hyperkinetic states or learning difficulties in children. Children are being tested for allergies to certain food components, and will be tested for allergies to food additives when adequate analytical methods are available. Such methods are currently being developed by departmental scientists. The Department is fully aware of world research on the possible relationship between food additives and mood changes, including mood changes associated with hyperactivity. The matter of artificial food additives and the effects they may have on human moods and emotions has previously been discussed in the House of Commons during private member's hour, October 29, 1976. At that time, a summary of information currently available was outlined.



COSTS ON DEPORTATION

Mr. Robinson: What amount has the government spent on effecting deportation cases in the years 1974 to date?
Hon. Jack Cullen Immigration):
(Minister of Manpower and
Costs on:
for 1974-75
1975-	76
1976-	77
Transportation

Detention

Total costs $6,745,304



ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF THE FAMILY ALLOWANCES PROGRAMME

Mr. Herbert: What is the administrative cost of the Family Allowances Programme?
Order Paper Questions



PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE LIFESTYLE PROGRAMME

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What extramural studies were commissioned by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the philosophical implications of the Lifestyle Programme?
2.	What were the titles and authors of papers produced as a result of such studies?
3.	What was the cost of such studies?


Marc Lalonde: 1 and 2. A report entitled "The Ethical Aspects of Government Intervention Into Individual Behaviour" was prepared by Professor Rodrigue Johnson while under contract to the Department. The report was produced within the context of Professor Johnson's over-all responsibility to provide advice on various social dimensions and implications of departmental programs aimed at preserving or improving the health of Canadians through changes in their lifestyle and environment.
3. It is not possible to isolate the cost of Professor Johnson's work on the report from the other activities he undertook while under contract.


Marc Lalonde: The approximate administrative cost of the Family Allowances Programme for the fiscal year 1975-76 is $11,343,000.



ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF OLD AGE

Mr. Herbert: What is the administrative cost of the Old Age Security Programme and of this amount, how much is estimated to be the cost of the administration of the supplementary payments?


Marc Lalonde: The approximate administrative cost of the Old Age Security Programme for the fiscal year 1975-76 is $18,167,000. The estimated cost of the administration of the supplementary payments (the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Spouse's Allowance) is $9,759,000 of the previous total.



SITE UTILITIES AT ENVIRONMENT CENTRE IN ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. McKinley: What was the Final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on October 2, 1975 to McNamara Corporation of Newfoundland Ltd. to provide site utilities at the Environment Centre in St. John's?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Estimated final contract cost, $2,260,000. Anticipated completion date, March 31, 1977. The actual date of contract award was September 17, 1975.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 757 could be made an order for return, that return will be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS

Mr. Brisco: 1.	Did provincial registrars of firearms, in 1974 and 1975, come to Ottawa to discuss registration of firearms or of gun owners with the Solicitor General, Minister of Justice or with members of their staff and, if so, by province (a) how many (b) who were they (c) from what cities, towns or communities (d) how were they invited and who invited them (e) on what dates?
2.	What was the total cost of travel and expenses for all provincial firearm registrars and who bore the cost?
3.	(a) What specific recommendations did they make to federal officials regarding gun control and/or firearms or firearm owner registration (b) how many were subsequently accepted or adopted by the Office of the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice (c) how many appeared in Bill C-83 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament and, in what form?
4.	(a) How many air, army and navy cadets now receive weapons training (b) what weapons are they trained to use (c) in what location does such training take place (d) who are the instructors and what background for teaching and training in weaponry has each (e) what is the minimum age of the cadets in each branch (army, navy and air) that receives such training (0 what is the (i) average (ii) maximum age?
Return tabled.

Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 2, 20, 21, 25, 46 and 47?
[ Text]



COPIES OF MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL TASK FORCE AND MATERIALS PERTAINING TO SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings of the interdepartmental task force on integration of government vessels and aircraft and copies of all materials considered by the committee pertaining to search and rescue operations and the patrolling and surveillance of Canada's coastal waters.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are internal departmental documents of a confidential nature and cannot be produced. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF DeHAVILLAND AICRAFT CORP.
Motion No. 20-Mr. Whiteway:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings, correspondence, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements considered by the government in the acquisition of DeHavilland Aircraft Corp.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.



COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO CANADAIR AIRCRAFT CORP.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Whiteway:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of ail meetings, correspondence, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements considered by the government in the acquisition of Canadair Aircraft Corp.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.



COPIES OF ALL MINUTES OF MEETINGS AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE ON SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS, LAKE WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Whiteway:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings of the interdepartmental task force on integration of government vessels and aircraft and copies of all materials considered by the committee on search and rescue operations and the patrolling of Lake Winnipeg.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.



COPIES OF FILES IN THE POSSESSION OF DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL RELATING TO PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT ADMINISTRATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Towers:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the contents of the file or files in the possession of the Department of the Solicitor General and/or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relating to the investigation concerning Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.



COPIES OF ALL PAPERS RELATING TO DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE AND DENMARK IN REGARD TO 200-MILE LIMIT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Crouse:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, minutes of meetings, telegrams, etc., relating to the discussions between the government and the governments of the United States, France and Denmark, with regard to the proposed 200-mile limit.
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, several public statements describe the results of the negotiations in which the government of Canada has participated in this field. The requested documents deal with discussions between Canada and foreign governments. Their publication would be detrimental to the position held by Canada during those negotiations, which are still going on. It is therefore with the deepest regret that I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
February 9, 1977


Mr. Crouse:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That in relation to Bill C-22, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration and third reading and passage stage of the bill; that at the end of the said sitting day any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted if required for the purpose of this order, and any question then necessary in order to dispose of the third reading and passage stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 and the budget proposals which that bill contains have been before the House since May 25, and in addition to the nine sitting days on which the bill has been under debate in the House during the current session the proposals which the bill embodies were the subject matter of six days' debate during the course of consideration of the budget last spring. In the circumstances, I think one can fairly say that this period of time, including the day involved in the order now before the House, will amount to a full two weeks of House sittings and that this is more than ample time for the House to consider and debate these proposals.
It has, however, ceased to be a question of debate at this point. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has indicated an intention to take all the future time of the House in debating this particular matter: I would refer hon. members to his speech in the course of the debate on Monday last. So we are no longer to have any debate on this question but are to be treated to a monologue by the hon. gentleman for the balance of this week. In these circumstances, it seems to me unreasonable to other members, to our conduct of the business of the House and, indeed, to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians who are waiting to complete their income tax returns to further prolong the period during which the measure would be under debate. It is for these reasons I seek the support of the House to bring to an end the third reading and final stage after one further full sitting day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister trying to justify the motion today by saying, first, that this matter had been before the House since the budget speech in May of 1976, and I began to wonder why we have waited from the first part of the session to bring it on.
Income Tax Act
That is the first question in my mind. I do not want to defend the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), but I think that what really happened in terms of the planning of the House is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has been caught with his pants down. That is really the difficulty in which the government finds itself. Of course there have been six days of debate on the budget speech. That is not unusual. It is hardly justification for a closure motion by the government. The rules of the House call for that, and I do not know how the minister can use that as justification for bringing in a closure motion.
If there is a filibuster-and I think there is a filibuster by the NDP, in particular by the hon. member for Nickel Belt-[DOT] then the blame for that filibuster lies in the hands of the government. The government made the difficulty. I assume the Minister of Finance, who is a former House leader-in fact, he was the House leader who pushed through the rules and Standing Orders of this House under which we are operating and which he is now seeking our permission to use-would have known that the first opposition speaker would have the right of unlimited debate under Standing Order 31.1 would therefore have assumed he would have planted a speaker- they plant questions from time to time, Mr. Speaker-who could justify the beginning of the proceedings.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That would have to be an opposition speaker.


Walter David Baker: In any event, he knew full well, from the way the debate had been handled by the official opposition, that we had no intention of prolonging the matter. As he reviews the course of the debate, he will see that our party had taken the position that the matters contained in the bill, the help it gives to business, the parts dealing with changes for day care, and other things the minister referred to the first time he asked for closure with respect to this matter, are of some importance to this party. What we have is the Minister of Finance coming before the House of Commons as the victim of the failure to give priority to certain government business, the victim of the time devoted to government business being really a wasteland in terms of the pre-Christmas era, the victim of the stubbornness of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who refused to pull out of Bill C-19 certain clauses until he was beaten into the ground by the opposition, withdrew the clauses and the bill passed. He is the victim-in fact, he is the epitome-of the mismanagement of the business of this House. He then comes to the House and asks its members to bail him out of his dilemma. That is exactly where he stands, Mr. Speaker.
I am interested in seeing government business go through the House, but I am not going to suggest to my colleagues in the official opposition that they ought to become the "fall guys" for mismanagement. They would not get the credit for it, in any event, and the precedent would be used against them

February 9, 1977
Income Tax Act
in view of the attitude of the government with respect to the rules.


Mr. Railton:: Don't belabour the point. You are wasting time..


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) tells me not to belabour the point. There is a reason we ought not to belabour the point so far as the hon. member is concerned: he is ashamed of the way the government has handled the business of the House, and he has every reason to be ashamed.


Samuel Victor Railton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) is rising on a point of order.


Samuel Victor Railton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to take that kind of nonsense from the opposition House leader. He has made his point many times in the last ten minutes, so why does he not sit down and be satisfied? He is wasting the time of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That is a point for debate, not a question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is evident from the interjection just made that the point is worthy of being made in the House over and over again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should get back to the bill under discussion.


Walter David Baker: So, Mr. Speaker, the situation is this. The Minister of Finance finds himself in a parliamentary bind in terms of the length of time he has had to debate the bill and the time during which he could have brought forward the bill had he wanted to do so. There is absolutely no reason why the official opposition ought to be party to this kind of thing. But this is not to say that we can condone a filibuster. I am not condoning a filibuster; I am putting the case as best I can, as I did the other day, in parliamentary terms. I think the case that the NDP are making in terms of pension is a bad one. I think it is a bad case they are making in terms of resisting the bill, which is of benefit to day care centres. I think they are going to carry a large can around their necks for holding up the rebates. But that is their choice, Mr. Speaker: they have made their bed and they can lie on it.
From the case the Minister of Finance has put-and I listened to him carefully-we cannot honestly support the idea that closure, or the guillotine rule, which is really what it is, will be used by a government because it has failed so to manage its affairs and has left an important piece of legislation, which in itself is important to Canadians, to the last minute. He then tried to foist the responsibility for this on the opposition. I do not think that we as a party can stand for that, and we are not going to.
Perhaps this is a lesson for the government that there is a case to be made for giving priority to certain legislation. There is a case for not jumping from bill to bill during the course of debate. Even during the course of the committee proceedings we suddenly found ourselves faced with the necessity of reorganizing the Department of Manpower and Immigration. There is a case to be made for some sense of order and planning to be given government business. If the fact that there must be two motions under Standing Order 75C to guillotine debate is any indication, it is an indication of only one thing: in terms of planning, in terms of setting forth its legislative priorities, particularly during the first part of the session when a great amount of time was wasted, not through the fault of the opposition but because of the stubbornness of the Minister of Transport in relation to Bill C-19, there is no case for supporting this motion and we do not intend to do so.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, except for his failure to appreciate the good case that we in this party have for an extended debate on Bill C-22, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) stated the situation clearly and exactly as it is. The government is in the mess in which it finds itself today because it has failed completely to plan the business of the House and because it has dilly-dallied with respect to the income tax legislation.
In the attempt today of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to justify in some way this motion, he had to remind us that what we are dealing with is a bill that came out of the budget of last May, which was presented during the last session of parliament. Even though the government failed to get the bill before us in that session, and brought it in only early in November of this new session, we still did not start to debate it until December and the government made no serious effort to get it through before the Christmas break. Now, to come along and use closure for the second time on the same piece of legislation, we suggest-as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has put it-is an indication of complete lack of management, complete failure to give any scale of priority to the business of this House.


Samuel Victor Railton: You are wasting time again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall have something to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Railton) in a moment. I have seen a good many uses of closure. There have been far more of them in the last number of years than there were in the first 75 years of the business of this House.


An hon. Member:: This is not closure; it is allocation of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call it what you will, it is closure. I think this is the most ridiculous application of closure that parliament has ever seen. What this minister is doing is rising, with all the authority of the cabinet and the majority that the government has, to stop one member who happens to be a teacher from the backwoods of northern Ontario, as he described himself the other day, from speaking.

February 9, 1977


Ralph Goodale: Poor little Johnny.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was his own
description-a poor little school teacher from the backwoods of Ontario. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, bringing in closure to stop one member from making a speech! When the Minister of Finance, in defence of what he is doing, said that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) had said that he would speak for all of the future time, that is quite a phrase. I did not know that my hon. friend for Nickel Belt had been given immortality in this House so that he could speak forever. I think even that member has to terminate at some point.
But let me get to the interjection of my hon. friend from Welland, who said that we were wasting the time of the House by having this debate. I am very serious when I stress the point that if there is anything that we have to stick to in this place, it is the rule of law. Standing Order 31 of the rules of this House gives to the first opposition member replying to a minister who has moved a government order the right to speak without time limit. No member of the official opposition rose to speak in reply. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) says he rose. But he did not speak. I had been trying to persuade my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West, to speak. At any rate, as it worked out the hon. member for Nickel Belt was the first member to speak in reply to the moving of the third reading, and under Standing Order 31 he has the right to speak without time limit.
If rules mean anything, Mr. Speaker, they should stand. For the government to come along and say it does not want this particular member exercising a right set out in Standing Order 31, and that they are going to use their majority in the middle of the game to change the rule is, I suggest, most unfair.
I am not surprised that some of my hon. friends to the right and across the way did not like the kind of speech the hon. member for Nickel Belt was making the other night and they did not like the prospect that he might speak for some considerable time yet. My friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), says it was the reading of the Bible that bothered them.


An hon. Member:: As long as he believes it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is happening now is not just an attempt by the government to cut off debate, but the government is using the weight of its power and authority to stop one little member from exercising his rights.


An hon. Member:: An insignificant little member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not insignificant; to use his own description, he is a little school teacher from the backwoods of northern Ontario. I enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) last night when he said it was the happiest day of his life because he did not have to listen to the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Then about three minutes later he complained that the bill
Income Tax Act
before us was too complicated for him to understand because he was just a simple school teacher. The hon. member for Victoria may not like the hon. member for Nickel Belt, but they are brothers; they are both simple-


John R. Rodriguez: Not simple.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -little school teachers. All these things aside, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is a very serious matter to use the authority of the majority to deny a right that is in the rules and that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was exercising. I also think it is a very serious thing to deny further debate on this important bill. We had just reached clause 65 in committee of the whole when the last guillotine fell. Clause 65 deals with the question of a surtax which the government is continuing for the year 1976 at too low a rate, and is not continuing for the year 1977. We think that is a very important matter, yet there was no opportunity to discuss it in committee of the whole but for about a minute and a half, and that was hardly discussion.
If debate on third reading is not allowed to continue, there will be no opportunity to discuss it at this stage. As a matter of fact it is no secret that the hon. member for Nickel Belt at the end of his speech intends to move that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 65. That is an issue of substance, and if the debate is cut off by this motion there will be no chance to refer back to committee of the whole or to give further consideration to that clause or the many other clauses that the committee did not reach.
Because I think it is unfair to use the big weight of the government to crush-


Ralph Goodale: A week-long speech is unfair. Do you think it is fair to make a week-long speech?


Mr. Epp:: It was a weak speech, if that is what you mean.


John R. Rodriguez: Who made the rules?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor, and I would suggest that he get back to the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I want to do. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) that the length of a speech does not matter. A ten-minute speech can be too long, and a week-long speech can be short.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: How do you spell "week"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that there are rules in this place and the hon. member for Nickel Belt was simply exercising his right under those rules. For the government to come in now and use another rule to deny the rights under the earlier rule is completely unfair, I

February 9, 1977
Income Tax Act
suggest, and is another example of its dictatorial, authoritarian attitude. It is a disservice to parliament that the government has brought this motion before us today, and we shall oppose it as strongly as we can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there being so much talk about saving time, I shall therefore save time and express briefly my viewpoint.
I feel it is absolutely deplorable to waste time debating a motion of closure when criticizing an hon. member's intentions. When the Chair hears an hon. member asking questions criticizing a minister's intentions during the oral questions period, he is told that he is out of order. I cannot see how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) can move a motion of closure in criticizing a member's intentions, because the latter allegedly said that if need be he would talk till the end of time, or something to this effect.
I think it would be helpful to wait a little to find out whether we are overdoing it. The principle is at stake and I think we have here another proof that we would be well advised to urge the Committee on Procedure and Organization to spell out conditions, in agreement with the cabinet, setting precisely a calendar of sitting days; with the help of this calendar, the House leaders could come to an agreement on the debates that should take place on substantive legislation that the government has to introduce.
And if we all act in good faith, I think we shall not have to complain about situations like this one. I understand that the majority of members in the House are indeed in favour of such a procedure to make our proceedings more efficient and rapid. If some days are left to discuss very secondary matters, when we have more time to discuss, then we can use them.
I was a farmer for a long time and when the time came to make hay, I did not waste my time on ploughing. I made the hay, and then, if there was time left after that, I went to take the plough out. That is how I organized my personal life. I think we would be able, if we really wanted to be objective, to organize our proceedings so that we could pass the legislation presented to us by the government, even if we need not always agree with them. But after all, we must be reasonable. So I think that in the circumstances-


An hon. Member:: I agree with that!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: -given the circumstances, it has been decided that discussions be limited on second reading in the committee of the whole. Everything went smoothly and we are now at the outset of third reading. We did not even wait for the statement of the hon. member who rose the day before yesterday. Therefore, I think we should not presume of his intention to speak for one, two or three weeks. The same situation might happen to a government member who could find himself in the opposition seats one day. He would not then

appreciate being penalized in such a way. Do as you would be done by.
I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) should give second thoughts to the matter and if, one day, I realized that we are making fun in the House by unduly prolonging debates with all kinds of nonsense, I would then propose to strengthen the rules so we are not forced to use this famous closure. I do not like it because it smacks of dictatorship. I prefer democracy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words concerning the motion proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I think it is important that we acknowledge the point that has been made, that the rule is very clear that the first speaker on this side of the House to respond has unlimited time. Frankly, I am a little surprised that government members have reacted so violently to the huffing and puffing of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) the other evening. We who have lived with the hon. member in committee understand that he puffs and blows quite a bit in committee, but generally, he quietens down and that is the end of him. For some reason the Minister of Finance seemed to get over exercised, and before anyone in the House was properly aware of it he was talking closure, "Shut him up," and the rest of it.
The reason I am very much opposed to the approach of the Minister of Finance is that I think this is a very dangerous precedent. The rules state very clearly that there is unlimited time for the first speaker on this side of the House. When are we going to find that closure will be used on a speaker who has only 30, 40 or 50 minutes just because the Minister of Finance does not like to hear what that hon. member is saying?
The fact is that the Minister of Finance does not seem to have the clout on his side of the House to get priority for his legislation to pass through the House. Various bills-I will not recite them-have received priority in debate, but for some reason the Minister of Finance has not been able to secure the time to get, for example, Bill C-22 before the House in adequate time to have a full discussion including committee of the whole stage and a full debate. Why is that? If the Minister of Finance is in that position, why should we on this side of the House be expected to bail him out? I suggest that not only with respect to Bill C-22 has he been most reluctant to advance his legislation. There is a long list of bills which I believe should be given priority, yet for reasons only known to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance and the government House leader, they are not getting priority.
I have often raised the question in the House as to why the minister, for example, does not come before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to deal with Bill C-5 which has been referred to that committee. For reasons that are not clear to me, he has categorically refused to give us in committee the benefit of his evidence on Bill C-5.
February 9, 1977

We are told we must wait until the Bretton Woods Agreement comes up along with Bill C-5. That is not good enough. Why have we not had some type of economic review in the committee? Why have we not had, for example, a review on the question of the de-control and post-control period with respect to the AIB? For reasons that are not understandable to me, the minister seems to have become the most secretive Minister of Finance who has been in office, certainly for decades-and that is saying a lot.


John R. Rodriguez: He is not more secret than Turner was.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Whatever happened to the Bank Act? Last fall we had a paper on the Bank Act and we understood that some priority was given to get the Bank Act moving. In the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs we even suggested to the Minister of Finance that he refer that paper to the committee so we could start in a preliminary way hearing witnesses in anticipation of the Bank Act being introduced. But nothing more was heard. I can only presume that the Bank Act will be hoisted and some time in 1978 or 1979 the parliament of the day may have to consider what changes may or may not be needed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under closure.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In short, it is the Minister of Finance who seems to have bungled. I believe that we on this side would be most ill-advised to support his closure motion when something has gone wrong. Basically, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and we should not be called upon to bail him out.
I have no idea why the Minister of Finance changed his mind with respect to speaking on Bill C-22 on third reading. Initially he indicated to me that he intended to speak. I welcomed that because I felt there were a large number of very pertinent questions raised on second reading and in committee of the whole stage and if, in fact, we were faced with closure-which we were-I felt that the least the Minister of Finance could do after closure was to rise in his place and extend to the House the courtesy of some remarks on the points raised in committee of the whole and second reading. But for reasons known only to the Minister of Finance he decided not to give the House any information whatsoever on third reading: he chose not to speak.
I fully intended to respond to the Minister of Finance when he indicated to me that he intended to speak. I believe that perhaps that was the initial mistake made by the Minister of Finance. When the Minister of Finance indicated that he would not be speaking to the House-I only got that secondhand-it was decided that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would speak for five or ten minutes, touching particularly on some of the more technical aspects of the legislation. We wanted to make it clear that we did not propose to delay the bill unduly, closure having taken place, that we would make a few more points and then allow third reading. But, as we know and as the hon. member for Edmonton-West indicated, he was not recognized when he attempted
Income Tax Act
to rise and the floor was given to the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
That being the case, and the Minister of Finance having set the stage by not speaking himself, it ill behooves him to bring in a measure such as the one before us today, the guillotine, to cut off the speaker who had the opportunity to speak as the result of the bill going into third reading stage. Surely what we have to ask ourselves, with the problems that are facing this nation, the economic slump, the overtaxation and the overspending at the federal government level, why is the Minister of Finance so reluctant to allow debate in the House touching on economic subjects and, in particular, so reluctant to give us some insight as to what is happening or is not happening in the Department of Finance?
The time has come for a few explanations, and I hope on opposition day tomorrow we will have the benefit of some insight that we have not received to date from the government as to what they intend to do to rectify the slump in which the nation finds itself, to make the necessary tax cuts and to give incentives to business to allow it to create some of the jobs that are needed, especially in the five eastern provinces.
In short, now is not the time for closure; it is the time for further debate in this House on the serious economic condition of this country. It is time to learn what measures, if any, the government proposed in order to rectify some of the problems we are now living with and which, I suggest, the government went a long way toward creating.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity today to take part in this debate, because it is high time the work of this House was speeded up beyond the snail's pace at which it has been moving since I have been here. In my view, we would be doing the nation a great service if we brought the rules of this institution into the twentieth century. Obviously, the tactic of the opposition is to castigate the government for trying to destroy parliament. That is pious tripe, and that tactic is used only to cover its own tracks. It has been my observation that in this House government proposes but the opposition disposes. Many of the opposition tactics are designed and executed not in the interests of the public but in an attempt to score cheap partisan points in order to embarrass the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I am getting tired of the way the opposition stalls and delays and then makes sanctimonious speeches blaming the government for not proceeding with its legislative proposals. So is the public, and this reflects on the opposition. If the government is to proceed with the mandate it received at the last election, it must use the rules which exist to keep legislation moving through the various stages of the legislative process, just as the opposition has been consistently using the rules of the House to delay the
2888

February 9, 1977
Income Tax Act
passage of legislation. The vehicle available to the government is Standing Order 75C.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Are you reading?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Are you
listening?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is typical of members of the opposition; they never listen to anything except their own hollow sounds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Can anyone who has watched the performance of this sanctimonious bunch in condemning the government for trying to get on with its legislative package suggest that the government is not more than justified in applying Standing Order 75C in this debate? During the last few days we have witnessed in this House what I would say is not only an irresponsible but a disgraceful abuse of the rules of this House, and the sole purpose of that charade has been to delay the legislation. Not only has there been repetition piled upon repetition, piled upon nonsense, but the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in particular had the barefaced gall to abuse the patience of other hon. members with a 214-hour diatribe of irrelevant and inconsequential blather which only came to an end when the clock mercifully moved to ten o'clock. This from a member of a party which applies to itself the entire litany of benevolent titles found in Holy Writ and the Lives of the Saints.
Members of the NDP seem to think that because they have canonized themselves as the saviours of the poor in this country, they have a right to delay any legislation they wish, any time they wish, even when, as in this case, their tactics deny to many of our citizens the tax rebates to which they are entitled and which in many cases they need. Sir, the dim lights of their self-imposed halos have grown dimmer, to the point of being extinguished, and their feet of clay have become as obvious as the hollowness of their arguments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It was interesting to see the House leader of the official opposition trying this afternoon to redeem his party from its alliance with the socialists. He talked about a parliamentary bind. Indeed they are in a parliamentary bind, and they are now trying to extricate themselves from the unholy alliance they made- which they would now have us believe they made unwittingly-to delay this legislation. It was interesting, also, to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) talk about respect for the rules. I know of no member of this House who can use the rules of this House for more delaying tactics than that hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Shame!


John Edward Broadbent: That is no way to talk about a "saint".


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member talks about the right of the first speaker under Standing Order 31, but he seems to forget that other members also have rights. We have the right to drive cars, for instance, but we do not have the right to hog the road. When any right impinges upon the rights of others, it is no longer a right but an abuse. Having to listen to the hon. member for Nickel Bell for 214 minutes, let alone anything approaching 2!4 hours, is an abuse to every listener.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Beatty:: His voice is like yours.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The only abuse which could be worse than that would be to have to listen to the opposition member who is now chirping and who probably will not have the guts to get up and make a speech. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-


Mr. Peters:: You are not making a speech now; you are reading the damn thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for York-Simcoe also decried the fact that we do not have the Bank Act before parliament. If the opposition is going to continue to delay and filibuster, what is the point of introducing more legislation? Let us clear up some of the legislation that is now on the order paper. Then the government will introduce additional legislation. The government will then bring forward the Bank Act, if there is any disposition in this House objectively and positively to debate the legislation the government does propose. As far as the rules of this House are concerned, Standing Order 75C is one of them and it is my hope that the government will continue to use it whenever it becomes obvious that the opposition is filibustering the attempts of the government which was elected by a majority of the people to govern this country.

reasons. It is indeed only recently that we realized we might better steady the course the House is taking while studying pieces of legislation.
Let us say at once that it is absolutely not a question of silencing the opposition or limiting debates as such but rather we want to avoid repetitions and improve the proceedings in the House, and this goes for both sides of the House. I would like to return more especially to the application of S.O. 75C. We all know that there are two other means to achieve the same result. At present, we have S.O. 75A and 75B. In S.O. 75A, when there is agreement among all parties, the government House leader rises and may propose a motion which is passed without debate and it is also a matter of time allotment, but merely as a result of an agreement between parties.
In S.O. 75B, the government is allowed to do the same when a majority of parties feel that the time has come to set a limit for those proceedings although a party or a group of members may disagree. Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, when the various parties can not reach agreement, the government may act on its own and propose a motion. Then we have a debate. The same thing happens over and over again during each debate, the government tries to muzzle the opposition, it tries to ram it through.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time once and for all to put some order in this situation and I must say that this work has already been done by the members of all parties in the Committee on Procedure and Organization. Maybe hon. members recall that this committee sat in September and October last year to make a thorough review of the Standing Orders of the House. This matter of time allocation had been discussed by the subcommittees of that very committee. At that time, it had been decided to give each caucus of each party the possibility of making a study and giving its conclusions to the committee to Find a way to avoid in the future such emotional discussions as we have when a motion asking for time allocation is proposed.
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of reference it would be useful to study the contents of the rules that the committee proposed and about which the caucuses have not given reports. In this second session, the committee has still not been allowed to resume the study where it had left off in October of last year.
The problem of Standing Orders 75A, 75B and 75C is a lack of flexibility because, when the government brings them forward, there is an automatic outcry from the opposition, sometimes because of their rigidity. We had provided for two means of action. The First one was ... incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this is a document of the House. I am going to quote directly from the minutes of the Committee on Procedure and Organization and in particular, from the schedules of issue No. 20 of Thursday September 30, 1976.
Two solutions were then suggested and the leader of the opposition was in the House at the time. He will surely remember the discussion among committee members. Two
Income Tax Act
possibilities were being studied. First, assembling rules 75A, 75B and 75C as well as rule 33 in one group. If all the parties agreed, we would then have proceeded somewhat like we are now doing while allowing the debate to proceed on a bill as a whole, and not simply as we now do at one stage or during study in committee. In other words, this aimed at allowing the time required for committee study at all stages.
Secondly, if all parties were not in agreement, the government could allocate a period of time, as now under rule 75C, while ensuring the protection of the rights of the opposition and especially as concerns allocated time, since it has been established that this time allowance could be made at all stages of the debate on the bill. The restrictions were as follows: There must not be more than one day of debate at each stage. Then, existing rules had to be clarified and somewhat simpliFied, while still keeping the present structure of rules 75A, 75B and 75C by allowing once again the government to move such a motion, but which would cover all stages.
What is the problem that we are now facing? Mr. Speaker, it is the second time in ten days that such a motion is moved for the same bill. All this could have been prevented if this rule had been accepted. A motion would be discussed for two hours, and then some time would be allocated for the debate on the bill as a whole. The problem is as follows: the government must propose a motion on two different occasions; both times, two hours are, if not lost, spent in discussing the value of such a motion which, to some extent, is a loss of time when this happens twice.
I wanted to speak not about the substance of the motion, its contents and the reasons which have brought the government to make use of this rule today, but rather to try to cause hon. members to reflect collectively on the matter so that we may once and for all settle the issue of time allowance in the House and that we may take into account the fact that in other jurisdictions it is regular, it is accepted, provided for every day of the week, everybody is aware of that and it has become a custom. Perhaps this House should realize that times are changing and that we should take this into account and because of the number and the substance of the bills, the government will have to make more and more use of amended rules because those we now have are clearly inadequate. That was the committee's conclusion last September, but we should set up a system which in addition to protecting the oppositions's rights, and that is essential, would allow the government to work in an effective way.
My point is the following: The motion under study today is the same we discussed last week. We are now simply at another stage and, had the Standing Orders been more flexible, again we would have avoided all this emotion surrounding the two hour debate on allocation of time. I would urge all parties in the House to renew the mandate of the Committee on Procedure and Organization in this second session so that it might resume the discussion of the already exhaustive document on parliamentary reform. That is simply one aspect, because many others had been reviewed at that time. The
2890

February 9, 1977
Income Tax Act
committee should bring forward to the House precise recommendations to update the procedures which are in many ways archaic and inadequate for 1977.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record immediately as saying that I will vote against the closure motion. The government has used closure too often. It is well to remind the House that when the new income tax legislation originally came before the House, it was piloted through this House, I am sorry to say, by Mr. Pat Mahoney who was then the member representing Calgary South. He did not return to the House in the next election. Hon. members who were here will remember that the new income tax bill was an enormously thick document, easily twice as thick as this bill which I am now holding up. That bill was rammed through the House by closure. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) was so disgusted with that procedure-and I will let hon. members in on a little secret; the hon. member is an ex-football player-that he picked up that bill and tore it in half.


Ralph Goodale: That was a demonstration of amateur sport.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) suggesting that the hon. member was involved in amateur sport. He earned a big salary playing football- $3,800! In his day that was a great deal of money.
Once more the government is imposing taxation by closure. The Liberal party set the precedent. It is giving the Canadian people the castor oil treatment. It is treating them like children, saying, "You are not well; you need the castor oil treatment." The government does not respect people's rights. By imposing closure it is saying to the people, "You are not well. Open your mouth and we will give you castor oil and make you better." That is exactly what the government is doing. As I say, the government is treating us like children. It is saying, "We do not want all this talk on the bill. Parliament is in the way." It thinks the executive is strong. It thinks that because it has the backing of all its seals.


John Edward Broadbent: Principal seals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It has the backing of its principal seals, as the leader of the NDP says. It does not surprise me to see the government once more imposing taxation with closure. It has done it before, but if the recent Gallup poll is any guide it will not do it much more in future. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked about the Governor General's award of merit, I am sure nobody thought for a moment that he intended to go to the country. That, I suggest, is what the Canadian people would like. An election would be a good test. The parliamentary secretary talked about a majority, meaning the government's majority. I point out that the government received only about 40 per cent of the votes and they do not constitute a majority. I should like to see the government test the political water now, put its toe in the water to see what would happen.


Mr. Abbott:: It will test the water in six by-elections.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott). He has his problems. I do not want to worry him or cause him any great anxiety: he is trying to get a bill through the committee; he does not know what is in it and nobody else understands it.
I agree that the rules are to serve parliament and are not to be abused. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) got carried away a bit in his oratory. I was rather refreshed by his debate. After reading the Old Testament he started to read the New Testament. It is a long time since I reviewed many of those chapters. I am sure it was very relevant to this debate on taxation.
The real problem is that we again have the guillotine rule. We know what the government would really like to do. When you carry it right to the end, you might as well lock and chain the door of parliament and just let the executive run it. That is what they would like. They do not like to be prodded into action, if you can ever get them to act. They do not like constructive and responsible criticism of the measures they are trying to force on the Canadian people. I am not excusing the NDP member for abusing the rule. As our House leader said today, and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), if we allow this to be established as a precedent, the Liberal party, knowing the history and traditions of that party, and as the Prime Minister said when he belonged to the NDP-


John Edward Broadbent: He was never a member, so watch it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, there has been a rumour to that effect.


John Edward Broadbent: I am denying it now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Nobody in Quebec is a member of that party.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If you read the article which he wrote about 1960, you will see that the Prime Minister said that the name of the game is power. He said, "Give the Liberals power". They maintain power by handing out the plums, the parliamentary secretaryships, the judgeships, the whole thing. That is how they maintain power. It does not matter about principle; just get into office. That is why they use this method to ram through what they want. That is why I will not endorse by my vote this kind of procedure and this kind of tradition of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a gentleman for whom I have very high personal regard. His knowledge of the rules of this House is perhaps unequalled. He did, however, use the rules in a way which I am sure he will not be proud of when he sits back and thinks of what took place today. He cited Standing Order 31 of this House. It reads as follows:
February 9, 1977

Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, no member, except the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member... shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
It is negative wording. By virtue of this rule, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), whose smile is nothing less than that of a Cheshire cat, and has been ever since he started this debate, is very proud of his contribution. However, I wonder if on reflection the members of his party will share the same pride in that contribution. This is the filibuster rule, according to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It so happened that a member of a minority group on that side was recognized by the Speaker. A member of the official opposition would in most circumstances be recognized. That particular member happened to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. He now demands the right to filibuster just as long as he sees fit.
When I came to my place of work in this House yesterday morning, I listened to the radio. I learned to my chagrin the debate was to go on and that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was going to speak day after day after day. That was, of course, a deliberate, provocative invitation to the government to do something to stop it. We are told by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the government is interfering with the democratic right of the hon. member for Nickel Belt to go on forever, day after day after day, citing the Bible to us and other great moral readings. We do not live in never-never land. There has been a good, adequate, thorough and complete debate on an essential measure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members opposite may find it difficult to accept the principle of a majority deciding. They want to fall back on the filibuster rule and prevent the majority of the members of this House coming to a decision on an important matter of government business. What are the items in the bill? It imposes a surtax on incomes over $30,000. Members opposite try to leave us with the impression the bill takes away the surtax. Without this bill or an equivalent there will not be a surtax. The bill would provide increased allowances for child care. It recognizes the fact of inflation with regard to pension plans and registered retirement savings plans. These are alleged to be iniquitous things, just helping the rich, but they help many members of the unions in this country as well as many in small businesses. Members opposite know that.
There are many people who normally vote for the party which is responsible for this filibuster. They want to see this measure pass. They would certainly file their income tax returns with a great deal more confidence if parliament had completed its business in the orderly way in which a democratic institution should normally be permitted to operate.
I have listened to many acts of sophistry in this House since I have been here. I seem to win every second election, and that is all right. However, never in my career have I heard greater sophistry than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
Income Tax Act
rising with a straight face and telling us it is a democratic right of the hon. member for Nickel Belt to go on day after day after day reading the Bible to us, and that we should content ourselves with such a procedure. He indicated it was a dastardly thing to deprive the hon. member of his democratic right; that the government should not stop him. Who in his right mind could accept that as a version which should guide us in this place? We would be held up to ridicule all across this nation.
I believe that parliament has a responsibility to decide. The government was given no choice but to invoke the rule. The government's action was deliberately provoked by some members of the NDP. I predict they will not be proud of their action when they read the record.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know how anxious the members of the New Democratic Party are to address themselves to this debate. I will take very little time because it is nice to see such a large turnout for a change. I rise because of the opposition being put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in his motion. It causes me serious concern. I wish to address some very serious remarks to the House in light of the fact it has been admitted by a number of speakers, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dionne), that this procedure will be used more and more in the course of the life of this parliament. I recall seeing statements to that effect by the government House leader indicating that they were going to introduce closure under rule 75C on various occasions in order to complete the legislative program.
I have spoken, in the debates with respect to closure, with apprehension and concern in opposition to this tactic because I think it is a reflection not of the interest of the government in giving us legislation which is worthwhile and defendable in debate but, rather, an indication that the government is now panicking with regard to its legislative function because it is afraid to listen to the speeches and criticism of the opposition. It is afraid to let its own members stand up and debate meaningfully the legislation presented to the House. Rather, hon. members opposite want to ram through, with a limited amount of debate, each and every piece of legislation that comes forward. I think this is what they would do if they had the opportunity.
If the members on the government side stopped to think about the position they are taking and what they are doing to what I consider to be the Liberal tradition, the attitude the Liberals have taken over the years-and I am no defender of the Liberal party-the attitude which Mr. St. Laurent took toward the House of Commons and which, indeed, Mackenzie King took toward the House of Commons, the importance they placed on full and unrestricted debate, I believe they would petition the members on the treasury benches not to move a motion to restrict debate. In saying this, I am not suggesting that on the occasions when the Liberal party deviated from what I consider to be the traditional Liberal position they were not punished very severely for their actions.

Income Tax Act
I would remind members supporting the government of what transpired when closure was introduced concerning important items of legislation such as the pipeline bill in 1956 and what the result was of such an approach to parliamentary discussion. The people of Canada are watching what is going on here, although there is not the most terrific number of copies of Hansard read or subscribed to each day. The fact is that people are following what is going on here and have a perception of what the government is doing.
I suggest very strongly that each time the government has to resort to closure, to this particular rule, the people of Canada will be getting the message that either the government is arrogant and refuses to have a forum of open discussion with respect to legislation before parliament, or it is incompetent and cannot get its legislation through in any reasonable or rational way.
Consider the history of what has happened in this particular parliament. What are we talking about now? This is the second closure motion brought forward on the income tax bill, a bill which flows from the budget of last May. I think that illustrates the incompetence we have seen in the management of the House on the part of the government. What of its priorities? One would have thought that if they were so anxious to get this bill through and enable rebates to be given to those who were entitled to them, they would have come back from the Christmas recess resolved that the first item of business would be the Income Tax Act. They would have challenged us to debate it and get our points of view across, and they would have made it a first item of priority.
But no: the government decided, in its wisdom, to bring in such items of legislation as the resolution on television being allowed in the House. They thought, I think, that bringing this measure forward would show how progressive they were and improve the public impression of the government. I think they wanted to show the people they had visited over the course of the Christmas recess that they were not the kind of government that everyone now is beginning to suspect and understand they are, a government without imagination, one which has not retained the will to govern but only the will to stay in power.
As far as the question of filibuster is concerned on the part of any member, I simply want to say this. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has spoken for 2'h. or 3 hours. He has had a lot of fun, but even the hon. member for Nickel Belt, though he would not admit it, I am sure, is human.


An hon. Member:: You go too far.


John R. Rodriguez: Semi-human; sub-human.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is not going to carry on indefinitely. He is going to recognize his responsibility to this House, and I suggest that until otherwise is demonstrated it would be premature for the Minister of Finance to panic and to bring in this motion. As far as I am concerned, each time the government decides to bring in a closure motion to carry out its announced program of imposing restriction on debate it is the
(Mr. Hnatyshyn.]
responsibility of every self-respecting parliamentarian, regardless of the party to which he belongs, to oppose it. What is parliament all about? Parliament is a forum to discuss legislation. Each of us represents a different area of Canada, a different consensus, a different point of view possibly. Our responsibility here is not to facilitate the onward march of the Liberal government in Ottawa. It is to let the Liberal government know what the people in our constituencies think.


An hon. Member:: What about reading from the Bible?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact is, I speak not of biblical matters because I realize that the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt both accept that responsibility. I would say to them: Let he who casts the first stone, etc.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: "Let him", surely.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The suggestion made by the supporters of the government is that we should not talk too much about government legislation, and that we are somehow holding up the whole governmental process. But anyone who is on the government side will appreciate the fact that the day-to-day governing of the country does not stop because of discussion in the House of Commons. The executive carries on the day-today operations of government. The bills are being paid. The administration is carried on. We are addressing ourselves purely and simply to items of legislation and changes to legislation which the government is bringing forward.
I agree with the speech made recently by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), the former leader of our party. Quite frankly, one wonders whether the government is preoccupied with the idea of bringing forward so many items of legislation simply to give the appearance of activity, as opposed to really thinking things out in terms of the legislation we really need. Every minister is competing to bring in a bill to show that his department is active and has new ideas.
I am reminded of a friend who told me that one of the legislatures-I think it was the Newfoundland legislature- went through one whole session, and maybe we should all be sent to St. John's to observe the legislature there to see how they did it, without introducing a single government bill. They dealt with estimates; they dealt with government spending and programs. I am not suggesting we should go as far as that, but it might be therapeutic for members of this House to go to that legislature where they are not preoccupied with bringing in one, two or three items of legislation for every minister to show how creative he is. Such bills serve no purpose except to clutter up the time available for debate in the House.
We have important things to do here. One of our functions is to examine the planning and the estimates of the government. Another important function, I suggest, is to examine tax bills put forward by the government. These two things go hand in hand. If the Minister of Finance and those who support him had their thinking caps on, they would understand that one of the last bills on which they should attempt to impose closure is a measure dealing with taxes, something which affects every
February 9, 1977

person in the country. It is not a relatively unimportant bill about national monuments. If we were taking up many days talking about historic sites, I could understand the agitation of members of the government and their anxiety about holding up the House for that type of measure.
This is a substantial tax measure arising from the last budget. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of motion is this, in view of the important legislation that is now before us? If the government is so anxious to get this bill through, where was the bill at the beginning of this session? Where was the income tax bill before the end of the last session? What was the government doing all last summer? Sitting contemplating the televising of the proceedings of the House, national historic sites, or what?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The bill was on the order paper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister of Finance says the bill was on the order paper. That solves the whole problem! By some process of osmosis, every member of parliament was supposed to absorb the bill and then give the minister his thoughts and observations. I do not want to carry these remarks any further: the proposition is so preposterous. The position that the government and those who support it are taking is so outrageous that any self-respecting member who votes in favour of closure in respect of this bill had better be prepared to explain his action to his constituents.


Ralph Goodale: Mine are asking about their RRSPs. They want their RRSPs.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was about to sit down, but the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) has asked me a question. He is a student of parliament, and has been for at least three years.


Walter David Baker: You mean at least three months.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He knows that parliament and parliamentarians have the right to know. He knows that totalitarian government is more efficient. If you start imposing restrictions on the right to speak, especially of parliamentarians, then parliament is far more efficient. I know it causes some difficulty for government members when they see members of parliament wanting to address themselves to particular pieces of legislation. We all know that Adolf Hitler saw it was far more efficient to have a "Fiihrer", someone who would dictate the best wishes and interests of the people of his country. That is not the kind of parliament that I want to see in Canada, and it is not the kind of government that I want to see, either.
The government has a responsibility to be on guard, ready to answer. That is one of the responsibilities of government. It is an obligation which members who accept cabinet portfolios must carry. They should be prepared to answer to their peers in the House of Commons for any legislation that is put forward. Restriction of debate should not be used as some kind of program so they can proudly say to themselves that they are showing how efficient they are. If the members who are going to support the government will give consideration to what they
Income Tax Act
are doing, to the position they are taking on this important piece of legislation and to the position they are taking with respect to this institution, then if they vote in favour of the motion they are doing a disservice not only to their party but to themselves.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best evidence of the cynical attitude that the government has toward parliament is to be found in counting the members on the government side who are in the House today. Here is an occasion when the government is imposing closure on parliament, an important procedural measure, and the government does not have enough members on its side of the House to maintain a quorum.


Marc Lalonde: Watch out.


John Edward Broadbent: Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the government is concerned at all about parliament, and if it is concerned about the rights of members of parliament, then a basic obligation on the part of the government is at least to have sufficient members in the House to maintain a quorum.


Walter David Baker: Here they are now. Watch them coming in.


John Edward Broadbent: There are only eight or nine Liberals in the House at a time when closure is being imposed, though they are crawling out of the woodwork now, staggering out from behind the curtains.


Walter David Baker: And from the coffee bars.


William Arnold Peters: If we walked out, they still would not have a quorum.


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps I might take a couple of minutes to deal with the substance of the closure motion. Let me say at the outset that I agree with the government's right to impose closure. I agree that a government which has a majority in the House of Commons-whether or not it represents the majority of the voters-must have the right to exercise and implement the collective will of the government after a reasonable amount of time in debate has elapsed. So, unlike some members of the House who argue that closure is inappropriate in principle, I do not take that view; I think it is appropriate.
The question, then, is: At what point is it justified? I think it is extraordinarily important in this debate to remember that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) first spoke to closure, which he applied after only 4'/2 days of debate on a finance measure which goes to the root of the justification of parliamentary democracy in the first place-because parliaments were first formed to justify spending by the monarch- the minister did not even attempt to justify closure. Nowhere in his speech did he allude to the need for invoking closure on parliament, for cutting off discussion of this important matter after only 4'/2 days. He spoke only to the finance measures that we were considering. Not once did he offer any argument to justify closure.
Liberal members have again spoken in the House today, but there has been no justification put forward for bringing in closure on a finance measure after very limited debate. The

February 9, 1977
Income Tax Act
most important clause, I would argue, or one of the most important, one that certainly reflects the generosity of Liberals toward the rich, imposes a surtax only for 1976 on those earning $30,000 a year or more, but removes it for this year, while the government maintains a controls program on ordinary wage and salary earners. Yet we did not even debate that clause, Mr. Speaker. No debate was possible on that crucial clause during committee stage of the bill before closure was applied and debate was cut off. Although I accept the principle of closure, that at some time the government must have the right to invoke closure if in the governments' view the opposition over a prolonged period of time is holding up a measure, I regard it as totally unjustified and absurd to apply the rule on this particular measure at this time.
As for the substance of the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dionne) who is from New Brunswick, and an earlier speaker on the Liberal side from Montreal, I would have thought, particularly in the case of the latter speaker, that they had enough concern for the poor of this country and for the unemployed to see what a meretricious piece of nonsense this bill really is. The hon. member for Ottawa West said that all kinds of people benefit from the RRSP provisions; that all kinds of people benefit from the day care provisions; that all kinds of people- presumably he would have said, though he didn't-benefit from the removal of the $30,000 surtax.
I would say to the hon. member that that is only ritualisti-cally true, that all citizens are open to benefits. This is like saying, as was said in the eighteenth century in opposition to the French aristocracy, that rich man and poor man alike have the right to sleep on a bridge over the Seine. But is it only coincidence that the poor have this experience? The point is that every one of the provisions that are open to the rich and the poor in this bill are overwhelmingly used by the rich because they provide overwhelming tax benefits for the rich. When they save on their taxes, it has to be made up by other taxpayers in this country.
If you want to extend pension benefits to the people of Canada, you should not do it by providing a tax rip-off for the majority of those in the upper income brackets. You should extend the benefits that are provided under the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. They way to do it is to deal directly with the matter, not through some indirect tax benefit. Or if you are interested in improving day care, you do not do so by lifting disproportionately the tax burden on the rich. You do it by providing a direct grant, a demogrant, a cash payment with the same cash value for rich and poor alike, so that everyone can pay for day care. You do not give a tax benefit worth several hundred dollars to the rich and perhaps give nothing at all to a man or woman who is out working, has kids at home but is not in a position to pay any taxes at all. I
(Mr. Broadbent.]
repeat: if you are interested in day care, deal with it directly and make payments to those who need them.
I defend my colleague's right to oppose this bill in the way he has. How can we, when we are retaining controls on the income of ordinary people-I am thinking particularly of the organized workers who are still subject to controls-call for the removal of a surtax applied to people earning $30,000 or more in 1976? It boggles the mind, for anyone who has a remote sense of equity, to be able simultaneously to lift the burden off the rich and keep it on the poor.
As leader of my party I was delighted with the opposition mobilized by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) against this piece of iniquitous legislation. Parliament has not been abused up to this point in terms of the duration of the debate on the tax measure. The hon. member for Nickel Belt made a good case. It was suggested his biblical references were not pertinent to the bill. That might suggest that the whole Judeo-Christian tradition in both the Old Testament and the New Testament has nothing to do with the performance of the Liberal party. With that I would agree, but it has everything to do with the actions of men and women in this country who are concerned with fairness.
The final point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is about the talk of people waiting for tax returns. Government members should know that only about 3 per cent of Canadian taxpayers file returns before the middle of March; 97 per cent do not. We are talking about a very small group indeed. Beyond that we are talking in a very serious way about an important principle of tax fairness. I, for one, have been very proud of the action taken by the hon. member for Nickel belt who is concerned about equity, who is concerned about fairness and therefore could have nothing to do with this legislation.
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to rise for a few moments. I am sorry to hear that the leader of the New Democratic Party has so little to be proud of that he can be proud of the shameful performance of his colleague the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I think it should be a matter of considerable shame to him that this House was so abused by that speech, by that misuse of time and by many of the things he said today. I thought it was particularly offensive that he should refer to the question of the number of members on this side of the House. It is a very rare day, and this happens to be one, when that party can muster more than a corporal's guard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: If it were not for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) they would frequently find their benches empty. I think that was a cheap shot and unworthy of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I can well remember an opposition day about a year ago, one that he sponsored, when after making a speech on the economy he saw fit to walk out of the House and leave his benches denuded so that he might go on television for the rest of the afternoon. Why does he insult members of this party who always have a quorum, when he knows that full well?
On the question of the allocation of the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, many of those of us who came here in 1974 are amazed that this rule is not used more frequently. It seems an outrage to those members who have come here to try to do a reasonable job that there should be nine days debate on this bill. A rule that is in the book should be used or should be removed. If hon. members want to see the rule removed, they have never proposed that although, perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has. The leader of the New Democratic Party says it is a good rule but it should not be used in this case. He says this is an important bill-a bill that has received very little debate. Mr. Speaker, it has received nine days' debate, plus whatever time is allocated under this restraint.
The question is: When should the rule be used? A budget is delivered in the spring. Hon. members opposite are crabbing because a budget is not to be brought in sooner than next spring, yet they refuse to allow the government to pass legislation under the last budget. Either pass it or defeat it. Some hon. members opposite are ready to resign because they are so frustrated. What is the purpose of parliament? Surely it is not, as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatsyhyn) says, simply to sit here and deal with estimates. Surely there are occasions when the government must introduce legislation with a reasonable expectation of having it passed.
The hon. member quoted his former leader who is so admired by all of us in contrast to some other one might mention. He resents the fact that legislation comes before the House and is eventually voted upon. Surely there has to be some termination. If the opposition is just going to misuse the rules as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has, surely it is open to the government to use the rule lawfully passed by this House for this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I remember standing in the hall of the mother of parliaments with a member of the Conservative party whose name I shall not mention. I said, "You are a great expert on the rules. Why is it that the mother of parliaments"-that parliament which the Tory party so reveres-"uses closure with such frequency, and we hardly use it at all?" He said that in his judgment it was probably because the opposition party in Britain expected some day to form the government, whereas in this country they sometimes lose sight of that possibility and they therefore resent the use of closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Income Tax Act


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I thought that was typical of the wisdom that this hon. member frequently displays. It is all right to stand up, as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar did, and try to fool those who may read his speech, or the newspaper report of it, but I hope he is not trying to fool himself. If that is the case, he is in real trouble. We know that in the eyes of the general public the parliament of Canada is not relevant to their concerns mainly because it appears to be a time-wasting institution incapable of doing business. I suggest that when we attempt to bring in legislation relative to a budget introduced last spring, after nine sitting days of debate, and then bring in a motion under a rule to be used by parliament, and hon. members stand up and suggest we are attempting to throttle parliament, they are either fooling themselves or trying to fool Canadians.


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I was reluctant to enter the debate, but I must respond to the call to arms when my rights as a member of parliament are attacked, even though I may be the least ranking on the opposition side, tucked up here in this corner. I used to sit in another corner, a border guard to the socialists, but it was felt that it was perhaps more in keeping with my philosophy to have me over here on the right.
I have two regrets, Mr. Speaker, besides the government's introduction of this motion for closure. One is that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) did not have the opportunity to read the whole of the New Testament, and the second is that he did not believe what he read. I wish, in all seriousness, that he believed the things he read. I wish, for instance, that he believed there is a separation and an alienation between God and man. The Scriptures refer to it as sin. I wish that he believed there was a way for reconciliation to the person of Christ.


An hon. Member:: The whole NDP is in hell.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I hear some comments from hon. members. I do not know whether they will appear in Hansard, but I hope hon. members will take some of these things seriously, not what I say but what I refer to in the Scriptures read by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


An hon. Member:: Andy Hogan reads them every day.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: May I say to the leader of the NDP that I wish that some hon. members, whether in his party or in mine, would listen and believe the things that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) reads every day. I also wish this House had listened more attentively to what was read by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, because I think much wisdom can be gained from that ancient book referred to as the Bible. I would simply say that if justice is to prevail and this motion of closure is to be passed, and the hon. member for Nickel Belt were to resume his reading, I hope that this House might be filled with members listening attentively to the reading of all 27 books of the New Testament.
2896

Income Tax Act
I want to make a few remarks about the government. I do not deny that the government has the absolute right to govern. They have that right by reason of winning the election and having a majority in the House of Commons. They have the absolute right to set priorities, to set tax levels, to bring in fiscal and monetary policies, to bring in legislation, to give direction to the country in domestic and external affairs, to run parliament and to make sure that the legislative process runs smoothly and efficiently. I admit that they have the absolute right to govern; but if that is true, it is also true that the opposition has the absolute right to scrutinize the decisions of the government and to criticize them. We have the absolute right to bring forth amendments and suggestions to try to persuade the government, by sound judgment and reasonable argument, to the point of view that we hold.
One of my colleagues pointed out that the government so often does not realize that it does not represent the majority view of Canadians. To be sure it represents the majority of members of this House, but not the majority view of Canadians. Perhaps we should allow a transferable ballot so we could ensure that the members elected here are elected by a true majority. Having said that, I wish to point out that it is at the very least a confrontation of my right as a backbench member of the opposition to scrutinize the activities of the government. I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), who seldom listens to anybody on this side of the House, "Bring in closure, sir, if you will. But in my remarks I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I shall be heard."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard C. Jones: -but not too brief. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a great deal of overreaction both on that side and on this side.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That condemns all of us.


Leonard C. Jones: This is a serious day in the second session of this thirtieth parliament when we see closure being brought upon us. It is a sad day. I do not think the point is whether the government has the right to do so. It is one of those rules of procedure which can be overused. It is like one of those situations we have at home sometimes. We overuse our rights and sometimes we abuse our obligations. Mr. Speaker, each member of the House-you, I, and all of us-was elected to preserve freedom. Also, we were elected with a freedom, the freedom of choice. In the constituency from which I come, freedom is sacred and it shall persevere. The freedom of choice is very important. But the freedom of which we are speaking today is the freedom of speech. Many of my friends, most of them men and women from my community, fought for this country and fought hard, and many of them lost their lives to protect the freedom of democracy that we hold so dear to our hearts in the democratic system.


Mr. Harquail:: Shame. You speak of freedom, yet when you were mayor of Moncton you refused to allow the French to place a plaque which had French on it on the city hall building in Moncton, New Brunswick.


Leonard C. Jones: The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) talks about frivolous things.


Maurice James Harquail: It was not a frivolous statement. You speak about freedom.


Leonard C. Jones: If the hon. member wants to speak about the motion, he can; otherwise, he should shut up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) has the floor.


William Arnold Peters: If he does not shut up, perhaps the hon. member should.


An hon. Member:: But he's a Liberal.


An hon. Member:: I doubt he is a Liberal.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be very serious about this. It is quite obvious that the Liberals and the hecklers over there cannot be serious, and never have been. The discussions and debates in the House are based on freedom of speech, and we must preserve it. Whether you like it or not, a closure motion takes away that freedom. Many have said that the government has that right under Standing Order 75C. I suggest that they have that right but there are certain common law rules with which they have to comply before that right is applicable. I do not agree with the filibuster, but I totally disagree with any attempt to take away one's right to speak.
The whole thing is a good lesson for this government and for governments of the future to set up their priorities and their goals in order to mobilize their forces properly and try to obtain the co-operation of the House. We have many things to do in this country, and we cannot do them entirely under the adversary system. Every member of parliament has rights and obligations in the House, and we should have the freedom to protect those rights and obligations. Surely taxation by closure is not proper, and surely taxation without representation is not proper. I suggest that the effect of this closure motion, if it is passed, might be to take away a person's right to representation. If so, it would result in taxation without representation. Closure is a brutal and hateful procedure which should either be deleted from the rules or used very infrequently. There should be more provisions and conditions before rule 75C can be used.
I agree, and I think members on both sides of the House will agree, that a great deal of time has been wasted in the House in the last 2xh years; there has been a great deal of inefficency, bungling and blundering. No one can take the blame for that but the government. The government sets the agenda; it decides what takes place from day to day. I suggest that the government is totally and ultimately to blame for what is happening here today. Today, on this motion, we have to wait at least two hours. I cannot support a motion for closure. It is too dictatorial and too arbitrary, but if closure is going to be

February 9, 1977

the procedure which is in vogue for this government, God help us. We are God-fearing people, but if things like this take place we should fear the results. Surely this House is intended for honest and decent debate, but honest and decent debate can be foiled by closure motions.
Those who are interested in televising the procedures of this House will find that there is a real problem, because if closure is invoked time after time there will be nothing to televise but closure debates. I suggest that the mover of this motion consider, right now, the possibility of withdrawing his motion and meeting with the House leaders and others in this House who are concerned, to see if this procedure can be stopped and if we can get on with the business of the House in a more amicable and proper way.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) and the rather eloquent plea he put on the record of this House today for sweet reason to prevail in all the deliberations in this place. I am sure it is the wish of all of us, particularly those who sit on this side of the aisle, that that in fact could be the rule of the day and the way that all things in this House could proceed. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the prevailing disposition, particularly across the way.
I point simply to the fact that under the procedures set out in Standing Order 75C, as the minister indicated in the House yesterday, it was in fact impossible to get the co-operation of hon. gentlemen opposite, at least of those in the New Democratic Party, to facilitate the work of this House and to proceed expeditiously with this debate. Their agreement and their willingness to proceed in an effective fashion to deal with the business of the country was not forthcoming. That is the very basis upon which this motion was moved. If that agreement had been forthcoming, we could have proceeded in a fashion which would be more acceptable to all hon. members, but that sweet reason was not present amongst members of the New Democratic Party.
I am happy to have this opportunity to speak in support of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I suggest that this motion does not impose unreasonably upon any member of this House. It does not treat anyone unfairly. It is not the cruel guillotine about which hon. members opposite complain. In the first place, it is an effort to bring an end to the ludicrous and irresponsible abuse of our rules by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I refer to Hansard of earlier this week, page 2813, where the hon. member indicated to the House and to the country that he-one member, all by himself-intended to speak until Friday on the measure which was then before the House, the measure with regard to the Income Tax Act. He hoped to take up a full week-and he is one single member. The hon. member gave a clear warning to this House and to the country that he
Income Tax Act
intended to misuse and abuse the rules which are there to ensure the effective functioning of this parliament. We have moved responsibly to stop that abuse.
I cannot entirely blame the hon. member for Nickel Belt. He may well be merely the poor, uninformed, backwoods school teacher he has described himself to be. However, I suspect that the real source of the difficulty this House is in at this moment lies with the House leader for the New Democratic Party. I think that is where the responsibility for this kind of abuse must lie.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: With that gentleman lies the responsibility for obstructing the progress of this bill for many months. I point out that last week the Minister of Finance moved a motion under Standing Order 75C to allocate eight additional hours of debate to the committee stage of the bill. At that time the proposals in the bill, as the minister pointed out, had already been debated in principle for six days during the budget debate, and the bill itself had been before the House five additional days and had received more than 14 hours of detailed consideration. Since the motion moved by the minister last week was adopted, we have spent eight hours at the committee stage and an additional full day at third reading stage, with the hon. member for Nickel Belt taking up virtually all of the latter time.


John R. Rodriguez: Why didn't you stand up and speak?


Ralph Goodale: Surely this House has been more than lenient with the hon. member and with other hon. members opposite. It is instructive that when this measure was debated last week, one third of the members of the New Democratic Party were missing. It is instructive that only 64 members of the opposition turned up to vote against what they so pompously tried to describe as a "stifling of parliament". Only half of them bothered to vote.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ralph Goodale: That is a demonstration of the shallowness of their concern and of the transparency of the phony facade which we have seen them try to put up today. Even some hon. members opposite have seen what I have just tried to point out to the House. When the Minister of Finance rose in his place yesterday to indicate his intention to put this motion today under the provisions of Standing Order 75C, even the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), a member of the New Democratic Party, pounded his desk in support. I think that indicates that there are a few gentlemen opposite who can see through the facade to what they are trying to do.
In addition to avoiding the abuse and misuse of our rules which we have seen by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt, it is important also to assure and reassure the people of Canada that this institution is capable of conducting the business of the country. What we have seen is not constructive debate aimed at improving the legislation.
2898

February 9, 1977
Income Tax Act


William Arnold Peters: How would you know; you weren't even here?


Ralph Goodale: We have not seen a detailed plan of action coming from across the way to try to correct what hon. members opposite see as defects in this bill. What we have had is pure and simple obstruction for the sake of obstruction itself. What is the result of that? What are the consequences of the House being misused and abused in this way? It is not simply a matter of abuse; let us remember that the business of the country has to be set aside, postponed and delayed because of this tactic. At present there are 26 government bills before the House, including such important measures as the employment and immigration bill, the Air Canada bill, the immigration policy bill, the National Transportation Act amendments, and the human rights and interests bill. We will soon have the main estimates before us. We will soon have legislation dealing with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, and we will have legislation and proposals dealing with social services, telecommunications and the independence of parliament to be debated. One can see that the House has a heavy legislative program to be completed.
The House is scheduled to sit 47 more days from now until April 6, which is the usual date for beginning the Easter adjournment. There are seven allotted days, which reduces the number of days available for government business to 40. If the work of this session is to be completed by a reasonable time this summer, we must operate in the way in which the people of Canada expect us to operate, in an effective and businesslike fashion.
What we have seen from hon. members opposite, particularly from members of the New Democratic Party in the present context, is an effort to try to bring this institution to a grinding halt. They may see some political advantage in that. It may be in relation to the present measure which is before the House, the Income Tax Act. However, I suspect it is broader than that, because they feel it might well be in their political interest to try to bring this institution to a halt, to make it inefficient, to obstruct it and to keep it from doing the business of the country so that they can then heap abuse or discredit on the government when they themselves are the authors and architects of that inefficiency and inability to do business.
I think the Minister of Finance deserves the credit of this House for taking the step he has taken to bring this debate to an end and to establish a measure of efficiency here so that we can do what we have been elected to do, and that is to consider the business of the country and to do so efficiently.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for a few minutes in order to register my displeasure with the motion brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I noticed that when the parliamentary secretary who just resumed his seat complimented the minister for what he had done, he turned pink. I understand why

obviously he is ashamed of this action.


Ralph Goodale: Nonsense.


Paul Yewchuk: And so he ought to be.


Ralph Goodale: Nonsense. Do not attribute motives.


Paul Yewchuk: I wonder how hon. gentlemen opposite will face their constituents and tell them that within the past seven days they have twice invoked closure.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ralph Goodale: Our constituents are asking about their RRSPs. They want to know what is to happen.


Paul Yewchuk: I object to the government's ramming the bill through the House without allowing sufficient debate. I am not here to defend the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I know his speeches are full of paranoia, stridency, perhaps even hysterical whining. Nevertheless, even though I often find his comments irritating and do not agree with them, I am willing to defend his right to put forward his views.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Send him a bill for your diagnosis.


Paul Yewchuk: That was a diagnosis without fee, Mr. Speaker. If we believe in democracy, if we believe in freedom, then we as members of parliament must in good conscience object strenuously to the bullying tactics of the Minister of Finance. The members of this House are men and women from all parts of Canada. They have been sent here to speak on behalf of the people of Canada, to express in parliament their views on behalf of their constituents. In this chamber the expression of such views is supposed to carry weight; it is supposed to leave some impression with policy-makers. Unfortunately, it is obvious that policy-makers are not interested in the representations members of this House make on behalf of their constituents.
One hon. member opposite said that the government is not trying to muzzle parliament. But look at the record. We have witnessed increasingly frequent attempts to muzzle parliament and ever greater restrictions placed on the ability of members to express their views. We are close to the situation in which perhaps one minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will say, "Why leave the running of the country to the politicians when we can do it so much better ourselves? We do not have to listen to parliament." Mr. Speaker, I have heard a comment of that kind; it was made by a representative of a totalitarian state who tried to justify a dictatorial form of government. Dictators say, "Why should we let politicians decide the policies of our country and what the government ought to do?" In the present instance we see an example of exactly that kind of thinking.
Hon. members opposite have repeatedly said that Standing Order 75C is not the guillotine or closure rule. If it is not the closure rule, what is it? What does it do to debate?


An hon. Member:: It kills debate.
February 9, 1977


Paul Yewchuk: That is right, it kills debate. If that is not closure, I do not know what is. I suggest that it is closure, no matter what you call it. I remind the House that in 1969 Standing Order 75C was forced through the House with the use of closure, by the very same government which is now again attempting to muzzle the opposition. It is doing this because it cannot stand criticism. The government used closure to bring in the closure rule and it is now imposing closure once more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being 5.06 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75C have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
2900

February 9, 1977
Old Age Security Act
[Translation)


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA-MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, which is as follows:
Government House
Ottawa, February 9, 1977 Sir:
The Governor General has asked me to transmit to you the text of the message he received this morning from Her Majesty the Queen:

I am most grateful to the Senate and House of Commons of Canada for their kind and loyal joint address on the 25th anniversary of my accession as Queen of Canada. I shall be most grateful if you will convey to both Houses an expression of my gratitude and appreciation for this address which I deeply value.
Elizabeth R.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere,
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will wait a few moments until everyone settles down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Any discussions, I suggest, should be held behind the curtains. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) has the floor.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, when we were on the subject of Bill C-35 yesterday I was in the process of outlining the fact that while the bill may have the effect of correcting certain inequities in our pension system, it also has a very substantial amount of material missing, such as proposals which are
required in order to facilitate care of the elderly in this country. I was indicating that in my view the practice of the last two decades, which has been based largely on institutionalizing our elderly citizens, was probably not the right approach, besides being a little too costly. I was in the process of making a plea to the government, for as long as it has the responsibility of government, to take the action necessary to provide alternative services for elderly citizens.
I think we would all agree that institutions of various types which are dedicated to the care of the elderly are necessary for our senior citizens. But we also know that keeping the elderly at home in their own environment for as long as they wish is far more desirable than simply throwing them into an institution and forgetting about them until they are dead. However, the situation in Canada is such that services which are required to achieve this aim are very sadly lacking, and I wanted to conclude my comments by outlining some of the measures that need to be taken if, indeed, we are to create an environment which would allow our elderly citizens to remain in their own homes or in the homes of their families to the maximum extent possible.
First of all, there should be a larger number of the day hospital type of institution. It is suggested that patients would be admitted only in the day time. That would certainly help to decrease the number of admissions and facilitate earlier discharge. It is also suggested that an emergency care "flying squad" would be very useful. The experience of a hospital in England has shown the value of a geriatric flying squad which consists of a multi-disciplinary team comprising a physician, public health nurse and social worker, and can respond to emergency situations developing in the community by giving advice, or a visit being made by one of the team. This team would be based in the day hospital and would consist of day hospital personnel responding to telephone requests for assistance from patients on the day hospital roster.
There is also need for a large number of geriatric consultation clinics. It would be useful to increase the number of these clinics to provide for increased referrals from family practitioners and health centres. There is also need for early diagnostic health examinations to be carried out on a greater scale and to be more readily available. Here, assessments of the elderly would provide early diagnosis of treatable conditions, with the assessment of social circumstances aimed at improving the home environment and utilizing community resources, working in close liais.on with other departments such as departments of ophthalmology and otolaryngology, podiatry and orthopedics.
There is also a need for follow-up clinics. An enlargement of these services would be necessary for the continuing care of elderly patients who have been discharged and do not have their own family practitioner. This would have obvious possibilities in regard to education for undergraduates, resident physicians and other health professionals. It would also increase opportunities for research projects in the area of geriatrics.

February 9, 1977

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is greater need for a larger number of community care facilities to establish liaison among various health centres, family practitioners and public health nurses. There is also need for provision of certain services, one of which is ascertainment services. Patients at home or in other health centres who are over 70 years of age would be visited by public health nurses and referred for any necessary examinations or services. Regular visits would be continued as a preventive measure. The value of such visits has been well demonstrated in other countries and in some areas in our country where these visits are made. Consultation services would see referrals and would provide information regarding health services and developments in geriatrics. Domiciliary visits would be made at the request of the family physician, or when the patient has no doctor, at the request of the public health nurse. This would allow the patient's social environment to be assessed, as well as his or her health.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on a little longer, but I want to give my friend, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), a chance to say a few words. I will conclude by saying it is time we looked seriously at providing alternative services which are less costly and which would enable elderly citizens to keep their rightful place in the general community environment which is far more pleasant to them than has been the case in institutions up to now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I intend to end my remarks at six o'clock in order that the bill can go to committee, as is the wish of members on this side at least. I think this is another example that if the government brings forward legislation that makes sense and is favourable, it receives speedy passage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There are a few points I want to make about Bill C-35, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) is in the House. I wish the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) were also with us, because the bill has very serious implications for immigrants to Canada. The long-term effects of the bill will be felt more by immigrants than any other group in our society.
I do not want to go over ground that has been covered already, but I welcome the provision that will allow Canadians to collect a partial pension. That is an improvement over the "all or nothing" rule that is presently the case. I welcome this in view of the fact that for health reasons many Canadians are forced to relocate, and if they do not return to Canada prior to becoming eligible for the old age pension at age 65 they lose any pension benefits they might have earned.
One might say it is not a contributory plan as is the Canada Pension, but as one of my colleagues has stated, it is contributory through the tax system. Everyone who has paid taxes in Canada in one form or another has contributed to the old age pension fund. Now the 1-40 rule will allow Canadians to collect at least a portion of the pension relative to the number
Old Age Security Act
of years they have been in Canada after the age of 18. I welcome that change.
I want to speak specifically about immigrants, however, and how the bill will affect them. The advantage for the immigrant community is that the bill will allow persons to receive pensions earned in the country of origin. In the case of residents from the United Kingdom, this has been well documented by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). These immigrants will now see an escalation of their pensions. The pensions they receive today have been frozen and bear no relationship to the contribution they made or the years they worked and absolutely no relationship to the present cost of living. That aspect of Bill C-35 is very welcome and those members should be commended for mentioning these provisions at second reading. Not only that, but members have spoken time and time again, as well as corresponding with the minister, in an attempt to have pensions earned by former residents of the United Kingdom bear some resemblance to the cost of living here.
I should like to urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and any others involved to negotiate agreements with countries that have indicated a willingness to sign a formal pension arrangement with Canada. This bill will allow for such negotiations and arrangements, and I urge that they take place as quickly as possible.
There is a caveat, however, and I want to mention it to the minister. When speaking on the bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated he was in favour of it because it would place everyone on an equal basis. I am not one to second-guess the hon. member on his knowledge of pension rights. In theory, he is correct. But, Mr. Speaker, he is not totally correct when you'consider immigrants coming to Canada and you look ahead over the next 40 years.
While passage of Bill C-35 will facilitate receipt of pension benefits earned in countries of former residents, the provision relates only to immigrants from countries with social security plans. For example, the United Kingdom, Italy, France and the United States have been mentioned as wanting a formal arrangement. What happens to immigrants from, for lack of a better word, developing countries? What happens when they come to Canada because there is no social security system in the country of origin?
In the last few years immigration has gone down from 200,000 to approximately 150,000. The figures are not entirely accurate, but if we take the most educated guess that we can of an annual immigration of 50,000 our net immigration at the present time is in the neighbourhood of 100,000 persons per year. What is happening is that an ever-increasing number of immigrants are coming from the developing world. Not only is that the case, but if you look at the applications you find an ever-increasing number from these countries. In fact, the pressure is so heavy at our immigration offices in some of these countries that applications are not even encouraged; the potential applicant is told he will not be accorded an interview for

February 9, 1977
Old Age Security Act
eight or 12 months. So the number of applications we might have were it not for the backlog cannot be assessed.
What happens to these immigrants who will become Canadians? After February 15 they will have that opportunity after three years' residence in this country. What happens to an immigrant from a developing country who is not even an elderly immigrant? Under the point system now, any immigrant having attained his thirty-fifth birthday or less is given ten points. For every year over the age of 35 they lose one point of those ten points. Let us consider an immigrant aged 35 who gets ten points. By awarding those ten points the department does not regard him or her as an elderly immigrant, if I can use that term. If this person then comes to Canada and works for 30 years until the age of 65, the normal retirement age, that person has worked in Canada for the majority of his or her adult life but will only be accorded three-quarters of a pension. Let us say, for example, that that person has contributed to society, as opposed to someone who has contributed very little either through work or through the tax system. I question whether that is a very responsible manner of looking at this matter. I admit that I do not have a better solution, but I wonder what will happen when we look at this regulation in the future.
What we must do as a partial solution-this is why I wish the Minister of Manpower and Immigration were here-is reassess the whole concept of sponsorship and nomination. Under the concept of sponsorship, in the new regulations, if the bill is passed, sponsorship will be allowed for parents and grandparents of any age. I am sure most members of the House have had people come to them saying they would like to sponsor their parents who are of such and such an age, and asking when they will get their old age pension. I think it is to the credit of immigrants and their concept of the extended family that they accept their responsibility toward elderly parents and grandparents.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) in his closing remarks stated that we have transferred the care for the elderly to institutions. Surveys show very clearly that the greatest problem of the elderly is not health care, but loneliness. The fact is that the immigrant communities have had a keener awareness of their responsibility to older family members. I believe the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will have to look seriously at the whole question of sponsorship, in view of the fact that immigrants now coming to Canada at the age of 65, let us say, and normally receiving the old age pension at that age, will not be entitled to any more than one-quarter of the pension. The reason this is important is that if you look at demographic studies in Canada you will find that we have an aging population. This is of concern to many of us who have studied the statistics of Canada's population in the last few months, because with an aging population you also have an increased dependence factor.
So I suggest to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, as well as to the minister in whose name this bill stands, that we will need a well defined publicity campaign to explain not
[Mr. Epp.)
only to potential immigrants, but to people who will sponsor immigrants, what the changes will be. I would like to stress to the minister that it is of utmost importance that persons who apply to come to Canada as immigrants under the sponsored or nominated categories will have their benefits reduced if Bill C-35 passes.
In the remaining minutes before six o'clock I want to present one matter to the minister which is related directly to the old age pension, even though not specifically to the bill. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will give me the latitude to present the case. I have already said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others have welcomed Bill C-35 because of the equality it gives to the pension scheme. But there is one form of pension that is not equal, other than the one I have mentioned already, and that is the matter of the spouse's allowance. I must say to the minister that spouse's allowance as it exists at present in the act is not equal and is not fair.
The minister might say that that question is not before us, but I believe that the entire pension plan and benefits to the elderly are open for discussion. Let us consider a case, because I believe that when we look at cases we understand a little better. Let us consider a husband who is older than his wife, which I believe is the case most often, and is receiving old age security as well as a partial or total guaranteed income supplement. His spouse is between the age of 60 and 65 and is therefore entitled to a spouse's allowance on the basis that she is married to a pensioner receiving a part or total guaranteed income supplement.
When the pensioner dies, not only does the surviving spouse lose the pension as well as the supplement, but she also loses the spouse's allowance. The majority of these unfortunate people between the age of 60 and 65 cannot go back to the labour market. Not only are they faced with personal loss and loss of pension; they are also faced with loss of this picayune spouse's allowance which they were "receiving. One might say that that is the regulation, that is the way the bill was passed by the House and there is no further argument. But the total unfairness is that there is a way out, and that is a common law relationship. The government, for purposes of spouses' allowance, accepts a common law relationship.
I say that is totally and absolutely wrong. We are saying to a widow, "No, you are not entitled to anything. You lose everything". But if I can be crude about it, we are also saying to her, "If you are shacked up with somebody, we will give you the spouse's allowance." That is totally wrong. If we could poll members on the government side, we would find that many of them would agree it is wrong because what it does is give official recognition to an illegal arrangement. In conclusion, I want to say to the minister again, even though it hits a sensitive nerve, that this is wrong and I for one want to see it changed. Let us be fair not only to immigrants under Bill C-35 but also to surviving spouses.


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

Energy



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
["It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.\nAt 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, February 10, 1977']
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for the consent of the House to revert to motions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move that the subject matter of energy costs and conservation in a document entitled "Energy Strategy for Canada" be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 10, 1977