1977-12-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of unwarranted, inexcusable and unacceptable delay on the part of the Minister of Transport in selecting Hamilton Municipal Airport for expansion to a regional airport, for which there is no defence, an announcement regarding expansion having been made by the government some time in the early part of 1972, and because such indecision not only frustrates the citizens of Hamilton and district, but, as well, is unduly restricting the growth of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth in terms of business opportunity, employment, growth and revenue, all of which is known, or ought to be known, by the Minister of Transport, I seek to move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Transport approve forthwith the site of the existing Hamilton Municipal Airport for expansion to a regional airport and that he make a definitive statement in that regard in this House prior to December 25, 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The gravity of the slide in farm incomes-down about one quarter from 1975-has been brought home once again by the recent layoffs of 500 workers by Massey-Ferguson in Brantford.
To remove some of the uncertainty facing farmers and the industries that depend on them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House urge the government to announce immediate steps to stimulate the farm economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: No!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the government of France in a most insincere and hypocritical manner has banned the importation of harp seal furs into France because of the alleged cruelty of the seal hunt, and since the government of France continues to ignore the fact that in the production of pate de foie gras the Frenchmen treat with great cruelty the French goose-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -which is force fed and otherwise handled in an outrageous manner to satisfy the palates of the Frenchmen and the jaded appetites of the wealthy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the Government of Canada send a diplomatic note to the Government of France drawing to the attention of that government the cruelty practised by the pate de foie gras industry of France and the abhorrence this practice arouses in all civilized countries and requesting the French government to outlaw this practice, and further, that this House directs the government to make the necessary orders in council to forbid the importation of pate de foie gras into Canada immediately as requested by the Save the French Goose Society.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Before such a motion can be presented, unanimous consent is required under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No!
80027 -28'A

December 5, 1977
Trade


EXPRESSION OF REGRET TO SOUTH AFRICA AT MANNER OF DEALING WITH DEATH OF MR. BIKO-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House, having taken note of the mysterious circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Biko, a respected black leader of the South African people, and the extraordinary findings by a court that no one was responsible for his tragic death, instruct the government to express to the authorities of South Africa its regret, both at the tragic event itself and at the manner in which it has been dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. Is there consent for it to be presented?


Some hon. Members:: No!


MANPOWER
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the builders of the nuclear power project at Douglas Point have found it necessary to import skilled tradesmen from the British Isles to work on this project, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to refer this matter to the Manpower Retraining Division in his department and instruct it to set up a program whereby Canadians will be provided with the necessary training to fill these positions.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent before it can be debated. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF TARIFFS ON IMPORTATION OF NICKEL CARBONATE AND FLUORSPAR-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that layoffs in the nickel industry now number over 4,000 and that while this is happening we continue to import nickel carbonate for refineries in Fort Saskatchewan, and in view of the fact that Alcan is laying off workers in a fluorspar mine in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and then turning around and purchasing fluorspar from Noranda in Mexico, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

That this House instruct the government to impose a temporary 13 per cent import tariff on nickel carbonate and fluorspar similar to the 13 per cent temporary import tariff on refined nickel by Japan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. On Saturday, the Toronto Globe and Mail carried a front page report which indicated that an unlicensed Toronto private investigator by the name of James David Lillie had stated that he was the individual who had made available to Charles Templeton and Pierre Berton the personal and confidential tax information from the files of individual Canadians. Further Mr. Lillie was reported to have said to the Globe and Mail that he would be able to get the same information about members of the federal cabinet and the Speaker of the House of Commons. May I ask the minister whether he has investigated the claims made by Mr. Lillie in the Globe and Mail, and in particular has the minister investigated the possibility that Mr. Lillie may have information from the confidential tax files of the Speaker of the House of Commons?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the RCMP have been investigating Mr. Lillie in connection with this affair right from the outset. To say much more about it at this time might hamper our investigation. I may say further, Mr. Speaker, that the investigation has determined that no access to computer records was involved in this case. The information was obtained from the Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa district offices of the department by a man who phoned these offices, representing himself as an official of the department needing the information in the pursuit of some taxation matter. The caller-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Amicus curiae.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Don't be naive. This was before the Pierre Berton show; keep that in mind. The caller had sufficient knowledge of the internal procedures to fool the employees whom he reached, and these employees innocently supplied him with the information from the paper records. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, that I
December 5, 1977

immediately ordered changes in procedure to guard against a recurrence. Investigation is continuing into the possibility that an employee in our department was involved in a violation of the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act. It must be appreciated that the department has 16,000 employees.


POSSIBILITY CONFIDENTIALITY OF MR. SPEAKER'S TAX INFORMATION HAS BEEN BREACHED
Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We now learn from the minister that he is in fact investigating that the RCMP nas talked to Mr. Lillie. In view of the fact that just last Wednesday the Minister of National Revenue indicated in the House that the only cases that he was aware of where the confidential tax information of individuals had been passed on to unauthorized individuals were the four cases mentioned by Charles Templeton and Pierre Berton, may I ask the minister why it is necessary, with this two weeks of intensive investigation, for Canadians to learn who was responsible for this from the front pages of the Globe and Maill Specifically, may I ask the minister whether he has conducted further investigations to see whether such individuals as the Speaker of the House of Commons and other persons have had their confidential tax information leaked to unauthorized individuals by his department?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, as I said last Friday, and as I have said many times before to the same hon. gentleman, I would rather the report had not appeared in the Globe and Mail because it would jeopardize the investigation which is taking place. When I explain it in that way I hope the hon. member will understand the meaning of it. In fact, I think anything we may say about this particular case may jeopardize what is now taking place. I have said this before and I will repeat it again and again.


POSSIBILITY OF UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS OBTAINING TAX INFORMATION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the only thing the minister is concerned about having exposed is his own lack of knowledge about what is happening in his own department. When the House opened today the minister passed me a letter in reply to my questions about an interview on "As It Happens" with Mr. David Ingram of CEN-TA Tax Services of Vancouver. In the minister's letter he indicates that Mr. Ingram confirmed that for years he had been able to get tax information about his clients from the tax department without showing specific authorization. Is it the minister's position that because of the fact that Mr. Ingram was not obtaining this information for fraudulent purposes, in spite of the fact he could get the information without showing any authorization from the individual in question, it is impossible for a person posing as a chartered accountant but who is totally unauthorized and wants the
Oral Questions
information for improper purposes to get that information from his department?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that this question was placed to me on Friday. I told the hon. gentleman I would have an answer for him today. 1 have supplied him with a letter, and it is unfortunate that the hon. member either cannot read or does not understand the second paragraph in the letter. If I must, I will quote the letter in the House. Let me quote this part:
Mr. Ingram's allegations, like your own, are general and his examples so hypothetical that it is quite evidently incumbent upon him to support his generalities with specifics.
I suggest that is what the hon. member should also do. I stated in addition:
I will go over his interview point by point with that in mind.
I did that in the whole letter, and every point is defined in that letter I have given the hon. member. If he would take the time, and I know I gave it to him at two o'clock, to read the letter, he will find that the contents of that letter show that there is nothing behind the allegation.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I see that the minister is a little up tight because of his incompetency and the incompetency of his department, so let me pose my question to the President of the Treasury Board who I know is interested in the good and well wishes of all his employees. I will quote from the particular Globe and Mail article, and I see the Prime Minister does not care as he is smiling.


Mr. Trudeau:: I am smiling at you.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The article states:
Mr. Lillie and Mr. Meredith say they can get information from income tax returns, police records from the RCMP's computer in Ottawa, family allowance and unemployment insurance records, Canada Pension Plan files and change-of-address forms filed with the Post Office.
Having heard that, I wonder whether the minister is prepared to say now that this type of alleged statement coming from Lillie and Meredith would certainly necessitate an investigation under the Inquiries Act, and because of the ineffectiveness of the Postmaster General's inquiry, is the minister prepared to recommend that an inquiry under the Inquiries Act be implemented immediately in order to get to the bottom of this entire matter?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the investigation by the Post Office department and the Postmaster General, as he has indicated, is proceeding in a beneficial way. I think the facts are going to

December 5, 1977
Oral Questions
come out, and wherever we do have the specific information, as my colleague, the Postmaster General has said, and as it appears some hon. members have, we most certainly will investigate it to the full.


INCOME TAX
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the minister indicated eight or nine days ago he only knew of four persons involved, as disclosed to him by Messrs. Templeton and Berton, will the minister advise this House how his department missed the possibility that these gentlemen involved in questions regarding this information had the Speaker's income tax returns? Does that not show there is a certain amount of inefficiency regarding his investigation of this matter? How did they miss reference to the Speaker's tax information?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: First of all, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say to the hon. gentleman that I did know before the broadcast. Although 1 said on Friday I did not know before the broadcast, I did know. I knew it when the Prime Minister's office told me at 8.10 in the morning and that was about two hours before the broadcast. I did not know the day before as did some hon. members of the opposition. Having regard to the allegations, and I use that word "allegations", the hon. member is making, they have reference to four specific cases in mind and there are no others to my knowledge. If there are other cases, please be specific and tell me which ones they are. Since those four cases were brought to my attention on the day of the Pierre Berton and Charles Templeton show, the investigations have been ongoing. More harm has been done by the allegations made by hon. members opposite than anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF LEAKS OF TAX INFORMATION-LENGTH OF INVESTIGATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister advise this House as to how long the investigation has been going on? Did he know of Mr. Lillie and Mr. Meredith prior to the time the Globe and Mail exposed the story? If so, why was he not more honest to this House when he made his declarations in this regard?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a good lawyer, such as the hon. member who is speaking to me, cannot deduce from what I have said the reason there was no public statement. We knew Mr. Lillie was involved, but we did not want to spell it

out. That was for obvious reasons. It was because of the investigation.


Mr. Whiteway:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Selkirk often speaks from his seat, rather than rising. He should remain in his seat.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: From whom did you learn that line, Joe?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I do not believe I have to repeat what I said before. I will answer the question as to how long the investigation will take place. We will take all the time necessary to make a thorough investigation, so that you will receive all the details of it, if and when they come out. I hope those details will be revealed as soon as possible.


MANPOWER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of unemployment. In view of the fact that Falconbridge Nickel, INCO and Alcan have recently announced lay-offs which total 4,000 or more; and in view of the fact that authorities in the mining industry have predicted by next spring as many as 20,000 mine workers will have been laid off, can the minister confirm the accurary of those predictions? Can he tell the House what steps he intends to take to ensure that such drastic lay-offs do not occur?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the hon. member who cannot read my title is Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: This kind of hyperbole does absolutely no good, and discourages any hope which people working for INCO or Falconbridge might have that their jobs will be secure or that they might find jobs in the future. In the month of July I indicated, before this kind of hyperbole was being used, that my department alone placed 1,400 miners in jobs. Thus, all is not the gloom and doom that is being spread by the hon. members of the New Democratic Party.


RESOURCES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that this
December 5, 1977

minister and the government has never been on top of the employment situation in the mining industry of this country; and in view of the fact that Falconbridge Nickel Mines has announced already hundreds of lay-offs, and hundreds more are going to be made, can the minister tell the House if he intends to meet with the boards of directors of Falconbridge Nickel Mines and the other mining companies that are threatening lay-offs in order to discuss that situation?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, already I have met with the chief executive officers of INCO. I have also been in touch with the chief executive officer of Falconbridge. There may well be further meetings with respect to these companies and others. A number of mining companies have been to Sudbury trying to recruit miners for their operations across the country. They have not yet been successful in being able to recruit very many. This seems to support the contention of my colleague who has just answered questions on this particular point. I can assure the hon. member, if there are miners in the Sudbury area looking for employment with Eldorado or with some of the other significant mining corporations, that there are openings available.


FINANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the mining companies which have gone into Sudbury looking for employees have asked for three years of experience, and the lay-off date is two years, 161 days. Therefore, the minister's reply is full of baloney. I want to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that a certain amount of unemployment in this country is due to decisions by corporations to purchase minerals abroad which could be mined in Canada, such as the decision by Alcan to close down their fluorspar mine in St. Lawrence and the action of Sherritt Gordon in importing nickel carbonate for the Saskatchewan plant, can the minister tell the House if he is now considering placing a temporary tariff on the import of fluorspar or nickel carbonate, possibly in the neighbourhood of the 13 per cent Japanese tariff against imported nickel?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question a few weeks ago. We have examined that proposal and the product imported by the Aluminium Company of Canada Ltd. does not replace the one produced in Newfoundland. So one cannot be replaced by the other. I am no expert but that is what the experts told me in my department.
Oral Questions
As to the other part of the question, I think that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has already given an answer in the House a few weeks ago.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On June 22, 1977 the minister announced the signature of an agreement with a minister of the Quebec government dealing mostly with forestry development and some road systems in Quebec involving $440 million. Could the minister tell the House if following that agreement there have been other new developments or whether only that agreement dealing mainly with road construction was signed?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, some steps were taken since the signature of the agreement. Some contracts were awarded by the provincial government responsible for carrying out the agreement as such for highways, access roads in forest areas and reforestation. In those three areas, agreements have been signed. Action is under way, jobs have been created and others will be created in the next few months.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the telex that was released to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, which was sent by the Director of the Aeronautical Licensing and Inspection Branch of MOT which alluded, among other things, to the possibility of political embarrassment as a result of the enforcement of air regulations. Has the minister had an opportunity to review the telex and to discuss the contents with the director, Mr. Bolduc, and, if so, can he provide an explanation to the House in connection with that matter?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have found that similar words have been used in other cases in connection with investigations into air carrier licensing and the like. At this point I understand that the words were meant to mean that very important civil liberties issues are involved for the carriers since licences might be suspended. I have indicated that I do not think the words used carry that message very

December 5, 1977
Oral Questions
effectively or very well and they will no doubt be revised accordingly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Having regard to the fact that this is now the second example of suggested political interference or undue political pressure-the other example being the report that was made by the two members of the minister's department in the investigation of air safety in northern Ontario- and having regard to the fact that the minister has indicated he wants to be as wide open as possible in regulatory problems, I am sure he has now had an opportunity to review the report of the two members of his department. If so, is he now in a position to table that report, and now that we have these two specific examples, can he outline to the House what action he intends to take in that regard?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not think the hon. member is really being fair in suggesting that the message from headquarters to the people in the field is an example of political interference because what it suggests simply is that in moving to remove the licenses from an air carrier there should be concern in the interests and the rights of the carriers and of the citizens who are served by that carrier and a broad view should be taken of the impact of that removal of service. That is an important point for officials to bear in mind when they are moving against citizens and depriving citizens of their rights.
On the other question, I have had a chance to look at the report. Parts of it contain what I think will have to remain confidential descriptions of specific people and carriers, and it would not be fair to them to have that made public. However, I am looking at what can be published. I can say that I have had a chance to compare the report with the story in the Globe and Mail, and I will confirm for hon. members that the Globe and Mail story contains a pretty useful summary of the analysis and conclusion. I will also indicate that the investigation which was made by my officials was very far-reaching and without any limitations or restrictions upon it. That is a pretty good basis upon which to act, and we have already begun to take action in relation to it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is the minister now saying that he does not intend to follow through with a public inquiry, or at least a reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, to investigate the specific charges of undue political interference?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will want to reflect somewhat further on the kind of action which we can take immediately, and I expect probably at a fairly early opportunity to be able to indicate to hon. members of this House and to the public what we have done and why that really does deal with a number of problems which were cited in the course of the investigation. I think that is the most important thing. Indeed, I have already acted on a number of fronts. The investigators indicated that a good deal of the problem was due to enforcement problems. I have instructed that additional inspectors be hired and a significant number of them made available to the
[Mr. Lang.l
north. I have accepted another recommendation of the investigators, which is that the regional controllers have some power to act immediately to suspend operating licences and the like in order to make the investigations by inspectors more effective, and I have taken action on that as well. It is that kind of action which I think will at the earliest date restore confidence in the operation of all carriers. I think we should also remember that it is just a few carriers which cause most of the problem, and we should not let all carriers be labelled because of that fact.
POSSIBILITY MR. MacLEISH ISSUED DIRECTIVE SAFETY


INSPECTORS NOT REMOVE LICENCES FOR BREACH OF SAFETY REGULATIONS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister inform the House whether Mr. Walter MacLeish as air administrator sent a similar directive to safety inspectors to the effect that they were not to ground airlines over safety infractions? Did he issue a similar directive following Mr. Bolduc's directive?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would have to identify a little more precisely what kind of directive he means, and if he is asking a sweeping question about whether an official issued a certain directive I would obviously need time to check that. I did indicate to the hon. member for Vegreville that the actual four points or items listed in Mr. Bolduc's telegram I have found repeated in another letter, but not by the official named by the hon. member. It was by another official, so I can check to see whether it was a form or a standard caution or practice, and I am also seeing that it is changed.


INQUIRY WHETHER MR. BOLDUC STILL EMPLOYED
A. Daniel McKenzie: Is Mr. R. L.
Bolduc, the director of aeronautical licensing, still in that position, has he submitted his resignation or is the minister requesting his resignation?


Otto Emil Lang: 1 am certainly not requesting it, and I do not know if the hon. member is again abusing privileges by even suggesting it.


HOUSING
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I should like to ascertain what the Canadian government intends to do concerning the Olympic Village. More specifically, has the responsible minister decided to help financially a non-profit organization buy the Olympic Village from the Quebec
December 5, 1977

government, although this organization may be a sort of subsidiary of the Quebec government's own housing corporation? Is the minister prepared to subsidize housing to make sure that Montreal senior citizens and low income families may also find shelter in the Olympic Village?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that the Canadian government intends to make it possible for senior citizens and people with low incomes to become tenants of the Olympic Village. We could help these people by paying part of their rentals by way of contributions under section 44(1 )(a) of the National Housing Act. On the other hand, we are seriously wondering why the Quebec government is demanding $33 million from the non-profit organization which is apparently to become the owner of the Olympic Village. We feel that this purchase should be made against payment of a nominal fee, which would spare the future owner the problem of capital financing.

Oral Questions
Monday, could the minister bring us up to date concerning his present position with respect to the indexation of civil service pensions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 have talked about this in the committee. I have said nothing different from what I said to the businessmen in Toronto. This is a problem about which the President of the Treasury Board has spoken. There is much concern about the level of the pensions of some of the higher echelons of the civil service, and one solution could be the capping of those pensions. The President of the Treasury Board has already mentioned that. As usual, the hon. member takes only a little part of my remarks to make his point. When I was asked about the lower echelons, I said that it would be most difficult. That is exactly what I said, but that is not what the hon. member wants to say to the House.


EQUALIZATION OF SALARIES WITH PRIVATE SECTOR-CAPPING OF PENSIONS   TRADE SUGGESTED INITIATION OF TRADE FAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Canadian Manufacturers Association has stated that if this country could overcome its $11 billion trade deficit each year in manufactured products, it could make available 800,000 additional jobs for Canadians to work at, would the Prime Minister seriously consider initiating "operation world markets" which would bring principal buyers from the most important industrial countries of the world to this country to see our manufactured products at giant trade fairs in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver and our heavy machinery in the plants where it is made across the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member surely is making a representation rather than asking a question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe.
* *
*


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, last July a letter was sent on behalf of the government to business and labour leaders. One part of that letter indicates that the government would attempt to lower compensation for civil servants to the level of their counterparts in the private sector. The Minister of Finance was asked to comment on this at his meeting in Toronto on Wednesday. Would the Prime Minister indicate what progress has been made with respect to bringing civil service salaries down to the level of salaries in the private sector?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member may be inadvertently misleading the House when he indicates that civil service salaries should be lowered to the level of private sector salaries. What we have said is that salaries should be comparable as much as possible so that the public sector would not lead the private sector but would be able to pay a fair compensation comparable to the private sector. There has been a great deal of progress made in this regard. The President of the Treasury Board has met with his opposite numbers in the provinces to discuss this matter. It is a matter which has been very very central to the meetings I have had with the premiers in my current visits with them. I am sure that we will have occasion to report further on this matter to the House in due course.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Speaking to a group of businessmen in Toronto last Wednesday the minister very boldly told them that he and the government were considering capping public service pensions. By Friday the minister got away from that bold position. During a CBC interview he stated: "I don't think we could get away with it". It now being


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister would brief his Minister of Finance a little more fully before he speaks to his business friends in Toronto. The Minister of Finance at that time was not referring to an upward revision of civil service salaries or compensation, but one to bring them down to a more comparable level with the private sector. Would the Prime Minister indicate if from his remark today he is implying that what was in mind in July when he wrote to the business and labour leaders in the country was a general increasing of the civil service salaries and, specifically, what is

December 5, 1977
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister's attitude on the capping of pensions as far as indexing is concerned with regard to civil servants?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: What is the Tory position on that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
WHEAT-DATE OF INCREASE IN DOMESTIC PRICE-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING FORMULA FOR FIXING FLOOR PRICE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is now some five or six months since he began promising an increase in the price of domestic wheat under the two price system. As the minister knows, the price has been steady at $3.25 a bushel and production costs are now as high as $3.96, according to the Department of Agriculture. When will the minister announce that increase, or is he trying to weasel out of it since he has now been talking about it for five or six months?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is once again using the word "promising". What has been the case is that we have been talking about it with farm organizations and looking at the issues involved. I indicated to the House only last week that I expected a resolution and decision on the question within this month. Of course, the hon. member is misleading the House, again unintentionally I suppose, in saying that the price was fixed at $3.25 a few years ago. The truth is in 1973 it was set for seven

years in the range of $3.25 to $5. For most of the period since that time, it has been well above the $3.25 floor. Notwithstanding that, it is our intention to review the question of how inflation moved faster than expected in the period between 1974 and 1976. That is what we are now taking into account in our discussions.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the floor price has indeed been set at $3.25 since September 1973. Is the minister considering introducing any changes to the act so that this floor price will be automatically indexed to farm input costs, in other words, the cost of production?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is ignoring that what was entered into in 1973 was a seven year arrangement with a price between $3.25 and $5. It was not suggested that the floor line would necessarily be adequate in terms of return by the farmers. The key is whether that price range, given some highs as well as some lows, would be fair. Dealing with the legislation in the House and in committee, we recognized that inflation at that time had already moved rather rapidly, probably more rapidly than had been anticipated in 1973. Accordingly, we built a potential review factor into the legislation. It is that review which is now going on.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Last Thursday, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Matane, the Prime Minister confirmed that rumours reported in the press that the government intends or is contemplating eliminating the Department of Regional Economic Expansion were false. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to confirm that the rumours reported in the press over the weekend that the government intends or is even contemplating eliminating the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are also false. I ask this in view of the fact that most of the work of that department is to administer statutes adopted by parliament in the interest of consumers and in fact of all Canadians who come together in the market place and the government has said it intends to rely primarily on the market place in order to enable Canadians to achieve their goals of well-being.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 can confirm that as far as I know there is no foundation to such a rumour or to the other rumours which accompanied that one. I should say to the House that every once in a while the government or members of the public service have an urge to reduce the number of ministries. There may be some place in the civil service where work is going on with regard to reducing the number of ministries. I can assure the hon. member there is no present policy for the government to reduce the number of ministries or, for that matter, to multiply
December 5, 1977

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE
them. I can say that if there were such a movement, it certainly would not begin with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of which the hon. member was such a distinguished minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFORMATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my original question and defer from asking the Prime Minister about eliminating a few ministers. My question is to the President of the Privy Council. Does the government intend before Christmas to present to the House for consideration the green paper on access to government information to be referred to the Joint Committee of the House and Senate on Regulations and Statutory Instruments?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is responsible for that particular document. It was issued in his name. The moment he is ready to proceed, I will he happy to put the motion on the order paper.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank the minister for that information. Can he assure the House that it is not because the government has found too many skeletons still rattling around in the government closets that he refused to bring it in?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is further to a question asked earlier when I asked the minister if he would arrange for a committee of the House to meet with the various economic sectors in Canada and with the negotiators for the upcoming GATT negotiations to determine whether the rates on certain goods entering Canada can be upgraded for the increment of employment and the greater viability of certain industries in Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, last week the President of Privy Council stated that we are willing to ensure that in these negotiations the negotiators meet the different parties that have an interest in the Geneva conference. The policy is still the same. If there are some sectors in which the hon. member has a specific interest, he can let us know and we will ask our officials to be in touch with those groups.


REQUEST FOR MEETING BETWEEN INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES AND GATT NEGOTIATORS
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the impact that trade negotiations could have on agriculture with regard to improvement, will the Minister of Agriculture attempt to have the government reverse its position in general on such a committee, in particular on agriculture, so thatHhose who have any complaint about the proposals of the tariff board can put these complaints directly before members of the House, the negotiators of GATT and members of the cabinet as well?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not intentionally implying that there has been no discussion between these groups. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion. There was discussion this morning at the food strategy meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Food Processors Association and the Meat Packers Council on Tariffs. They all had some input. I have already discussed with the President of Privy Council, the House leader, the possibility of members who have expressed an interest in agriculture, fisheries or industry, being on that committee in order that they will have a better understanding of what is going on in the tariff negotiations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to direct a question to one of the other spokesmen for the government in the matter, more specifically to the Minister of Supply and Services in charge of setting up a Francophone Commonwealth centered on Canada. Here is my question: During his recent African tour, with what types of supplies and services did he provide the countries visited?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Naturally, the services of the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Canadian International Development Agency as well as the good offices of Canada towards the Third World.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to put a question to him concerning the various countries visited. Did he go to the Central African empire with a view to soliciting the support of Emperor Bokassa in his proposed Francophone Commonwealth centered on Canada?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I went neither to Central Africa nor to Uganda.

December 5, 1977
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


ACCEPTANCE BY MANUFACTURERS OF AUTOMOBILES OF VOLUNTARY CODE AGAINST CORROSION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As, at this time of the year, rusting of their automobiles is of particular concern to Canadians, can the minister tell the House if all the manufacturers of cars sold in Canada have voluntarily accepted the code against corrosion that was proposed by his predecessor, and if not, what steps does he intend to take to force the industry to solve that problem?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: When the draft anti-corrosion code was published earlier this year my predecessor and his provincial counterparts set up a task force to develop and implement the code. That work has been continued. I hope early in the New Year to announce the code in its final form as well as instructions for car care and other measures. I must add that if the code is not complied with voluntarily we shall have to consider legislative measures.


FINANCE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Having regard to the serious economic conditions in Canada today and, in general terms, the serious deterioration of our export trade, may I ask whether it is a fact that negotiations have been going on for some time on the part of the government with members of the European Common Market with a view to arriving at a basis upon which Canada can join the ECM?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should inform the right hon. member that last year we had a trade surplus of one billion dollars and that this year it will be $2.5 billion. As to joining the Common Market, no such discussions are going on that I know of.


John George Diefenbaker: Statistics by the minister are as far removed from the truth as it is possible for a statement to be.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if we can get silence from that chorus of geese over there. I ask the minister this: is there no foundation for press references to the effect that a minister is presently in Europe with a view, among other things, to looking into the admission of Canada to the European Common Market?
[Mr. Goyer.l


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I always want to be extremely nice to the right hon. member. I cannot tell him we will have a deficit of $2.5 billion when we will have a surplus of $2.5 billion because I would then be lying to the House. I cannot escape telling the truth. We had a minister in Europe last week, the very good Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know the right hon. member shares my views about the qualities of the hon. member for Crowfoot. I am sure that his visit impressed the Europeans very much but I am also sure he has not offered to join the ECM.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise only to congratulate the minister on his inability to know the constituency of the latest recruit to the Liberal Party.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this would be an appropriate moment at which to call attention to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from the European Parliament led by a distinguished member, Mr. James Scott Hopkins of the United Kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State in September referred to Canada's attitude to the behaviour of Canadian-owned multinational corporations in South Africa as "a bit of a cop-out". Is the government reviewing its stand on tax concessions or other support for Canadian corporations in South Africa involved in taking advantage of the South African policy of apartheid which discriminates against the majority of the population?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Relations between Canada and South Africa are presently under review.
December 5, 1977


INFORMATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that posed by my hon. friend from Peace River and is addressed to the Prime Minister. It relates to a speech given by the Secretary to the Cabinet for federal-provincial relations on the subject of government secrecy. Will the right hon. gentleman tell the House whether it is government policy that, in the words of the Secretary to Cabinet, freedom of information is "directed by a curiosity about the internal processes of government which does not have much purpose behind it except curiosity" and, in addition, will he assure the House that Mr. Robertson is removed as far as possible from the formulation of government policy on information dissemination?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Robertson is regarded very highly by this government and by myself in particular. I should like to refer to the speech. I know Mr. Robertson sent me a copy but it is not fresh in my mind. I will see whether I find anything objectionable in the speech when taken in its entirety.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there is still a surplus of first grade powdered skim milk for human consumption and, if there is, what is the going price?


Some hon. Members:: Order Paper!


Eugene Whelan: I am not sure whether there is a surplus but I was told last week that practically no skim milk is going into storage; they were filling the market for advance orders.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. I gave him notice a few days ago. On April 19, I asked the hon. gentleman to confirm that the commercial crime section in Vancouver was investigating alleged illegalities involving the operations of the Bank of Montreal in Vancouver as they have affected a constituent of mine, Mr. Larry McHale. The Solicitor General confirmed that this was the case and on June 23 stated during the adjournment debate that auditors were cur-
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
rently examining books and records. The audits have been complete for some time, now, and I ask the Solicitor General whether it is the intention of his department to press charges in the near future.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the matter is being reviewed by the crown attorney in order that a decision may be made as to whether or not a charge is warranted in this matter.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question. This has happened on several occasions in the past. Several times the attorney general has apparently referred a case back to the commercial crime section. Would the Solicitor General forward this matter with some urgency to the attorney general to make sure action is taken?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what type of action the hon. member would like to see taken, but the matter is being examined in as expenditious a fashion as possible.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Several days ago the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton raised, by way of a question of privilege, a matter concerning the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario by the Chief Justice of that court, Chief Justice Evans. The specific motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is to be found at page 935 of Hansard, namely:
That the portions of the judgment of Chief Justice Evans of the Supreme Court of Ontario, given November 9, 1977, which appear to restrict the right of members of parliament to full and accurate reporting in the press, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
It would, of course, be possible to take a very close technical stand on that motion and to indicate that it is too general to qualify for a question of privilege; but in fairness, the hon. member in his opening remarks, which are to be found on the previous page, cited the relevant part of the judgment of which he complained, which is as follows:
Following the authorities set out above, I have come to the conclusion that a member of parliament may utilize information proscribed by reg. 76-644 in parliament and may release that information to the media. However, I hold that the privilege of the member cannot be extended to protect the media if they choose to release the information to the public. Nor do I consider that the "real" and "essential" functions of a member include a duty or right to release information to constituents. The cases indicated that the privilege is finite and I would not be justified in extending the privilege to cover information released to constituents.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton put forward four submissions. First, he submitted that the judgment of Mr. Justice Evans, in its comments upon parliamentary privilege, are not in accordance with interpretations in this House on

December 5, 1977
Privilege-Mr, W. Baker
privilege as it relates to the relationship between members and the press; second, that the judgment is a clear and present source of intimidation to press gallery members which would prevent them from fairly and accurately reporting House proceedings; third, that the judgment usurps from the House the responsibility of determining itself when its proceedings are to be secretive and in camera; and fourth, that the judgment makes an addition to the body of legal precedent on the question of privilege which the House must challenge as soon as possible because it violates the right of the House to determine the extent of its own privilege.
I am asked, in other words, to find a matter of privilege in the judgment on the ground that it has in some way formulated an addition to the law on privilege which has lessened the definition which we have followed in this House, which has always been that it is the sum of peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceeds those possessed by other bodies and individuals. This has come to be refined in our own practices in the more positive definition of requiring, before a breach of privilege can be founded, actual interference with or prevention of a member's functioning in his capacity as an elected member of parliament.
In order to determine the validity of the points which have been raised, I think we have to examine the judgment which was put forward by the learned Chief Justice. First of all, we must realize that the nature of the application required the learned Chief Justice to examine the areas that he did. Here I refer to page 3 of the judgment which sets out the terms of the application that was made to the court. At page 2, being part of paragraph 4, the court was asked for, among other things, "a declaration that if the said regulations do prohibit the release or disclosure referred to in the"-three paragraphs above-"the said regulations are ultra vires the governor general in council and therefore of no force and effect because"; and then two or three reasons are set out, the most important of which for the purposes of this discussion appears at the top of page 3, subparagraph (iii):
The regulations abrogate, abridge and infringe the privileges, immunities and power of the applicants and other members of the official opposition as members of the House of Commons.
In other words, the court was asked for a declaration that this order in council was in fact invalid because it infringed or continues to infringe the rights and privileges of members of the House of Commons. Therefore, obviously the Chief Justice had to come to some understanding or appreciation of our privilege. But before doing so, I think it is significant that even in that exercise the Chief Justice said this, and I refer to pages 15 and 16 of the printed version of his judgment which I have before me. At the middle of page 15, the learned Chief Justice warned of the dangers of attempting to proceed on academic grounds. He says:
There is one aspect of this application which does concern me. In their alternative submissions, they seek a declaration that a member of parliament cannot be prevented from using the information in parliament. Moreover, they 
seek a declaration that the regulations do not abridge the solicitor-client privilege. In this respect they are seeking "absolution before sinning". In my view, they should advance these two arguments as a defence if they are charged. Practically speaking, they may not be charged, in which case this part of the application is simply an academic exercise.
Then, again, at the middle of page 16 he says:
Counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants could not obtain meaningful legal advice due to the refusal of counsel to receive information which might contravene the regulations. If the applicants are willing to release the information but counsel refuse to receive it, it is counsel not the applicants who are seeking the exoneration of the court in order to justify the receipt of the information. Once again, I am concerned that these proceedings are inappropriate.
Therefore, after warning us of the dangers in the academic exercise, the Chief Justice goes on to deal in the pages leading up to page 30 with the dualism that exists between the courts and the House of Commons with respect to a matter of privilege, where each has tended over a long period of time to interpret "privilege" in its own way. As far as I am concerned, the dualism that exists in this case was adequately referred to and quoted by all participants in the debate. My attitude to it remains as I stated on the day the argument was raised, to be found at page 939 of Hansard. At the conclusion of the first round of arguments I said this:
There is one thing that is very clear. There is no doubt in my mind that the privileges, rights and immunities of members of this House are in the first place to be decided by this House and not by any other body.
I have no reason to change that opinion.
The second is that there is, as I indicated in previous discussion on this order in council as it might affect members of the House of Commons, a very real danger in anybody, including this House, attempting to deal with matters of privilege in the abstract or in theory.
I have no reason to change that opinion, either. The learned Chief Justice, after going through an explanation of the dual roles of interpretation of the courts and the House of Commons, then proceeded from page 30 to page 37 of his judgment to find the following: first, that all of our definitions in regard to privilege of a member of parliament related to "proceedings in parliament". I think that is a very important term. His first finding is that all of those definitions and precedents that we have followed are accurate, correct and intact, and in that finding, of course, I can find no question of privilege.
Second, the learned Chief Justice finds that nothing in the order in council diminishes the right of a member of parliament to deal with the uranium cartel during-again-"proceedings in parliament". With that finding, of course, I can make no quarrel with respect to our privilege here.
Third, the Chief Justice finds that the regulations do not prohibit the applicants, or in fact any member of the House of Commons, from releasing or disclosing any such documents in the course of parliamentary debate to the press. Again, I can find no quarrel with the Chief Justice's finding. I find no infringement upon our privilege in any of those conclusions.
The problem seems to arise when we reach page 38 of the judgment, concluding at page 42, to which I will now refer. This is the language which seems to be causing the difficulty. At page 38 the Chief Justice said this:
December 5, 1977

Counsel for the applicants argued that the members are entitled to release the information to the press. They argued that the right to release the information to the press would have no practical value unless the press were covered by a similar privilege. Finally, counsel submitted that the members have the right to release the information to their constituents.
I cannot accede to these latter two arguments. The privilege of the member is finite and cannot be stretched indefinitely to cover any person along a chain of communication initiated by the member. The privilege stops at the press. Once the press have received the information the onus falls on them to decide whether to publish. They cannot claim immunity from prosecution on the basis of the parliamentary privilege which protects the member releasing the informaton. Whether they have a valid defence under the regulations is another matter.
I think the following is the operative language:
Finally, the member does not have the right to release the information to anyone he chooses outside of parliament. The concept of "proceedings in parliament" cannot be extended beyond all logical limits. I am not satisfied that the privilege enables the member to release the information to his constituents.
I quote those words and emphasize them because clearly, in my opinion, they are significant as to whether or not the learned Chief Justice was speaking about proceedings in parliament. Again from page 42 I quote the following:
Following the authorities set out above, I have come to the conclusion that a member of parliament may utilize information proscribed by regulation 76-644 in parliament and may release that information to the media. However, I hold that the privilege of the member cannot be extended to protect the media if they choose to release the information to the public. Nor do I consider that the "real" and "essential" functions of a member include a duty or right to release information to constituents. The cases indicate the privilege is finite and I would not be justified in extending the privilege to cover information released to constituents.
My observations on these remarks by the learned Chief Justice, which are the ones that seem to be causing the trouble, are as follows: First of all, the Chief Justice was asked for a declaratory judgment which by its very terms requires the court to make some kind of pronouncement in advance of the application of the law. Therefore, the Chief Justice was required by the terms of the application to attempt to make an assessment in advance, or in the abstract. Furthermore, when he had concluded that there was no infringement on the rights of members in parliament, it was argued before him that unless there was an unfettered freedom in the media to use this information under any circumstances, members' privileges would be constrained. Therefore, the Chief Justice had to address himself to that argument and had to attempt a declaration, in the abstract, on that theoretical proposition.
The substance of his declaration on this troublesome ground is, I think, significant in several aspects. First of all, in my opinion, a point which 1 think was missed in most of the argument relating to this difficulty is that the Chief Justice was then talking about proceedings outside parliament and not proceedings inside parliament. He made it perfectly clear there was no restriction on the rights of members to participate in debate in this chamber and, furthermore, obviously no constraint on the right of the press-indeed, it was their duty-to report fairly and accurately the proceedings that take place in this chamber.
The question arises as to whether or not there is an absolute privilege when members go beyond this chamber, take infor-
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
mation which comes into their possession and hand it to the media. Is there a risk in the media? In some circumstances I suggest there is. Is the privilege finite? Yes, I suggest in some circumstances it is. When we are relating to proceedings outside the House, I think we have to realize this. For example, in our very recent experience three examples have come to light, two of which were argued in the House and one was not.
The first, which was argued in the House, was the draft report of the committee on immigration. The second was the draft report of the penitentiary subcommittee of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Both of those in one way or another came before the House on a question of privilege because documents which had come into the possession of members during the course of their work in the areas of these committees had been released. The third situation to which I am referring, which has not come up, is a recent briefing-a regular occurrence-of members of the justice committee on security matters affecting the security branches of our federal police forces.
Again, I cite these examples only to illustrate that there are, in our own very recent experience, circumstances in which not only does a member suffer restriction in the right to communicate to constituents and to the press, but in fact it would in some cases, and has in recent memory, become an application under our privilege practices for a member or a journalist to communicate or publish documents in those circumstances.
The conclusion I have come to, therefore, is this: In the abstract, there are many situations in which at the one extreme it would constitute a matter of privilege to interfere in the slightest way with the full and complete communication by a member either to his constituents or to the press or, in turn, to interfere in the slightest way with the press's publication to the public. At the other extreme there are circumstances, again in the abstract, in which it would constitute privilege for a member to release information to his constituents and might constitute privilege, indeed, for a newspaper to publish it. In fact, there have been cases, and there are precedents in which newspapers have been brought before the bar of this House and the House of the United Kingdom on the ground that they have, in fact, breached privileges by publishing documents which were premature and which were confidential in nature.
I am only saying that the circomstances can vary from one extreme to the other, and that as long as we are dealing in the abstract, and as long as we are dealing with activities outside parliament, I do not find as much concern with the reasoning of the Chief Justice who felt that he had to deal in general pronouncements on abstract situations. I understand the reasoning of the Chief Justice in having to do so, and in the generalized way with which he dealt with matters outside parliament. In my opinion, he created no addition to the law which in any way lessens the privileges of members of this House.
Finally, even if he had done so, his pronouncement is obiter dicta, clearly, by any understanding of any lawyer who examines his reasoning, and is entirely theoretical in a nature. If and when such a question is transformed into reality, it will, I

December 5, 1977
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
am sure, take the form of an application by a member to this House. This House will then and there decide whether that reality has, in fact, constituted an interference with the real or essential functions of a member.
Therefore I find, first, that the Chief Justice was asked to make a declaratory judgment which required a response from him, firstly, on the general nature of a member's privilege and, more particularly, on the general nature of the relationship between a member and the press in the question of privilege.
Second, I find that nothing which was said by the Chief Justice alters in any way the privileges, the powers and rights possessed by members in the relationship with the press in respect of proceedings in the House.
Third, I find that nothing said by the Chief Justice alters these privileges and relationships in respect of activities of elected members which are outside of proceedings of parliament. But even if my opinion is wrong in this respect regarding activities outside parliament, in the first place the Chief Justice was dealing in abstract terms, by his own description, and in the second place he had gone beyond the basic reasons for judgment to obiter dicta and, therefore, did not make an addition to the law.
Finally, the Chief Justice was, I think, quite correct in indicating to us all the dangers that are inherent in attempting to deal with an academic situation. I feel strongly that this house should not-I have said so in the past-and cannot deal with this question in the same abstract form. On that ground, as well, I find that the matter ought not to go further.
I say, again, that this House remains the master of its own practice, particularly on the question of privilege, and this House will exercise its own judgment on our practices and precedents if and when the matter is raised in a real way before this House. At that time, this House will decide whether or not it qualifies and ought to be dealt with under the heading of privilege, and no other body.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would not be appropriate that the judgment in question be placed on record in Votes and Proceedings. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to follow the several points that you have enunciated, however clearly you did so.
Second-and this is just an observation-any infraction or invasion of the rights of parliament must be opposed strongly in the House.
I tell you, sir, that the ruling you have just given shows a Solomonesque capacity. It will be read in future years as upholding the rights of parliament, making it clearly understood that declarations outside parliament shall not in any way impede, interfere with or diminish the rights of parliament or, indeed, the rights of the press, for those rights were determined under the Bill of Rights passed by this House in 1960.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his suggestion. I want to say, in passing, something I intended to say during the course of my ruling, namely, that the contribu-

tions made by all hon. members to this very important point were, first of all, in agreement, because every member of the House who participated in the discussion rejected the idea that our procedure could be determined externally. However, 1 thought it was incumbent upon me, in respect of all these arguments-all of which were very valuable-to reject as firmly as I could that idea, and indicate that I did not think it was necessary to go further, for the deliberation of the House, in order to make that rejection.
I thank the right hon. member for his remarks. With respect to his precise suggestion, I have the copy of the judgment to which I referred during my study of this matter. It is rather marked-up with my own notations, but it is the only copy which would relate to my remarks. I cannot think of any reason why it should not be tabled forthwith as part of Hansard, since the reasons I have just given will not make much sense without it. In any case, I am more than happy to comply with the suggestion made, and table it forthwith.


MR. BEATTY-LEAKING OF PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL TAX INFORMATION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, during question period for the past couple of weeks I have raised the question of leaks of personal and confidential tax information to an unauthorized individual. I have cited a number of cases in the House concerning the possibility of an individual, posing as a chartered accountant, getting this information without producing proper authorization to the tax authorities.
Last Friday the minister asked me to substantiate my claim that chartered accountants have said publicly that they are able to get this information without having specific authorization. I cited to the minister an interview on "As It Happens" a couple of weeks ago by Mr. David Ingram of CEN-TA Tax Services, of Vancouver. Also, I could have cited a similar interview on radio station CFNY in Brampton two weeks ago last Friday. In that interview, a chartered accountant indicated that it was possible for him to receive confidential tax information about individuals without showing the proper authorization.
Today, the minister delivered to me a letter, as the House opened, in which he reported on his study of the transcript of Mr. Ingram's remarks on the CBC. The minister quoted one or two sentences from the letter. However, he did not quote from the operative paragraphs of the letter in which the minister confirms what Mr. Ingram said about the facility with which chartered accountants, or people posing as chartered accountants, can get information from the Department of National Revenue without showing any authorization whatsoever. Instead, the minister extracted one sentence from the letter in which he concluded that Mr. Ingram's allegations were general in nature and that his examples were so hypothetical that it made his observations meaningless.
December 5, 1977

If the minister had put the entire letter on the record it would have been possible to look at the report made and to compare it with the facts. That letter substantiates everything I have said. It shows that although Mr. Ingram was not trying to get information for fraudulent purposes, an individual posing as a chartered accountant could very easily have access to personal and confidential information from the Department of National Revenue about individuals.
My point of order is that the minister quoted, in the House of Commons, an extract from the letter. He did not quote the entire letter. It is incumbent upon him to table the letter and to have it appended to today's proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: I will wait for the response of the minister on the argument. The point raised by the hon. member, on the face of it, conforms in many ways to our practices. I am not aware of any defences the minister may have. It is an extraordinary situation, where obviously the minister does not have to ask the recipient of the letter for permission, which is often the case. In any case, the minister may have something to say. But the hon. member has raised a point which conforms with similar suggestions in the past. Surely the minister is forewarned that when he comes into the House tomorrow, he will have to meet the point. He can either argue the point, or table the letter. We would expect the minister to do so tomorrow.


INCOME TAX ACT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, when Bill C-ll was being dealt with in committee of the whole, 1 raised a point concerning the appropriateness of a subsection within Bill C-ll which in no way is in keeping with the income tax motion. At that time, the Chairman of committee of the whole indicated that he was not sure whether it was the appropriate time to deal with it. The discussion ended with the Chairman stating, as reported at page 1480 of Hansard for December 1, 1977:
I would be ready to stand the clause by unanimous consent, leaving the way open to the hon. member to make his request when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, rather than to me. Otherwise I would be more or less making a decision which strictly I have not been asked to make, the request being made of Mr. Speaker.
I hope we can resolve this problem without forcing me to make a decision, since there is apparently unanimous agreement among the committee.
Then the Chairman indicated that he would go on to hear me on another point. I spoke on the other point. My point of order is this. When may I put the fundamental point of order to Your Honour concerning the appropriateness of the section in Bill C-ll which I raised last Thursday in that it is not in keeping with the income tax motion which is set out on the opposite page? If now is the appropriate time, I would be prepared to make my argument as to why I feel the legislation in its present form is quite improper in that it does not conform in any way with the income tax motion to which I am referring.
Income Tax Act


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the point raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe about the substance of the substantive point and the procedural one. The proper course of action would be to get some determination, since the bill is still in committee of the whole, from the chairman, from which an appeal would be taken to the Chair. Whether that might be done in a very brief way to avoid repetition of argument on both sides could be explored.
As a result of a motion initiated last Friday by the hon. Minister of Finance, I understand that today we will launch into a two-hour debate under the provisions of Standing Order 75. That being the case, we would have two hours, and during the supper hour as well, in which to explore whether some arrangement can be made. Perhaps after the vote this evening would be an appropriate time to deal with it very briefly in committee and then have it referred, by way of an appeal, to the Chair. Perhaps during the debate on time allocation, negotiations could take place to see if there is a convenient way to do it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I feel the committee of the whole anticipated what Your Honour has said. My understanding is that there was unanimous agreement to stand the clause, as far as committee of the whole stage was concerned, with a view to making a stated case to Your Honour in order to receive your decision with respect to whether the clause is, in fact, appropriate or not.


Mr. Speaker:: In either case, perhaps we could agree to deal with it right after the vote on the procedural motion today. That would be the most convenient time for me, if it is to go ahead in that way.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, our only handicap is that we have a great deal to consider during committee of the whole stage on this bill. I understand we are now being limited to three further sitting days. Being a jurisdictional and a procedural type of problem, it would be most unfortunate if the bulk of the debate during that closure period should turn on a procedural problem, as opposed to being dealt with at a time such as now. Once we were within the "gag" limitation of the closure motion, it would be most unfortunate to spend a considerable amount of time arguing this motion within the limited time-frame, as opposed to advancing our arguments at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: My hands are tied. I cannot make a decision on a matter which is now in committee of the whole unless it is referred to me by the Chairman of that committee by way of an appeal. Perhaps that could be arranged very quickly. Aside from that, there is a possibility that if the vote is taken with reasonable expedition tonight, on the precedence that the time available during the balance of the evening would not be counted in terms of one day, and three more days would be allowed, that might be an appropriate time do deal with it. In any case, unless I have an appeal by way of the Chairman, I am powerless to deal with the matter at this moment. 1 will deal with it at the First possible moment.

December 5, 1977
Income Tax Act


Mr. Blais:: There is no mandatory provision requiring that a full two hours be taken up in debate on the limitation motion. I suggest that if the hon. gentleman is anxious to have his point of order argued, he might consent to having a vote taken now, followed by a debate on the merits of his point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With reference to my point of order, as I indicated, I felt we had the unanimous consent of the committee of the whole on Thursday to have the matter considered at the earliest opportunity by yourself, Mr. Speaker. I was simply trying to expedite the procedure. It might be helpful if we could have a ruling with respect to when the three sitting days will commence, in that if it is clear that there will be extra time tonight after whatever length of debate takes place on the closure motion, it would facilitate an argument being made with respect to my point of order later tonight.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the hon. member is willing to consider today as the first day of the time allocation, I would have absolutely no objection. I do not want to debate that matter once more. The points were made. I tried to give explanations. There are some differences between the ways and means motion and the provisions in the act, and I tried to explain them in the best way I could. Now I leave the matter for the Chair to decide.
I do not want to argue with the hon. member once more. It is up to the Chairman of the committee to make a decision, or to refer it to you, Mr. Speaker. I am completely agreeable. If we were to vote on this motion right away and proceed today with the clause by clause study in committee of the whole, and consider today as the first day, I think everyone would be happy.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be most helpful, under any circumstances, if we moved quickly to resume committee of the whole proceedings. If the Chairman does report to me any decision he has made, then I can take action on it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is germane to the matters under discussion by the House, but in view of some of the comments made I wonder if the deputy House leader on the government side would indicate the intentions of the government with respect to the business of the House tonight in the event that we complete the debate on rule 75C. Can he tell us what he has in mind with respect to the business tonight and for the next few days, on the assumption that today is not counted as the first day of debate? I know that ministers are very anxious to avoid discussing this matter in the House, but possibly I will get an answer from the deputy government House leader.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the preferable course is to complete the debate in as short a period as possible and move on to the balance of the day as the first day of debate. But in light of the point made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, we may not arrive at that point, and if that is the case, then obviously the first day will be tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not for me to decide on matters that have not yet arisen, but I do not think there is any way without strenuous objections on the basis of some pretty clear precedents, that the House will be able to consider today as the first day under the time allocation order, it might be worth a try. I see indications, however, that it will not be very successful.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I have indicated that if the two-hour debate did not last two hours, that may be a possibility. But I would certainly agree with Mr. Speaker and all hon. members that if we cannot count today as the first day, then obviously the first day will be tomorrow and the last day would be on Friday, with an opposition day intervening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, surely the picture is clear on that point. We have not yet seen the actual motion the minister will move this afternoon, but on Friday his notice read:
-that I shall move... that three additional days be allocated to the study of the said bill in the committee on the whole.
Surely those three additional days cannot start until after the motion has been passed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This was my understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; but unfortunately the deputy House leader did not understand my question. On the assumption that the first day will not start today, has he any idea what business the government has to present to the House for consideration after we finish this debate, whether it be two minutes or two hours, and whatever time it takes for a vote? What has he in mind for House business? Or is this another demonstration that the government does not know what it is doing?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for the government to indicate what business will take place, when we do not know whether there will be an opportunity for any business at all beyond what is presently before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Earlier in the day it was suggested that the reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario, to which I referred in making my ruling, be printed as an appendix to Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings, but there was never a House order to that effect. Does the House agree that it be done?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
December 5, 1977

[Editors Note: The judgment referred to will be printed as an appendix to Hansard as soon as the translation is available.]



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Prime Minister referred to certain documents in the House and you directed that those documents be tabled.
I am glad to table them on behalf of the Prime Minister.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
December 1, 1977-The Deputy Prime Minister and The President of Privy Council:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be established to consider and report upon matters bearing upon the development of the national capital region, including the programs and operations of the national capital commission;
That 15 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the House at a later date, be the members on the part of this House of the special joint committee;
That the said committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; and to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the said committee present a final report within 90 days of the adoption of this resolution taking into account the evidence given before the special joint committee on the national capital region established in June 1975, and the evidence given before the newly established joint committee;
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee;
That the quorum of the special joint committee on the national capital region be fixed at eleven (11) members, provided that both Houses are represented, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings to receive and authorize the printing of evidence, when a quorum is not present, so long as five (5) members are present, provided that both Houses are represented; and
That the special joint committee on the national capital region be authorized to retain the services of advisors and such additional professional, stenographic and clerical staff as is required during the committee's consideration and review of matters bearing upon the development of the national capital region.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and
Order Paper Questions
ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the notification which I gave to the House, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-ll, An Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, three sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration in Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill;
That, on the third of the said days, at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, any proceeding before the Committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage to the said bill, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In conformity with past practices, since we have only one or two items of routine business to clear up, perhaps we might conclude those and return to motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 209, 242, 299, 400, 444 and 454.


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


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Pursuant to an amendment to section 190 of the National Defence Act, S.C. 1959, c. 5, assented to March 20, 1959, the Court Martial Appeal Court was established succeeding the Court Martial Appeal Board. Since its inception, no person has been employed under contract to provide services to the Court Martial Appeal Court.
2. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.

December 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions


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


Roger Carl Young: In so far as the Tax Review Board is concerned: 1. Nil.
2. 1974-75, Nil. 1975-76, Nil.


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


Roger Carl Young: 1. (a) Nil. (b) Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	(a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.
Note: Pursuant to an amendment to section 190 of the National Defence Act, S.C. 1959, c .5, assented to March 20, 1959, the Court Martial Appeal Court was established succeeding the Court Martial Appeal Board. Since its inception, no part-time or full-time employees from private employment agencies have been contracted to provide services to the Court Martial Appeal Court.


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


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Nil
2. (a) 1975, $602.75. None of this money went to retired public servants, (b) 1976, nil.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Post Office Department and those agencies that report to it?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: The information requested is not readily available; our expenditure report systems are not designed to provide the information by constituencies but rather on a postal district basis for management purposes.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of Veterans Affairs and those agencies that report to it?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Departmental accounting systems are not designed to provide this information by constituency.


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE PROPOSED LIMITATION ON COMMITTEE STAGE OF BILL C-l 1 Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-11, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, three sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration in committee of the whole stage of the said bill;
That, on the third of the said days, at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the committee of the whole stage to the said bill, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to debate this motion, I wonder if it could be made clear as to what it means with respect to time. Since the motion refers to three further sitting days, that sounds as though it means Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. I draw attention, in particular, to the reference to the vote taking place at 15 minutes before the end of government business on the third day. In other words, is the proposal that any votes at the end of the committee of the whole stage take place at a quarter to four on Friday?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, depending on the length of the debate we are now proceeding with, if we have two or three hours today that could be considered the first day and the vote
December 5, 1977

could take place on Wednesday afternoon. However, as Thursday is an opposition day, and if today cannot be considered the first day, the third day would be Friday and the vote would have to be taken on Friday afternoon. If hon. members would like to consider today as the first day, and we get through this motion quickly, we could dispose of the vote on Wednesday as the last item of government business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 am really asking for a ruling from the Chair as to what the motion means.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not, of course, been met with any argument on the precedents as to what is meant. It is difficult for the Chair to determine what a motion means, when the motion has not been carried. But the motion refers to a number of additional days; therefore, at the time the motion is carried it would speak of additional days from that moment.
It is also clear-and the point has been argued-in all our precedents that the day on which a decision is taken is not one of those days. The question is not before me as an argued point, but decisions of the past are quite clear that decisions of the House take effect the moment they are taken. Obviously, if that is at nine o'clock tonight, five o'clock this afternoon, or even now, the precedents say that since the motion says "sitting days", it does not mean today.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would be agreeable to some alternative. We could have those votes on Wednesday, if we consider today the first day. I understand that there are problems for many hon. members on Friday afternoons. I would agree to postponing the votes and making them the first item on Monday after the question period. At that time we would begin the third reading stage of this bill. It has been the first priority of the government since the end of the throne speech debate more than a month ago. We want to finish it as quickly as possible. If there is no accommodation with regard to what the motion means, the votes would be taken as the last item of business on Friday afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems that hon. members are trying to carry on negotiations, albeit in good faith, on the floor of the House. 1 remind hon. members that we are talking about the committee stage of this bill, and I do not think it is necessary to envisage that on Friday afternoon the votes would take place because that is simply the automatic conclusion, by virtue of this order, of the committee stage of the bill when the committee would deal with the questions necessary to stop at that time, rise and report the bill to the House. That does not, of itself or in its own terms, constitute a recorded division. Therefore, the sensible thing must be to let some time go by in an attempt to negotiate the easiest way around this question between now and either late Wednesday or Friday, depending on what time is available. I think I have made clear what the decision on the precedents would be if the point were argued.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length about this motion. During consideration of Bill C-11, on
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
November 22, 1977, the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) tabled a motion in my name regarding the need for the government to have an order passed by the House to shorten the debate.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-l 1 follows the budget put forward by my predecessor, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). The bill was tabled last spring. Consequently, there was a six day debate on these budgetary measures. In addition, when the House was reconvened last fall, the opposition had clearly indicated to the government that they would use the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne as a means to discuss our economic policy. All matters which have been discussed in the House as well as the motion put forward by opposition parties during the debate that followed the message delivered by Her Majesty the Queen and lasted eight days dealt with the economic situation. Later on, we did have a ten day debate on second reading of this same bill. At that time, we were obliged to impose closure and restrict the duration of the debate in order to progress. We have already had four days of consideration in committee and yet, Mr. Speaker, we have done virtually no progress on a bill which contains 120 clauses. We have dealt with five of them after four days of discussion. Obviously, opposition members do not intend to pass these measures which are extremely important to the economy of this country.
The budget speech made by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), who was then finance minister, provided for substantial incentives to the private sector, to encourage it to make new investments to promote a more adequate growth of our economy.
As I have noted in my many conversations with Canadian businessmen and in a great number of newspaper articles, businessmen have always said they did not believe we were going to approve the legislation introduced by my predecessor, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), and even though I have reassured them several times about this, many believe that we shall change our mind and they are waiting for this legislation to be passed before making any decision. I understand that our system is different from the American system, but under the American system, the president introduces a budget which is then completely changed by the House of Representatives or the Senate. In Canada, when the government introduces a budget, the House must dispose of it, otherwise there are elections, but this is not always understood.
I suggest today that we spend three full sitting days to finish the debate in the committee of the whole. Then we should have one or two days for the third reading stage, and if we compare this with other debates, and I would refer to the bill introduced by my predecessor in 1976, Bill C-22, we see that the House took 11 days to study this bill, plus the six days of the budget debate, which gave a total of 17 days.
To this day, we have spent six days debating the budget in the spring. During the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, we spent in fact eight days studying economic problems. We have now been studying this bill for 14 days, we expect to study it in committee of the whole for

December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
another three days, and as is traditional, we shall probably have one or two more days afterwards. This means, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have spent 32 days studying the budgetary legislation introduced in the spring whereas this used to take 12 or 15 days. It is with great regret that I introduce this motion.

I think the people of Canada are entitled to some decisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: At second reading of this bill the opposition did not have the courage to vote against it. Hon. members opposite voted for it because they knew they could not vote against the budget measures which had been proposed. Now they are dragging their feet. It was said that one of the obstacles was that for much of the debate I was not in the House, so I have made it a point to be here all the time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is our problem.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If that is the problem, I will leave it to my parliamentary secretary, because I have an excellent parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If I do that, they will say I did not take my responsibility. I know the parliamentary secretary is better than any of the critics they have on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I missed only one day last week when I went to talk to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I would like to say to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who is asking me questions about that meeting, that he obviously has a friend there. I do not mind-


An hon. Member:: More than one.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not mind. I do not have to withdraw anything. While talking on the phone with the executive secretary of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, he was appalled-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You raised it first.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -that someone would go rushing to the hon. member right away-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, I believe the minister very carefully explained to the House that he first raised the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce before the standing committee of this House, and took it upon himself to say that he had made certain observations to that meeting in Toronto. If the minister is receiving flack from the executive secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, he should accept that personally-because he raised the meeting, not us.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The communication I have from the executive secretary of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce was to offer his apologies that I was there. In my usual style, I told him like it is, and I do not have to withdraw anything I have said. He said to me that he wanted to offer an apology that the hon. member for York-Simcoe would use one of the members of the Chamber of Commerce as his personal spy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not mind, they hired spies all over the place for many years, and I am not embarrassed by that. I just wanted to report to the House that I have received the apology of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and I said that in their organization, like any other, there could be some rotten apples.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is trying to get into flight here, but I wonder if he would accept a question before he flies any farther.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have answered many questions from the hon. member for the last two months since I have been Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: He has not had a good answer yet.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: After so many days here in committee and in debate, he has not scored very often.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to say that it is urgent, for the economic good of this nation, to pass this bill. The people who will receive tax exemptions on January-are entitled to know exactly where we stand. If hon. members on the other side do not agree with what is proposed, why did they vote for these measures at second reading, and now are dragging their feet? For what good? The people of Canada who are watching us on television will find it incredible that we have spent a month on such an item. I am just doing today what Westminster is doing every day; they allocate the business of the House of Commons. As a Francophone from Quebec, I am not embarrassed at all in taking a traditional mood from Westminster, England.
Today we have decided, in the name of the government, that there is going to be a vote on these measures at the end of the third day. I have moved such a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 regret to inform the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have to move the following motion:
That in relation to Bill C-ll, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, three sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration in committee of the whole stage of the said bill;
That, on the third of the said days, at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the committee of the
December 5, 1977

whole stage to the said bill, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Obviously, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is getting forgetful in his tired state. He did not even realize his own motion had already been moved.


An hon. Member:: Wasted time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have a problem understanding, sometimes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I always find that when the minister is a little weak in argument, his ire is raised. He expresses himself in a louder voice and shows his emotion. Clearly, the government has no legitimate reason to bring closure in to gag the members of this House the way they are doing today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I find absolutely contemptible the way this government is not only overtaxing the Canadian public but is completely impatient when their representatives try to discover a few facts concerning the Income Tax Act itself.
The Minister of Finance has outlined what he feels is the position respecting debate on this bill. Frankly, he has misled the House. As we know, this matter arose first of all, out of a budget brought in by the then minister of finance on March 31. For reasons known only to the then minister, he did not choose to bring in the Income Tax Act arising out of his budget until June 15 of this year. I refer to Bill C-56.
All of us realize that the government, in complete contempt of this parliament and in contempt of the Canadian public, refused to bring that bill in for debate. There was not one day's debate during that period, at second reading stage or at any other stage, with respect to the Income Tax Act and Bill C-56. To have the minister now stand and make representations that this has been a continuous debate-in referring to the March 31 six days of debate-and somehow leaving the impression that the bill before us is one and the same as the legislation which started with the March 31 budget, is not the fact. That is why I say he is misleading the House. Bill C-56 never proceeded.
The bill before us arose after the October 20 statement of the Minister of Finance. It was a new budget in everything but name. As a result of the new budget on October 20, we have Bill C-ll which was given first reading on November 2. I would point out Bill C-ll is an adaptation or an extension of Bill C-56; it adds 24 pages to the bill.
The last time closure was used on Bill C-ll, how many of us realized that the minister himself, at the time he was proposing closure, brought in ten further amendments to his own bill, Bill C-ll? Let us not forget that not only did they bring in ten amendments after bringing in closure at second reading of Bill C-ll, but after announcing here on Friday that he proposed to bring in his closure motion today, his parliamentary secretary informed us that they were proposing to bring in an additional eight amendments to Bill C-ll.
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
I do not believe any other minister of Finance has had the colossal audacity to move closure on a bill that is before the House, and within minutes propose that he will have new amendments with regard to the bill when we get to committee of the whole. It is unbelievable, especially when you bear in mind that the amendments announced last Friday deal with one of the provisions that we on this side of the House are most concerned with, namely, government's proposal to tax life insurance policies in this country. That is some of the background. The fact is that there has not been undue delay in considering this bill. Many Canadians are, in truth, very concerned about some of the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The minister has represented that his friends in the business world are saying that, somehow or other, they do not want to make the investments they otherwise would make, because Bill C-ll is not passed. What absolute poppycock! If that is what is holding up the Canadian economy from further progress, God help our Canadian economy. Clearly, the Minister of Finance is again misleading the House. He referred to the private little meeting that he thought he was having in camera in Toronto, where he obviously went to tell certain businessmen what he thought they wanted to hear. He referred to that in the course of debate on this motion. What he forgot to make clear to this House was that he was the one who first raised the fact of an incamera meeting, before a standing committee of this House. Having raised the subject, he is obviously now a little embarrassed that some of us at that standing committee happened to know what he said at the meeting and put a few questions to him.
We have a Minister of Finance who is, first, beyond his depth on Bill C-ll. He does not understand the provisions he is asking us to accept. I point to the record. Read what transpired in committee of the whole stage, the number of times the minister obviously did not know what the clauses meant. In fact, after they were explained to him he could not re-explain them to members of the committee.
Second, we have a minister who wants to suck and blow at the same time. He tends to want to go to the business community and meet with them in private to get their confidence, telling them what he thinks they want to hear. He knows in his heart that what he is telling them is not what his master is willing to have them do. The only thing that counts on that side is what the emperor, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), at any particular time thinks should be the law. It really does not matter what our little Minister of Finance happens to be saying at any particular time.
Let me be more specific about Bill C-ll. Let me tell the members of the House that we are quite concerned about some of the provisions of this bill. In committee of the whole stage, for the first time since capital gains tax was introduced in this country-January 1, 1972-we dealt with a review of what, in fact, has been the impact of capital gains tax in this country. We brought out that it is a confiscation at the present time, to

December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
the extent that capital gains are not being indexed in order to allow for inflation.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we reviewed the tax for employment benefits that is proposed. We suggested it was not what was needed. We felt there should be a greater exemption given with regard to the employment expense deductions that are in the Income Tax Act. Unhappily for the workers of Canada, the government ramrodded it through and said the allowance it was proposing was sufficient; that it would not go along with anything higher. Surely it is not wrong for us in this House to ask for a little better treatment. The provision to which I am referring simply allows the expense allowance to be raised from $150 to $250. We voted for it to go to $400 on the basis that many people in business are able to get almost unlimited expense allowance simply by showing receipts. Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that employees should get a bigger allowance than $250.
We also dealt with the question of the proposal to tax the grants that will go to those who attempt to insulate their homes in order to save energy. We feel the government should not be taxing those grants. We made some effective arguments to back up that position. It was on this point that the Minister of Finance really lost his head. We pointed out-and we will be arguing this further-that the income tax motion with regard to the taxation of insulation grants is not in keeping with the legislation they are trying to foist through by means of this bill. If the bill in its present form passes, the government in future will be able to proscribe, as they say, any program and from this day on such programs will be subject to taxation. We say that provision is wrong, and we wish to have it deleted from the bill.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the unfairness of this motion must be very obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to discover that there are 116 clauses in the bill and thus far we have dealt with only six of them. That means the other 110 clauses will have to be dealt with in what amounts to about 2Vt days, since Wednesday is only a half day. In addition, we have the various amendments of which the government has already given us notice, plus other amendments which we understand are to be made. Therefore, I say it is very unfair to the House and the country to ask that this legislation be put through committee of the whole stage under a closure motion of this kind.
I enter the debate on this closure motion mainly to express, again, my disappointment at the ease with which the government brings in these motions. After all, every time the government uses a closure motion to end debate, it is copping out on its responsibility to participate in some significant discussion on the procedures of this House. I want to say frankly and categorically, I do not believe it is the right of the opposition to be able to decide that debate is going to go on forever.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to have that 'Hear, hear". I hope there will be a similar "Hear, hear" when I state the other side. I do not think the opposition should be able to engage in filibuster after filibuster and stall the work of the House in that way. However, the other side of the coin is there as well. I do not think it is fair for the government to be free to decide unilaterally, by its own fiat, that a debate must end whenever it says so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely there is somewhere a compromise, somewhere an accommodation between unlimited debate or filibuster on the one hand and the constant use of the guillotine on the other. What I do not like is that the government, having got 75C on the books, finds it easier to use that than the old Tory closure rule of 1913, and resorts to it time and time again as the easy way out. Some day we are going to have to come to an arrangement to handle the business of the House on the basis of common sense.
On a radio program yesterday, I think it was "Cross Country Check-up," I heard the voice of my good friend, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). He made a remark to the effect that this House of Commons will have to be yanked into the twentieth century. I think the government has to face its responsibility in matters of procedure, as well.
In my opinion, a better way should be found. I will take a few minutes in which to lay out a proposal I have made a number of times because I feel it has common sense in its favour. I do not think every motion or every bill which comes before the House should be debated without any time limit. On the other hand, I do not think the government should have the right to cut off debate unilaterally.
We ought to have an arrangement based upon an understanding between both sides under which at the start of a session of parliament the government would be required to list all the measures it proposes to bring down during the session. The government, having provided such a list, a meeting should take place among the representatives of the parties to divide those bills into three categories. It should be possible to agree that a number of those measures are purely housekeeping in nature and ought to take very little time by way of discussion in this House or, perhaps, no time at all.
I have seen many bills debated at length on second reading when they could have gone to committee without any debate at all. At the other end of the scale, there are measures which are so important that the opposition ought to have the right to debate them at any length it wishes. In between are the routine bills which, I suggest, could be dealt with under some firm rule. So there are the three divisions: housekeeping measures which could go through with little or no discussion, routine bills which could be subject to a two-day limit, and then the controversial matters which would be open to full debate without time limit.
December 5, 1977

1 suggest the opposition should be given the right to pick out five or six, or eight or ten bills-whatever the agreed number might be-which it felt should be open to unfettered debate. Having been given that right, the opposition should agree to housekeeping measures going to committee with little or no discussion, and to a two-day time limit on the debate of other legislation. I put this forward as a common sense approach to the present situation in which, on the one hand, the opposition says, "This debate must go on forever," and the government says, unilaterally, "The debate must end."
A scheme of this sort involves, of course, a degree of understanding which does not now exist. Oh, we do have a form of consultation; we meet as House leaders and discuss these things, but in the final analysis the decision is with the government. I have proposed an idea of the kind I have just outlined on a number of occasions over the years. It has been considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. In the last session, that committee produced a report which was supposed to streamline the work of the House. That report got nowhere because it did not meet with general acceptance.
Mr. Speaker, the only approach the government takes toward the provision of time is to cut or limit. It never wants to give anything; it just wants to take away. We came out of that committee last session with a report to which there was no possibility of getting agreement. No consideration was given to the kind of proposal I am putting forward. I am not suggesting, of course, that the regime I propose is perfect in every detail, but something along those lines would make sure that our procedure worked much better than it does.
Someone said to me, when I was discussing this approach, "What would happen in the case of bills which were not on the list at the start of the session?" Well, if the government was not smart enough to list all the bills it wanted at the beginning of the session, bills which were brought in later would be in the third category, the category which would be debated without time limit. The government always objects, of course, to any program of that sort because it looks at part 3 and says it does not like a provision for unlimited debate. But, Mr. Speaker, we have it now unless closure is brought in, and when closure is brought in everybody is unhappy. Surely the time has come-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.
[ Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) very valid suggestions which deserve our consideration. In my opinion, the government and the opposition should carefully consider these proposals and accept them. If those proposals require some amendment, this can be done, as the hon. member said himself. Certain governments, including the Swedish government, operate in a way somewhat similar to that mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. For the second time, we are debating a closure motion
Allotment of Time for Bill C-II
on Bill C-ll, that is on the same bill. This must stop since it embarrasses everyone.
Until recently, in Sweden at least, sittings are held on a set schedule and debates are divided into three categories and also held on a set schedule, as for bills on financial legislation. They also must be debated within a certain period. Routine bills, for instance, are debated on a set schedule and finally, there is the general debate. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that to be logical we should use a similar approach and better organize our parliamentary debates. I think that one of the main points we could adopt here would be the set schedule for sittings. It could improve many aspects of our proceedings.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) told us earlier that we have now been debating Bill C-11 for fourteen days. It seems very long to him but for the opposition that must study a bill as badly drafted as Bill C-ll, it is certainly not exaggerated. At almost each session we have a similar and as voluminous a bill amending the Income Tax Act; if those bills were better drafted, I think we could adopt them much faster.
In this long debate, I think that both main parties are to blame. First, as I said earlier, if this bill had been better drafted, its study would be easier. This government systematically refuses all suggestions made by the opposition. It rejects the amendments proposed by the opposition. Last week, my colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Allard) proposed an amendment extending the provision that allows any worker to claim a tax deduction of $250 a year. Before, this exemption was $150. We believe, and I think it is accepted by all workers, that this amount falls far short of meeting the substantial increase in transportation costs in Canada.
My colleague from Rimouski suggested to raise that amount to $400. Yet, the majority party massively rejected this amendment. Other suggestions have been made in other areas but the same thing happens. The only amendments accepted by this government are its own. We should almost adopt them without any study, without any debate, particularly in a closed debate like this one.
Mr. Speaker, I think there was also some exaggeration on the other side. I often heard the Progressive Conservative Party repeat the same thing. Instead, I think that they might have made more precise suggestions and particularly a larger number of amendments to improve Bill C-ll. Mr. Speaker, I have participated in the whole debate on Bill C-l 1 and I often asked myself certain questions. Everybody knows that the Liberal Party is recognized as a tax prone party but people know also that if the other party were in power, I mean the Progressive Conservative Party on the left side of Your Honour, it would probably be the same.
We should only remember the situation in 1962, when we had a Progressive Conservative government. We were facing the same economic problems. We had a frightening rate of unemployment. The inflation rate was going out of hand. The U.S. dollar was at a considerable premium over the Canadian dollar, which in effect was responsible for the Progressive Conservative defeat in 1962-63. And we are now back to the same position. For that reason, a number of people feel that no
1552

December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
matter which of those parties is in power, it is always the same thing.
I for one believe that neither is better than the other. I heard the representative for the Progressive Conservative party cry like an offended maiden against the closure motion. This is quite ridiculous. They had ample time to introduce amendments, but did not choose to do so. Suggestions they made, but amendments they forgot to introduce. I feel that if we are to proceed in a responsible way during the three remaining days, we should be thinking of bringing down amendments, at least to show the Canadian people we are making positive suggestions to the government, we really want to improve the legislation. And if the government turns them down, they will probably be treated as they deserve next year. Mr. Speaker, such are my views in this brief closure debate. This is the second closure motion we have been having these last two weeks, and I hope we will not be confronted with a third one on the same bill at the third reading stage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue with the thoughts left with us by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about the way in which business is conducted in this House. Those of us who have watched the House of Commons in operation over a period of years, and seen the transformation that has occurred, can only agree with the hon. member when he suggests that serious consideration should be given to making the rules of this House more responsive to the circumstances of the legislation which appears before us from time to time.
The fact that we are debating this kind of motion under 75C is, I think, a reflection of the mismanagement of this government and of the way in which the cabinet, almost uniquely in the history of Canadian politics, has managed to bungle its way through the affairs of the House of Commons. When I say that, I am not sure that they do this without some motive behind their approach to the House of Commons, for it is not a very well kept secret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the leader of this "great" government across the way, is a man who resents the House of Commons, resents involving himself in debate in the House of Commons, and resents the fact that he has to put any programs which he wants to make into law before the House of Commons.
Therefore, the Prime Minister accedes to the actions of ministers of finance who bring forward bills emanating from budgets brought down months before. We have examples where budget bills are brought forward six months, or, in the case of Bill C-ll, more than six months after the budget has been presented in the House.
What have we heard from the government side, Mr. Speaker? We have heard cries of agony and concern that "if we don't get this bill through immediately, or tomorrow or the next day, the business community will not know where they stand and this will be the fault of the opposition". The

backbenchers and colleagues of the government cannot see the expression on the face of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) as he has sat through the debate on the bill in committee of the whole, whereas we on this side can. I have never seen anyone go through such anguish and express such dislike for the process of committee of the whole as the Minister of Finance. To those of us on this side of the House he was completely ill at ease and ill-prepared to deal with any suggestions and questions from members on this side of the House, or to defend a piece of legislation brought forward by his government. Since the last budget was not his, I understand his apprehension and concern at defending it.
We might get some indication of the government's motivations in this matter, Mr. Speaker, if we examine what happened in committee of the whole. The government has talked about having a full debate on economic matters. We have before us a bill which puts into effect provisions which were set forth first in the budget of last March. We went into committee of the whole on Bill C-l 1 for one minute on November 24. On November 25 and November 28 we spent approximately five hours debating the bill in committee of the whole. We then had an approach from the government side to enter into discussions pursuant to Standing Order 75B. After a mere five hours of discussion in committee of the whole, the government was thinking in terms of bringing in an agreement under Standing Order 75B. Having discussed the possibility of an agreement, the government is then entitled unilaterally to bring in a motion under 75C, and this after a mere five hours of debate on a bill containing over 200 pages.
Some of the provisions of the bill we agree with, but we have serious concern about many others. Not only are we concerned at measures in the bill; we are concerned at the absence of many other measures. Due to the government's bungling and mismanagement, since the budget was brought down in March there was a hiatus in time before further action on the bill was taken, rather than the budget debate following the normal course and the bills being introduced thereafter.
The government wails and complains about the fact that there is so much repetition in debate. The fact of the matter is that to avoid repetition, the government should put their house in order and bring their business before the House in a logical manner so there is some relationship between ways and means and supply and we do not have to dissect and bisect our consideration of budgetary matters. The government should show it is capable of governing the country, instead of being a bunch of bungling-the only appropriate word I can think of-incompetents.
What do they do? They sit back and say we should get this bill through because the businessmen and chambers of commerce want us to give immediate attention to this matter. Anyone who is concerned with business-and every accountant-knows that this government, with a majority, will carry the provisions in due course. Is that any reason to thwart the legitimate representations of the representatives of the people
December 5, 1977

of Canada in the House of Commons or their suggestions to this government?
We had a budget early on in March, but what has happened since then? We have had substantially worsening inflation. We have an unemployment prospect for this winter which is horrifying. We now have the announcement by the minister that the government is going to withdraw wage and price controls. In economic terms, we have these developments six to eight months after the budget is brought down. We are denied a new budget which rightfully we should have had to deal with these horrendous economic prospects. Instead, we are thwarted in any discussion or in making any recommendations. This government seems incapable of running this country, economically or otherwise.
We now have the prospect of the government trying to ram this bill through by curtailing discussion. This means the people of Canada will not have full discussion of the economic matters on which the people of this country think we should be spending our time. In fact they are demanding that we spend time on these matters.
I say, therefore, to the minister-who has disappeared from the chamber after his outburst-that the fact of the matter is that it will not do him any good to try to confuse the issue by saying the opposition is responsible for the mismanagement of this country. I do not think for one moment that anyone who gives any thought to the whole process of parliament and the idea of responsibility of government will pay any attention to that kind of specious argument. The government proposes, and this forum of parliament is the place where elected representatives have the right to speak about what is happening and make recommendations based on what the people they represent are suggesting in respect of economic matters.
We would like to have made a number of specific propositions in respect of this bill. The life insurance provisions continue to be in a mess. The $100 tax cut should be made in 1977, not in 1988. I would suggest that roll-over provisions to help small corporations, farmers and small businessmen to pass enterprises over to their children should be included in this legislation. There should be no taxation on home insulation grants. It is almost an insane proposition to make these grants and then tax the money in the hands of the recipients. That is what will happen with the exception of two Liberal provinces where the rules are quite different. No wonder the government is receiving few applications under this plan.
These are legitimate suggestions which we on this side want to put to the government, but it refuses to listen to anybody. It blames the opposition for everything and refuses to bring matters before parliament, due to its basic contempt for this institution. There are a number of propositions which we in this party intend to set out. Members on our side wish to tell the House precisely what we think this government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the second time in two weeks I have had to get
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
up-and I do not like putting myself forward to speak too frequently-to oppose the imposition of closure by the government. I never thought it would come to this day. 1 come from a parliamentary legislature where the value of speaking and the value of being able to express your view is well recognized. I believe the only time in my ten years in the Newfoundland legislature that we had closure was on an occasion brought in by the Liberal government of the late J. R. Smallwood, and I say "late" not in the sense of the fact that that gentleman is now deceased, because he is not; he is travelling across Canada saving us; he is speaking on the national unity question across Canada, with his trips paid for by the privy council. When I say "late", I do not mean deceased, but that gentleman brought in closure once, on interim supply. That is the only time in my ten years in the Newfoundland House it was ever done. If it has happened twice here in the last two weeks. What has the government to hide, that is the question?


An hon. Member:: Plenty.


John Carnell Crosbie: Apparently it must be plenty, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Incompetence.


John Carnell Crosbie: Incompetence, yes; but they cannot hide that. It is pretty difficult to hide incompetence, but they have certainly got it. Let me take one instance of the difficulty we have been having in committee of the whole. In committee of the whole, for it to function properly you must have a minister who believes in parliament, a minister who believes in the democratic process, a minister who believes in giving information and answering questions. In our committee of the whole we have not had a minister who believes in any of these things.
For example, the minister was asked the other day, repeatedly-I think it was last Friday-what it would cost if clause 6 of the bill was amended, taking out the provision that home insulation grants under the CHIP program would be taxable in eight provinces but not in Nova Scotia or P.E.I. If that provision came out of the bill so grants were not taxable in any province, what would it cost? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) gave the extraordinary answer that it would cost $560 million. You might ask, Mr. Speaker, why it is extraordinary for the minister to collect $560 million in taxes over the next seven years from these grants. I hope he is listening, because he has a lot to learn. But he does not appear to want to learn, and is pacing restlessly about the chamber like a caged tiger. He cannot wait to get closure in so he will not have to answer any further. There would have to be grants to four million householders. The minister says he would collect $560 million over the next seven years from people who had received the home insulation grant. The maximum is $350 if you are living in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec or British Columbia, the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. If you live in Nova Scotia or P.E.I., the maximum is $500. We will forget about that for now.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) says thay are going to spend $2.4 billion over the next
80027-29 Vi

December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-l I seven years. They are going to get back roughly half of what they spend, according to the minister's reply. The program will cost the government $1.4 billion over seven years. The Minister of Finance says if he makes the grants non-taxable, he will lose $560 million. He has to get $560 million back from the $1.4 billion that the other minister intends to spend over seven years.
If the maximum grant is $350, you will need four million householders outside Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island receiving the grant. If you divide $350 into $1.4 billion, it goes four million times, so you would have four million householders getting the maximum grant of $350. Every one of those four million householders will have to be in the highest tax bracket, or at least the 50 per cent tax bracket, because they will have to lose half of what they get to make up the $560 million.
What the minister is saying is that there are four million householders who are going to get the maximum grant and who are all going to be in the 50 per cent tax bracket, because that is the only way he could lose $560 million if he made these grants non-taxable. It is quite obvious he is not accurate; he is not even approaching accuracy. To suggest that one-half of the cost of the program would come back in taxes if the grants remain taxable in the eight provinces is not true; it is not the fact. But that is the kind of answer we have been getting from the Minister of Finance over the last few days.
By the way, there are only 7,026,000 householders in the eight provinces, so you would require a fantastic acceptance rate. You would require four million out of those 7,026,000 householders to take the grant. To make it even more ridiculous, only 1,223,000 are eligible the first year, and it gradually goes up year by year; so you haven't got four million even eligible until four years have gone by. Never before has such codswallop been put before the House. Codswallop is something which is scraped off the floor after the cod has been dealt with pretty sternly. Thus, the minister will know what I think of his answer. When we stand up to ask questions in this chamber, this is the type of answer we receive.
The committee of the whole is the only effective committee parliament has. We can ask questions, and if the minister does not give proper answers we can ask another question. It is unlike House committees. House committees are emasculated. House committees are parliamentary eunuchs guarding the harem of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), where he hides his delights. The hidden delights of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are protected by the Parliamentary eunuchs, the committees of the House of Commons. Those committees have no power. They cannot subpoena anything. They are dominated by the majority; the majority controls them. The chairmen are Liberals for the most part. They are under the thumbs of the powerful ministers in the government, as well as the Prime Minister. One cannot expect the chairmen to be independent.

Members can only do what they are permitted to do. They sit in committee. They are given ten minutes to ask questions and receive answers. A member asks a question and he receives a non-answer from some long-winded minister for nine minutes. It is the most pusillanimous and piffling procedure ever foisted on parliament.


Mr. Boulanger:: That is not so.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman opposite is too used to being a Liberal backbencher. Members on this side of the House have not been through that experience. We are full of vim, vigour and vitality. We ask questions and we want answers. We are not interested in the parliamentary eunuchism that this government enforces on members opposite and on Canadians. We want vibrant committees which have power.


Prosper Boulanger: That is good for TV.


John Carnell Crosbie: We do not want these emasculated committees. We do not appreciate closure. We are like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). He does not appreciate the Cape Breton miner. He infers that they are lazy louts who do not want to work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We do not appreciate closure. Positively, we do not appreciate it. Also, we do not appreciate the honourable baa-baa black sheep opposite.


Prosper Boulanger: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. member opposite wants to rise and speak on this motion, he can do so.


Prosper Boulanger: I will. You are a phony.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am sure there are people who would like to hear what he has to say. Wherever these people are located, they would like to know why he is voting to cut off debate in this House on the income tax amendments which are before us. The only effective forum to put a minister on the griddle and give him a bit of a frying is committee of the whole. That gives him a bit of a frying, but not a scorching.
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) would not have had closure brought in. He was fearless in his approach. He was convinced, absolutely, that he was right. He had all the wrong ideas to back that up, but he was not afraid to put them forth for examination. The new minister is somewhat different. The new minister is a slippery eel; he will slither this bill through the House, using closure. He will seduce the senatorial promises, the sleek and sumptious growth of wealth and corporate privilege.
That is similar to what may be said by members of the New Democratic Party. The minister will rush this through because he is receiving telephone calls from the investment community. The poor fellows do not know what to do. They do not know what to expect. They cannot add two and two. Apparently they do not realize that 145, or whatever the figure is, is more than
December 5, 1977

50 per cent of 265 members. They do not understand the government has the majority and controls the House.


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


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). I am delighted to see him conferring with his officials in the gallery: that shows he is very interested.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is being briefed.


Stan Darling: Perhaps that is so. I am well aware of the importance of Bill C-ll. Certainly, there is merit in stating that it should not be debated forever. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated, certain bills merit considerable debate. I consider Bill C-ll to be one of those.
1 listened to the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) make some interventions. He stated that the Conservative party talked at some length on this bill and brought in no amendments. As far as bringing in specific amendments is concerned, the government and the Minister of Finance are aware that we have spoken against certain clauses in the bill which are in themselves amendments.
As the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) indicated, we have taken great exception to the home insulation grants being taxable. We have indicated that they should not be taxable. As far as the home insulation legislation is concerned, it comes under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Aside from the two favourite provinces, the grant is $350. That is only two-thirds of the amount of material that is purchased. Certainly, in the case of smaller houses, it could meet the entire cost of the material. Forcefully, I tried to bring that to the attention of the House on Friday afternoon when speaking on the motion presented by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott).
My party has made proposals regarding Bill C-ll. I am interested in the clause dealing with life insurance. I appreciate the position of the minister and the government on this matter. It is of considerable interest to 12 million policyholders in Canada. The government has made a concession indicating that nothing is to be done at death. I give the government full marks for that.
The Minister of Finance looks as if he wants to speak. It should not be taken off my time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I just want to indicate to the hon. member that more amendments are coming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: Why do we not see these amendments now, before closure?


Mr. Lumley:: We are not dealing with clause 14.
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll


Stan Darling: I hope the amendments consider this question, because it is very important. I am referring to the loan provisions of life insurance policies which are not allowed as tax deductions. Will that be allowed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Are you dealing with clause 14?


Stan Darling: The minister can refer to clause 14, but he has a lot of amendments up his sleeve which we do not know about.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was given to your financial critic on Friday.


Stan Darling: The rest of us are as entitled to it as our critic.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Was that before, or after, closure?


Stan Darling: I am not sure whether I have an undertaking from the Minister of Finance and his able parliamentary assistant.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Yes, he is a very able man. I have great respect for the minister's parliamentary assistant. I had occasion to work with him in municipal politics, where he did a great job. I feel he made a wrong choice when he came to the House of Commons and joined the Liberal party rather than the Conservative party.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why is the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lumley) blushing? Let the cameras show his red face.


Stan Darling: That is quite right. How can the Minister of Finance deny a business person borrowing up to the cash value of his life insurance policy at a 6 per cent interest rate? That person can borrow money more cheaply, but he is unable to deduct it as a legitimate expense. Yet you could put the policy up as collateral and borrow through a bank or another financial institution at a much higher rate, and the full deduction would be allowed. It does not make sense. In other words, if you borrow $1,000 at 6 per cent on your life insurance policy, $60 is not deductible. But if you borrow that amount from a friend and you put the life insurance policy up as collateral and give him 10 per cent, which is $100, you can deduct it. That is crazy. I hope this clause will be amended. I see the minister nodding. Praise the Lord and thank God it has sunk in.


Mr. Chr6tien:: Let us praise the Lord and thank God, and hope we go on to clause 14.


An hon. Member:: Is this a Pentecostal meeting?


Stan Darling: One other clause to which we take exception is the one which allows business expenses to be deducted for ordinary employees from $150 to $250. We consider that not to be adequate in these inflationary times and in this time of the special iniquitous 10 cent tax on gasoline. The motion

December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) of the Social Credit Party, was that the amount be increased to $400. The 3400 would give the ordinary workingman a break, which he does not get now as does the regular businessman who can deduct anything he can think of, and even things he cannot think of but his accountant can think of for him so that he can get maximum benefits. I think the ordinary workingman should also be given that additional break.
These are the reasons we feel this bill is important and should be debated at length on behalf of all the people of Canada, and that is why I take exception to closure at this time. I hope the amendments to be proposed by us will be accepted by the government. We will not need three days of debate if the government will agree to the common sense suggestions made from this side of the House.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is a good thing that closure has been imposed again, because I think the economic situation in Canada is worse now than it has been for many years and we need to debate measures such as the one before us. The fact that the government is cutting off debate on this bill indicates, probably, that it is not willing to face up to what lies ahead.
We find that the United States has just come out of a recession and they are discussing what efforts should be made to improve the economy. Their problems are big; their foreign trade deficit stands at $30 billion. Let us see how their situation compares with our economic situation in Canada. The United States will run a foreign trade deficit this year of $30 billion, with oil imports alone costing about $45 billion, as compared with Canada's $5 billion. Their trade deficit is relatively twice as big if we take into account that Canada's growth rate is only half of theirs, and our inflation rate is two points higher. Certainly we should discuss our economic problems in the House.
Let us consider what the minister himself said not long ago in the province of Quebec. He said that there is a loss of population in Quebec, business is moving out of the province, there is a faster growth of unemployment in Quebec than in most other parts of Canada, and Quebec has one of the poorest records for increased investment and higher rates of interest abroad. In an article which appeared in the Financier, a journal of financial affairs directed at top U.S. businessmen, it was pointed out that if Quebec separates, businessmen may find that their loans are being repaid in worthless Quebec dollars, supported by a nation without reserves, burdened by chronic domestic and external foreign payments problems, recognized by few, if any, foreign nations. These are some of the problems we have.
The budget was brought down six months ago, but times have altered drastically since then. Economic changes are coming on fast. We have a higher rate of unemployment, and an increasing budget deficit which has to be met by borrowing. We are borrowing at a rate comparable to the rate during the Second World War, in relative terms. A similar situation prevailed in the 1920s and the early part of the 1930s. Anyone

who has read the record will recognize that at that time bankers and politicians were saying that the economy was fundamentally sound, yet the country was plunged into a depression.
Bringing down a budget is more difficult now than it was a few years ago. Then it was a simple revenue-raising device. Now it has come to be recognized as a major weapon by which the government carries out its fiscal, economic and social responsibilities. In recent years the government has been involved to a great extent in social problems. Everyone is complaining-particularly those involved in accounting and those making business decisions-that they are not aware of what the government is doing. Accountants and businessmen will tell you that they read avidly debates in the House of Commons carried on by members of parliament who are not necessarily the most expert financiers in the world; but, say the businessmen, they demonstrate what the governement is thinking and they represent what various members have in mind when they present their arguments for and against a particular tax change.
I find that tax accountants in particular would like to have a record of the debates in the House of Commons because it indicates to them what the government has in mind, and questioning of the government brings out what may flow from a certain tax change. It is certainly true that what we pass in the House in the way of regulations is developed by senior civil servants, and these regulations are often very difficult to understand.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment at 10 p.m. are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Unemployment Insurance-Reason for eliminating fraud squad-Possibility of reinstatement; the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington)-Northern Affairs-Exceeding of departmental appropriation-Possibility of disciplinary action; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnaty-shyn)-Federal Provincial Relations-Meeting of resource ministers-Discussion of ownership and taxation of resources.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.
December 5, 1977



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before proceeding with the consideration of private members' business, as we usually do at this time on Mondays, I would like hon. members to allow me to give my decision on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on November 4 last specifically dealing with the program and selection of parliamentary measures to be discussed during private members' hour, more especially with the notices of motions moved by hon. members to that effect.
The decision which I am about to give must, in my opinion, take our rules into account, particularly Standing Orders 18(1), 19(1) and 49(1), but it cannot ignore the recent practice which has been developed in the organization of private members' business by the government.
Besides, neither hon. members nor even the hon. member for Vaudreuil seem to be opposed to that practice, except that the latter suggests it could lead to abuses in the sense that an hon. member's proposal could be set aside and not debated at the time of his choice. So, my decision was meant to conciliate those two concerns with a concrete proposal about future practice for private members' business, a uniform and orderly way of proceeding which complies with our standing orders. [English]
The point of order raised on November 7, 1977, by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and concluded on November 28 showed that for some time the House has not been following precisely the provisions of Standing Order 18(1), Standing Order 19 and Standing Order 49 as they related to private members' business.
Standing Order 18(1) provides that private members' business be taken up according to the precedence assigned on the order paper. Standing Order 19 offers a degree of protection to notices of motions and orders not taken up when called, in that it provides that at the request of the government they may be allowed to stand and retain their precedence on the order paper. Standing Order 49 provides that a private member's notice of motion which has been called twice and not proceeded with shall be dropped. The Standing Order goes on to provide a procedure for reinstating a notice which has been dropped in that manner.
On the other hand, in recent years the House has accepted the practice whereby the government has taken a certain initiative to determine in advance the item of private members' business to be dealt with at a particular sitting. Rather than calling each item seriatim in accordance with the precedence assigned on the order paper, the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has simply requested that all items preceding the previously determined item be allowed to stand at the request of the government, and sometimes by unanimous consent, or both.
Private Members' Business
As a result of the debate last week, I am satisfied that even if this practice did not conform precisely with the provisions of the relevant Standing Orders, it has gained a large degree of acceptance by the House, for two reasons. First, it gives the House advance warning of the business to be taken up during each private members' hour, and second, it protects private members' business more effectively than the Standing Orders.
At the same time, however, I considered the point made by at least two hon. members who contributed to the debate and who claimed that the practice is open to possible or apparent abuse. Certain doubts were expressed that in arranging the business for private members' hours the government might not always be guided by the priorities established on the order paper, or might not always consult all members affected or concerned.
I must say that I was struck by the effectiveness of the arguments on both sides of the question, and in making my ruling I shall try to combine the virtues of both practice and the relevant Standing Orders. I therefore hope that the House will be prepared to accept the following proposals. First, I propose that the practice developed over the last few years be continued, that is, that the government take the necessary steps to schedule in advance the business to be considered during private members' hours, with due regard to the priorities established on the order paper and through consultation, and that the House proceed directly every day at the time of private members' business to the scheduled item, standing all preceding items by unanimous consent.
Second, a member who feels that the practice has resulted in an injustice on a particular occasion and that he should have been consulted or given more advance notice may, of course, express his dissatisfaction simply by withholding the required unanimous consent. This would oblige the Chair to call seriatim, one by one, all items preceding the scheduled item.
Third, items not proceeded with when called in this manner could then be allowed to stand either at the request of the government or by unanimous consent, or they would be dropped. Of course, the necessary notation would be made in Votes and Proceedings and on the order paper so that we would know every day what items appearing on the order paper have been stood at the request of the government.
It seems to me that this combination of rules and practice should meet the concerns of all hon. members, and I hope the house will be prepared to work within this framework at least on an experimental basis.

1 suggest that hon. members follow to the letter, or at least as closely as possible, this procedure proposed in my decision about notices of motions presented by hon. members, unless implementation problems arise. Therefore, it seems to me that if everything works smoothly enough it might not be necessary for the time being to revise the standing orders of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask just one question? Putting it that way implies readiness on

December 5, 1977
Private Members' Business
my part to accept the ruling Your Honour has made. Do 1 take it that in future when a bill has been allowed to stand by unanimous consent, that will be the notation on the order paper, rather than the notation "at the request of the government"?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have considered both possibilities, and I think what the hon. member is suggesting would cause complications for the people who have to keep records and who have to prepare Votes and Proceedings and the order paper. My proposition is to operate every day on which there is a private members' hour by giving notice to the House that we are to proceed with one numbered item, making a request for unanimous consent to stand the previous ones. The fact that unanimous consent is given means that all the items which are bypassed are not really affected, so they should be considered as if they had never been called.
That is why I say that the developing of the practice of proceeding by requesting unanimous consent at the beginning of each private members' hour will thus allow us to proceed in an orderly way directly to an item, without having to use the right of the government to stand an item unless an hon. member withholds unanimous consent for some reason of his own. So actually we would be following a practice which would be in between what we have been following in recent months and what the Standing Order says. We would proceed by standing all items not proceeded with by unanimous consent, and only when an hon. member withheld unanimous consent would each item be called one by one.
For items where unanimous consent is not given, they would have to be stood at the request of the government or taken off the order paper because, as the hon. member knows, the Standing Order says that an item may remain on the order paper when called, if requested to stand at the government's request. If an item is enumerated and no member concerned does request it to stand by unanimous consent, and the government does not protect that item, it will have to go down the list if it is for a bill that is, for a notice of motion, it will be dropped from the order paper, but it can be reinstated. I do not know if I am clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand what you are proposing. My question related only to the point as to what the notation would be on the order paper of the future; whether it would be one or the other. I now make the suggestion that in all cases the notation simply be allowed to stand. Why worry whether it was unanimous consent?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I may refer the hon. member to Standing Order 19(1), the only way such an order or a notice of motion can be allowed to stand is at the request of the government or by unanimous consent. Because of the fact we do not want to keep a record of dates of standing an order or notice of motion on the order paper and on the Votes and Proceedings, I feel in making this practice a general one-the practice of standing all the items by unanimous consent-we

can forget about those items stood by unanimous consent. We do not even have to take the trouble of putting a note in the records. On the other hand, the House is very concerned, and from what I have heard the hon. member from Vaudreuil is concerned about the number of times an item has been stood at the request of the government.
I think it will be useful to an hon. member because he will know from the order paper that an item had since the beginning of a session, been called a few times, and stood by unanimous consent. If on a following occasion that consent is refused the government would be entitled to request it to stand. Only that instance will be recorded. From then on, the next time it is called it will be automatically dropped. Does that satisfy the hon. member?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, I would leave it open to any suggestion as we go along to improve the formula. I felt while we are staying within Standing Orders we would be developing a practice that could not be challenged by any member, especially operating on the basic principle of unanimous consent.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Just a question with regard to your ruling, so I understand exactly what the ruling is. Are we to understand these items on the order paper, up at the top, will be allowed to stand either by unanimous consent, or at the request of the government, an indefinite number of times?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What I am suggesting is a general practice that every time the House is proceeding with private members' business, the government should continue to organize the programming of private members' business, so that every time at the outset of private members' hour a representative of the government would request all the items previous to the item proceeded with be stood by unanimous consent. So these items could stay there up to the end of the session if there is unanimous consent.
But if at any time, to satisfy the right of a member to request that the orders be called one by one, then the Chair would call all items one by one up to the item that was to proceed. In so doing at that moment the Chair would request consent for each item to stand. If there is no consent, then the government could use its right to stand an order or motion at the request of the government. Standing Order 49(1) says these items cannot be called more than twice. Those items will be identified on the order paper as having been stood at the request of the government. The next time they come up, if they do not succeed in getting unanimous consent to be stood, they will be dropped from the order paper.
The Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council is absent from the House, and I would be ready to receive an indication from the government as to what order of business we are to proceed with.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Further evidence of incompetence, short and sweet. They do not know what they are doing.
December 5, 1977


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that motion No. 7 be dealt with and that the three previous motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Caron) suggests that we immediately proceed with the consideration of notice of motion No. 7 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) and that notices of motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5 be allowed to stand with the unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to allow notices of motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5 to stand so that the House may proceed with notice of motion No. 7 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to stand motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5 so that the House can proceed with motion No. 7.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBER'S MOTIONS


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of having the Canadian Dairy Commission publish the marketing quotas of the milk produced by all Canadian milk producers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the request in today's motion to publish the marketing quotas of the milk produced by all Canadian milk producers has already been made by the Quebec Liberal caucus and was even referred to the House by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and member for Beauce (Mr. Caron). This request was justified in the past and seems even more justified today particularly at the very outset of what could be the third great war of milk producers.
Of course, legal advisers may object on the ground that farm producers' incomes should not be disclosed, but the motion asks that a study be made into the advisability of
Dairy Policy
publishing marketing quotas for all milk producers in Canada, more particularly over the last four dairy years, namely 197475, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78. I am even prepared to recommend that this list of producers be made available only to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and that they be given the opportunity to question witnesses as they see fit in order to clear up things and brief the producers themselves who are the first people to be concerned with this matter.
Refusing to make these quotas public or rationalizing our opposition would amount to our entering the conspiracy of silence which would lead to a distortion of the Canadian milk policy through all kinds of tricks. Are there any reasons for such a request? Mr. Speaker, our policy in Canada is undoubtedly the best in the world, we can vouch for it but we cannot accept to have it distorted because it will remain the best possible policy only in so far as the support price can provide the producers with a guaranteed income and this guarantee is a real one.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, between 1967 and 1975 the dairy policy had the incentive effects that were being sought. On the other hand, in 1975-76 we had to realize that an overproduction was becoming totally unacceptable. That is why in 197677 the federal government had to ask the federations to agree to drastic cuts so as to be able to bring Canadian production in line with Canadian needs. It appears that things should be back to normal in 1977-78. However, the instruments have to be reconsidered and it should again be restated that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has the duty to determine Canadian needs and to ensure that Canadian production is directly in line with Canadian production.
The management committee, for its part, is responsible for ensuring that production is in line with Canadian needs. In such a system, theoretically the quota system allots and imposes quotas on every producer. This is a power and a duty to produce but, on the other hand, it should also be a guarantee for the producer. As far as the government, the cabinet, the Minister of Agriculture, the Canadian Dairy Commission, Agriculture Canada and the management committee are concerned, the present system is not only valid but is the instrument we must have and use properly so as to give our policy the effects we would want it to have.
Indeed, between 1967 and 1975, there was a real increase in Canadian production, and at that time the policy reached the objective that our Canadian production was more in line with Canadian production so that in fact that incentive and that lack of dependence on foreign markets had been corrected since they were the reasons why the policy had been put in place in 1967. In 1975-76, when the minister had clearly established that Canadian needs were 100 million hundredweight, we saw at the end of the dairy year that production had effectively been 112 million hundredweight and furthermore, we saw that at that time production quotas were around 136 million at the beginning of 1975-76. So the management
1560

December 5, 1977
Dairy Policy
committee had failed to put Canadian needs in line with Canadian production and only conflicts of interest within the management committee itself can be cited to explain that the committee completely distorted the dairy policy.
In 1976-77, of course, producers had to accept cuts in quotas. It is said that, theoretically, that cut was about 20 per cent but when one analyzes these cuts from the standpoint of the quotas of the producers themselves one realizes that those cuts were far from being even and one even wonders-and that is why we have the right to ask that those quotas be published-how it was that producers had their quotas cut by 20 per cent when some other producers-compared with 1975-76, 1976-77 and even going back to 1974-75-had their quotas increased 200 per cent, and even up to 300 per cent. Indeed, the government was always taken to task, and the motion introduced today would seek to have the government actually take its responsibilities as well as those who have to share those responsibilities with the government.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is about time producers know what their dairy policy is all about, that device which some dare refer to as the best possible policy, whereas in fact some producers have to suffer cuts and are in a very near future likely to have to accept more quota cuts while others seem to get quotas practically to suit their needs.
In spite of the positive recommendations we made in 197475 at the end of the dairy year, and in 1976-77 at the time of those drastic cuts, it has been deemed advisable not to implement the recommendations because the administration and distribution of quotas were not under federal jurisdiction but were the responsibility of federations and provincial bodies. The fact remains that we may find ourselves with new quota cuts in the very near future. We would very much like to why know some producers should face cuts whereas others are buying quotas everyday almost as they wish.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what we need to know to inform producers so that they will know exactly who is responsible. I for one, in the case of the province of Quebec, regret that the Agricultural Producers' Union did not take a firm stand. I discussed this with the chairman and he always says: If the UPA gets involved in the war between the two types of milk producers, it might disappear. Then to maintain the union, and we agree on that, the UPA does not want to say the truth to producers and prefers to get mixed up in a conflict of interest.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the leaders of the UPA try to make us believe that the federal government is always to blame for everything and we have letters to that effect: Quotas cutbacks are always the responsibility of the federal government when that responsibility, and the UPA people know it, belongs to their respective federation. There are also dairy federations in the industrial milk sector. It has been said that the dairy policy for 1977-78 was a good policy, that producers could accept it when a large number of them come to our offices and say: We do not have quotas anymore and we need them. As concerns whole milk, there has been a war between the two types of dairy producers since the beginning of this
[Mr. Tessier.l
year. They tried to make us believe that the federal government wanted to create this war and, as concerns the famous 25 cents, thank God, the problem has been solved as I think that the interdependency of the two types of milk has been recognized and even if they wanted to invoke established policies, they had to recognize that there was in fact an interdependency between those two types of milk and that if whole milk producers had taken advantage of a situation favourable to them since 1967, in 1977 they had to correct the actual injustice made to industrial milk producers.
Mr. Speaker, the war between the two types of dairy producers might start again and I think that we have the duty to throw light on the situation. This is why I ask the Agricultural Producers' Union to establish without any doubt that the administration and the distribution of quotas is their responsibility via existing organizations at the provincial level.
In addition, the APU and the dairy federations must reaffirm their exclusive responsibility, and take what means are necessary to make sure their members know that the administration and distribution of quotas is their exclusive responsibility. Moreover, the APU must call upon its permanent members and ask them to stop shirking their responsibilities by referring their problems to the federal government, and issue instructions to that effect; otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there will be no other choice but to ask that the list of all quotas, for all producers be published or, if it cannot be made public, then that access be given to it at least to the Standing Committee on Agriculture of the House.
Then the standing committee would be able to summon witnesses and ascertain whether or not there has in fact been manipulation of quotas because rumour has it that there is almost outright banditism in the field of quotas, their distribution and administration. We are responsible, as a government, because the government has invested millions of dollars in that sector; it has the right to know who is tampering with the data of its policy; to my mind, it behoves the House of Commons to make sure that the money granted the producers can and does in fact reach them, without any of the messing around that seems to exist now.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I strongly support the suggestion of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) that the Canadian Dairy Commission publish the quotas of each individual dairy producer for the reasons that he explained. When we discuss the dairy policy, we find that there is one major difficulty which comes from the fact that this dairy policy, from its development to its administration, involves several groups or levels of responsibility and authority. Unfortunately, when this policy is ineffective, only one level of responsibility is held finally responsible, which is unfair since several managers or several administration or management levels deal with this dairy policy. It would therefore be normal that each level of responsibility recognize its own errors.
I believe that if the quotas of individual producers for the last five years for instance were published, we could see which producers kept to these quotas, which exceeded them and
December 5, 1977

which benefited from the generosity or the administrative laxity of those responsible for the control of quotas, which does not come under the Canadian Dairy Commission, but rather under the agencies that my colleague from Compton mentioned earlier.
It is the same every time that the dairy policy is announced for the year. One year, everyone is happy, the next, everyone is unsatisfied. When everyone is happy, no one is said to be responsible for the happiness of dairy producers, but when something goes wrong, someone is held responsible for the misfortunes of dairy producers, and that is the government of Canada or the Canadian Dairy Commission. What we are forgetting is that the Canadian dairy producer, the management committee service and the producer federations all have duties and responsibilities in the administration of this policy.
When things are going wrong, it is not the responsibility level, which must first of all assess the Canadian needs, determine the amount of the subsidies and make the necessary payments, which alone is the culprit, but it must assume the responsibility together with all those who, during the year, must check production, give out or share the quotas of this production among all individuals.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in order to point the finger at the level of all the weaknesses of this administration which jeopardize the dairy policy, I feel that it is essential for the quotas to be published as quickly as possible, in order to determine which producers have remained within their quotas between 1972 and 1977 and which have not unduly exceeded their quotas, and make sure that the over-quota deliveries have not been excessive. If compared with the other producers, there are variations to the level of production, we shall know then truly where responsibilities rest, and tell the federations of producers that, before they place the blame on the shoulders of higher levels of government for the administration of the dairy policy, they ought to properly carry out their own responsibilities, namely the administration of the dairy policy.
Mr. Speaker, this concludes what I had to say on this motion.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion which I find it difficult to support for reasons which have been outlined by the two hon. members to your right who have just spoken. I sympathize with the position of farmers who wish to keep their incomes reasonably confidential, but I submit that at any point at which a complete list of milk quotas is publicized a farmer's income is publicized by the same stroke of the pen. Therefore I find the argument based on confidentiality difficult to support.
The primary purpose of the motion is to deflect criticism away from the Government of Canada and direct it to the various organizations which are responsible for the administration of the milk quota system. It is deflecting criticism on the various organizations in Canada which are responsible for the administration of milk quotas, it is deflecting criticism on the various provincial governments under whose jurisdiction these
Dairy Policy
organizations operate, and it is doing everything it can to protect the Government of Canada.
If one reviews the history of our milk distribution structure, one finds that up until about 1975 the Government of Canada had neglected the dairy industry to the point where it was virtually bankrupt. It had neglected it to the point that our production in Canada was deficient to the extent that we were importing tens of millions of pounds of butter and establishing quotas for the importation of cheese. At that point in time the dairy industry was on a slide and the bank balances of dairy farmers were nil.
The next step the government took was over-stimulative. It gave the industry too much stimulation. Then the government, by virtue of its inaccurate prediction of the requirements for milk in this country, began to lay blame on everyone but those who had calculated the quotas that they thought could be absorbed. It did not work, Mr. Speaker. In other words, the computer malfunctioned. There was no accurate prediction of what was required in Canada, and the Government of Canada found itself in the very embarrassing position of having to reduce the quotas it had already established.
As a result, the milk farmers found themselves in even worse condition. They had spent the capital required to put them in the position of producing milk to meet the quota the government had suggested in 1975 the country could tolerate.
This leaves the government in the position where it can be properly criticized, first for its neglect, and secondly for its failure to estimate the amount of milk Canada could produce and consume and which the government could afford to support. In view of this total mismanagement and the practicing of both extremes, the federal government is being criticized in Quebec, it is being criticized in New Brunswick, and the industry has felt the power of the purse. The only way the dairy industry in Canada has been able to survive for a good many years is by virtue of subsidies paid by the federal government to maintain the Canadian dairy industry. When we get to the point where we withdraw that subsidy and complaint is expressed, as it has been by the two members to your right, Mr. Speaker, then there is something the matter with the government's dairy policy.
I am quite prepared to have the provinces send the various representatives of the milk industry to the agriculture committee to express their complaints. And let the committee consider those complaints and make recommendations thereafter. If by chance the organizations in Canada want to publish the total list of quotas, then that is their position and we will support it. But out of the clear blue sky, having received no recommendation from any farm organization in Canada that we take this step, I find myself in the position where I am compelled to oppose this motion.
The latest representation I received pertaining to milk is by way of stoical complaint and complete resistance to the government's position that there should be a levy on fluid milk production in the various provinces. One or two provinces have
80027-30%

December 5, 1977
Dairy Policy
capitulated, others have adjusted, but the dairy farmers are not necessarily in accord with this position. Therefore the federal government is subject to criticism, and let it take criticism where it deserves it, because it has brought it upon itself.
The problem in Quebec has been very serious. It was unique inasmuch as the quotas which were issued were taken up with the great encouragement of the government of Quebec. When the Canadian Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had to back off, he embarrassed his own Liberal government of the day in Quebec and hurt the pocketbooks of the farmers of Quebec. Let us not try to deflect the blame for this on to farm organizations which are administering the policy of the federal government as issued with the full power of the purse by the Canadian Dairy Commission. This does not elicit support as far as I am concerned.
There are one or two comments which have been made in this regard with which I concur. The responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture in his dairy policy is to see that prices and subsidies as a combination do give a farmer a fair income; there is no question about that. But that, Mr. Speaker, starts in the chair in which the minister sits. It does not go back to the milk producers' organizations, the dairy commissions in the individual provinces, or whatever it may be. Responsibility for the distribution of manufacturing milk and fluid milk quotas is the responsibility of the minister, if he were in his chair, not the responsibility of the provincial organizations or provincial ministers. They have to live within the money which we vote and the distribution as prescribed under the guidelines of the minister. The guy who is responsible is not here.
I am not going to be party to laying any blame on the organizations of Canadian farmers which administer the ultimatum issued from Ottawa by the minister. If the House wants them to appear before the agriculture committee to make representations, then fine, I buy that. But I submit the minister will take a few knocks if they do come before the committee. Perhaps they will not come because they will not be invited.
I find this a very difficult motion indeed to support, Mr. Speaker. I think there would be some very serious repercussions if the House as a whole supported a motion which basically is politically oriented so as to deflect all criticism from the Government of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture on to farm organizations, placing the responsibility in their hands.
Let us instead, Mr. Speaker, bring in a motion asking the Minister of Agriculture to be responsible for prices and subsidies which will provide adequate income for individual farmers. We will then not need to know, and the farm organizations will not have a problem with how big or how small is the quota, how it is come by, or how it is distributed. That is a farm problem which should be dealt with province by province, organization by organization which deals with milk in the various areas of Canada.

[ Translation]


Mr.   Florian@: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words only, so that there may be time left for my colleague the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, because he knows the problem very well. I would simply like to answer briefly the comments made earlier by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). I have been familiar with the farm problem for 25 years, especially the dairy industry problem.
I could deal at length with that problem, because my qualifications are not only those of someone in a position to criticize the government or point out the weaknesses of certain agencies that do not take their responsibilities, but those of a former producer, someone victimized by the lack of understanding of some governments, including the former Progressive Conservative one. The previous speaker forgot about that. All those problems I had to face. I felt bad when I heard suggestions earlier that the minister should be blamed for the loss of revenue incurred by farmers, when in fact our dairy policy has come an extraordinary long way since 1967. The only problem in that dairy policy is that mentioned by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier), namely that there is some mismanagement of quotas, some kind of favouritism.
Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to state that not later than this morning, I had the visit of 27 farmers in my constituency, in Sorel. Those farmers were blaming the government for not getting the required quotas. They were hearing from their producers' federation. The government was responsible. Had I more time, I could have told them about the Canadian government's contribution. The Canadian government has been looking after the dairy industry since 1963, when the Progressive Conservatives lost power. Before that I was a producer myself and I felt the consequences.
I would like to conclude now by suggesting it might be normal that the proposal be accepted, although care should be taken as far as disclosing farm revenues is concerned, although milk is not the only source of revenues. Sometimes, there are other sources. Maybe there should be further discussion on that later on. So I give a chance to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, so he can quote some figures. Maybe this problem should have been discussed for a few more hours, so hon. members opposite might better realize the problem is caused by some agencies not taking their responsibilities.


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) for the motion he introduced before the House today to discuss the publication quotas. If hon. members wonder now about the necessity to make public the marketing quotas for each industrial milk producer in Canada, it is because the reasons underlying such a request appear to be indisputable since they aim at greater justice at the individual level. It is true that all ministers and members as well as the Canadian Dairy Com-
December 5, 1977

mission have received many letters from milk producers complaining about injustices or the lack of quotas.
Several members as well as myself have brought the grievances of those of our constituents who are producers before the Canadian Dairy Commission. To our knowledge, according to the answers given by the commission, some of the injustices that had been underlined actually took place in many cases not as much at the level of the manipulation of the quotas as at the level of the implementation in the provinces of the regulations by the Canadian committee for the management of milk supplies.
I think that to understand perfectly the complaints of milk producers for the 1976-77 milk year in particular, one has to have a look at history. Let us go back to the year 1973-74 when Canada had to import butter because the Canadian production was not sufficient to meet our own demand. During those years, producers could buy quotas at very low prices. One has to remember that, in 1975-76 they could even get them for nothing. Such a lack of production was due to the fact that the prices paid for industrial milk were too low. The producers and their sons hardly made a living out of that production. Then, following numerous representations from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the federal government decided to rebuild confidence in that important area of Canadian agriculture by bringing the price of industrial milk more in line with production costs.
In 1975-76, the Minister of Agriculture asked the milk producers to boost their production by 5 per cent, that is from 95 million hundredweights to 100 million hundredweights in order to meet the Canadian demand. The attractive milk price, the ideal weather and the lack of appropriate control over production by the management committee resulted in the production of 113 million hundredweights of milk and in reserves which, by April 1, 1976, totalled 42 million pounds of butter and 300 million pounds of powdered milk. At the same time, world prices for milk products became disastrous; for instance, skimmed powdered milk fell from 45 cents down to 10 cents and 8 cents a pound. The export fund had a deficit of $130 million by the end of that milk year.
It was then necessary to reduce the production in relation to Canadian needs and consequently to reduce quotas allocated to each province and to each producer. The implementation of the rulings edicted by the milk supplies management committee in a period of underproduction resulted in injustices at the very level of the producers themselves, in 1976-77. These injustices which today seem to justify the announcement of quotas, do not originate from the handling of the quotas per se but rather from the implementation of the rules set up by the management committee and which was done to the knowledge of the representatives of the federations and the provinces.
We are not saying that these rules should not have been changed, that they have not created injustices, but we are simply saying that they have been applied without changes. We have nevertheless touched the heart of this issue. The Canadian milk supply management committee which is composed of 23 members had established these rules during a
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
period of underproduction and the 1975-76 overproduction as well as the cut in quotas which took place in 1976-77 created a tremendous chaos. Apparently nobody had foreseen the mechanisms which would apply in such a situation. Is there anyone here who has forgotten those 8,000 to 10,000 farm producers who came to demonstrate on the hill?
This management committee which is so often referred to is composed of nine provinces excluding Newfoundland, and it is presided by the Canadian Dairy Commission and its three commissioners; a representative of the producers sits there for every province with the exception of Quebec and Ontario which both get two representatives and finally there is also a representative from the provincial governments. Mr. Speaker, in short, the provinces and the producers of products with a high content in milk enjoyed a definite advantage during this overproduction period of 1975-76. The uniform 18 per cent cut applied in 1976-77 bore heavily on the industrial milk producers who had increased their production only very little or not at all.
It benefited producers who produce mainly consumer milk and who had known increases of 35 to 40 per cent. Today, the problem is different and if quotas were to be made public, any increase in quotas for every producer would then be known, which would enable each of them to discuss individual increases which can occur through the purchase of quotas or by any other means. One of the drawbacks of this action, however, would be that the name and possible gross income of every producer would then be known and as a government, we must wonder whether making this information public meets the principle agreed to by our society as regards the secrecy surrounding any information concerning private people. I wish to thank above all the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) for raising the matter of the publication of quota lists.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but as the private members' hour has now expired, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6:03 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien:
That in relation to Bill C-ll, An Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, three sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration in Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill;
[Stage Direction]
December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
That, on the third of the said days, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, any proceeding before the Committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage to the said bill, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the federal budget has changed in recent years because it is a means by which the government carries out economic, fiscal, and social policies. These tax changes have not developed from the earlier time when secrecy was all that important. Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has only a relatively small group of people who can advise him on tax changes before he makes proposals to the House of Commons. Thus, these substantial tax changes are often not very good, because the people who advise him cannot be expected to be aware of all the pitfalls.
At the present time, anyone can make submissions to the government and to the Minister of Finance on the pre-budget preparation in regard to things which should be in the budget; but there is no method available to the Department of Finance to decide and sift these in order to have public debate on their advisability or non-advisability. Everyone who makes submissions has their own personal interests to look after. What may benefit a small group of people may not benefit the country as a whole. This is where the House of Commons comes in to debate government proposals in the way of tax changes.
Imperfect as it may be, committee of the whole is the only means by which we can debate, pro and con, the tax changes. 1 am unhappy to see the government introducing closure once again. Debate on closure on second reading was finished before the actual time allocated. Similarly, there have been only five hours of debate in committee of the whole. Much of that was spent on the insulation problem. We have not touched roll-overs as yet, which is very important. It is a recognition that the capital gains tax, which was instituted at the time of the white paper, is not working the way it should. This Chamber is the only forum where we can debate these important things.
There is no way in which amendments can be instituted in this House except by the government. No witnesses can be heard on the merits of a bill or a tax change. After all, this is the place where we must act as witnesses; we must make suggestions and carry out the public interest. Even at the other place after third reading, when the bill is sent there, no substantive amendments can be made. That is the case on third reading in this House, or while the other place is dealing with the tax changes.
The government has erred in closing debate on these very important clauses, particularly those which will be dealt with next, such as the roll-over tax, which is the capital gains tax, and basically on which the whole of the tax changes proposed in the white paper and subsequently brought into the legislation-


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


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the chorus of people who are lamenting the fact that the government has been almost spontaneously invoking closure on this very important piece of legislation regarding taxation. During second reading debate, when I spoke on this bill, I made the point that the government seems to have adopted the philosophy that it ought to spend as much as possible and, in order to pay for that, tax as much as possible. It has almost come to the point that when the government sees a missed opportunity for taxing, it is looked upon as a loophole. Then that loophole has to be covered, which is too bad.
The fact that closure has been invoked means that members of the opposition, whose duty it is to examine the expenditures of the government, are foreclosed from that full opportunity which we deserve. During the closure speeches on second reading, the hon. member for Skeena, the hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo), rose to speak in favour of the closure motion. As reported at page 1131 of Hansard dated November 22, 1977, she said the following:
This parliament is based on Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments, yet we have not modernized to any degree whatsoever our monstrously inept rules to deal with the lightning-quick world in which we live.
I am sure hon. members will realize that I do not agree very often with the hon. member for Skeena. Usually we do not see eye to eye on too many subjects; but I must agree with her that the government lives in a kind of medieval world when it comes to the business of the House. Intuitively I agreed with what she was saying, but I thought there had to be documentation for it. I went to the "Oxford Companion to English Literature" and, sure enough, that is where I found the documentation to prove that parliament is still operating under the rules of the Middle Ages. I turned to the section under S where I found the definition for Star Chamber. This book tells me that:
The Court of Star Chamber, whose procedure in the reigns of James I and Charles I made it a proverbial type of an arbitrary and oppressive tribunal, was developed from the above judicial sittings in the 15th cent. It was abolished in 1641. In its original (Tudor) capacity, it was essentially the 'poor man's court', to do justice against great lords.
I think it is almost prophetic when it says that under the original rule of the Court of Star Chamber the poor people were protected from the oppression of the lords, but under the reigns of King James I and King Charles I-and, should I say, of King Pierre I-the poor people have lost that protection because the Star Chamber court is operating somewhere in the inner recesses of the government. I thought that was a good piece of documentation to prove the point that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport had some basis in fact for complaining that parliament was still operating under the rules of the nineteenth century, and probably according to some mediaeval principles.
Then I remembered that before the Star Chamber court was dissolved history records that there was what was called the Long Parliament. Charles I, that imperious monarch who
December 5, 1977

thought that parliament should be putty in the king's hands, decided that because parliament was not automatically voting funds to him the way he wanted and allowing him to spend the money the way he wanted to spend it, and they were examining the rules too closely, did not bother to recall parliament, so they had a long session lasting a number of years. This was called the Long Parliament. I know that King Pierre would like to do the same like his forebear, Charles I, but he has not been able to summon up the nerve to do that yet. It is one of the techniques under which we have been operating in this session of the House whereby the committees have not been summoned to meet, as they should have, to examine the estimates. This is another form of closure.
I remember back in history the techniques used by William the Conqueror to assess all of the citizens of his newly acquired realm, and I remembered a big book called the Domesday Book. I should like to read from the "Oxford Companion to English Literature" the description of the Domesday Book. It says:
... day of judgment, is the name applied since the 12th cent, to the record of the Great Inquest or survey of the lands of England, made by order of William the Conqueror in 1086. It contains a record of the ownership, area, and value of these lands, and of the numbers of tenants, livestock, etc. Its title originated in a popular name given to the book, as a final and conclusive authority on all matters connected with land-tenure.
If my memory serves me correctly, I recall history which tells us that the king's ministers used to ride up and down the land to meet the poor peasants. If a peasant said, "Look, I am living in these poor, abject surroundings. Obviously you can see that I do not have money to spend on myself, therefore, please do not tax me", the king's agent invariably would say, "Judging from the very fact that you have been spending your money on material things, you must have a lot of money saved up and therefore I will levy the tax on you". If the argument went the other way and the king's agent saw the peasant spending lavishy, he would say, "Look, you have a lot of money to spend, so I will tax you". In both cases they were taxed. This seems to be the way the government operates here. No matter how a citizen manages his affairs, the government finds some way of taxing him.
I was looking forward with great relish to the debate which will come, that is the debate in committee of the whole. I think that it is probably the most democratic role of the House of Commons when, from any position in the House, we can examine the minister and he will attempt on the spot, to the best of his ability, to answer our questions. I think that is democracy in action. We should be able to have as much time to examine as carefully as possible not only this bill but the minister's policy which lies behind the bill. I think it is an invigorating part of the examination and debate on this matter.
This is the one area where we have the kind of freedom we deserve to examine government legislation. The government, by its so called modernization of the rules, has taken away every other opportunity to meet in committee of the whole, and now it wants to take away this opportunity also. I think that this limiting of debate is a sham to hide the government's
Allotment of Time for Bill C-II attempt to do what it wants to do without giving the opposition opportunity to scrutinize the estimates properly. We oppose that kind of guillotine with all the vigour we have. Because we are limited in debate in committee of the whole, we want to serve notice on the government that we will examine the estimates right down the line and as carefully as we can.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in making a brief contribution tonight I would like to say that it is pretty obvious to all members that the government has long displayed a perverse genius for deficit financing and regressive taxation. As if that were not bad enough, now we see for the second time in a little over two weeks another use of closure to limit discussion.


An hon. Member:: Time allocation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Closure by any other name hurts as much, I say to the minister. Unfortunately the rules we have, always end up by constricting debate and reflecting on the ability of the House to do the job that the people of Canada sent us here to do.
It is pretty obvious that, in contrast to the United States where a meaningful attempt is being made to reform the taxation system and to simplify the rules of taxation, we have a monstrosity of a bill here with 116 clauses, over 200 pages long. I suppose that one reason why the government is anxious to stop Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition from studying to the end this cumbersome and contradictory bill-which could have been discussed fully had the government had the intestinal fortitude to put it before the House when it should have been brought forward-is because it is giving itself power to raise $9 billion for public works and general purposes. That provision appears at the very end of the bill, and it is not much wonder because it certainly gives the lie to any meaningful attempt by this administration to save money.
I am surprised the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) who, I believe, comes from the small town of Shawinigan, who was a lawyer and who, I would expect, would have some feeling for small business and for stimulating the Canadian economy, does not have some feeling for limiting the type of taxes that are stifling the country's economy. I would have expected that he would have done something meaningful to change and modify, and in some cases perhaps do away with, certain of our capital gains taxes.
I think it will be useful for members to consider that more money has been lost to the taxpayers of Canada because of UIC fraud-according to the Auditor General, some $95 billion-than the government has realized from the capital gains tax. There has been more money spent on Petro-Canada than the government has derived in revenue from capital gains tax.
When we look at the results of the capital gains tax in this country in terms of destroying initiative and taking away that urge to do something with one's money or to get into business

December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll for the sake of realizing capital gains, in my submission we see that the results are not worth it as far as the government or the country is concerned.
I say in all sincerity to hon. members opposite that I cannot understand why, if they insist on going ahead with the capital gains tax in every field except, I suppose, the family farm, which was one instance where Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the government were able finally to come to some sort of consensus when it became obvious the harm this was going to do, the government and the Minister of Finance do not take this opportunity to rework the capital gains concept so that Canadians who are buying stocks in Canadian companies- sometimes by virtue of payroll deduction-are not treated differently, when these securities are sold, from a speculator who goes down to the stock exchange or arranges through his broker to buy 1,000 shares of a company and sells them after a few weeks and makes a quick gain.
I can see the justification for taxing in those latter circumstances, but with inflation proceeding at the rate it is, and in many cases with the taxpayer borrowing money to buy securities to add to his portfolio, I do not see how the government can possibly justify taxing people on any basis after they hold Canadian securities for a few years, long enough to demonstrate that they are buying them as an investment to educate their children or to facilitate their retirement, or for some other worth-while purpose. I urge the Minister of Finance and his influential parliamentary secretary to have another look at this concept so that the initiative which is being blunted by this capital gains tax the way it is presently applied can be freed, and so the taxpayer, the ordinary Canadian who wants to invest in his country and wants to invest in Canadian companies, can do so without having his investment wiped out by the fact that when he is taxed, taking into account present economic positions, he is worse off than when he made the investment in the first place.
Another thing I think Canadians would do well to consider is the fact that ever since the then minister of finance-I believe it was J. L. Ilsley in 1942-put into effect the confiscatory arrangement whereby taxes are deducted at source, most Canadians have not fully realized the extent of the tax moneys which have been taken from them at source. The confiscation of their hard earned dollars they never even see. If Canadians had to write out a cheque and actually pay those moneys to the government, they would be far more conscious of the tremendous amount of money which is taken away by the government, to the point where we are perhaps the most regressively taxed nation in the western world.
This bill is full of contradictions and full of the worst kind of tax fraud, as far as I am concerned. It is difficult to reconcile the so-called tax benefits whereby a tax cut of less than $2 a week is supposed to be a stimulant for the economy. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has pointed out, the average person who earns $10,000 and who is subjected to a cut in his allowable wages increase from 8 per cent to 6 per cent is certainly not even holding his own in this respect. The
(Mr. MacKay.l
difference between an 8 per cent and a 6 per cent raise on a $10,000 salary is $200.
With its usual hypocrisy the government is saying to that taxpayer that it is doing a big thing for him by giving him the $100 tax rebate, but when the poor fellow counts it up at the end of the year, he finds that as a result of the "charity" exhibited by the government he is actually substantially worse off than he was in the first instance.
It is obvious that the attitude of hon. members opposite and of the Minister of Finance cannot be founded on any sense of logic or equity. To suggest seriously that the opposition is stalling on this bill to the point where it is justifiable for the government to bring in closure, is just not in accordance with the facts. It has been pointed out already, and I think it should be pointed out time and time again, that this legislation is substantially the same legislation which was brought in on June 15. Because the government was either unwilling or unable to get its act in order, it found it necessary to bring it in at this late stage in this session of parliament. Having done that it seeks to shut off reasoned debate about the honest concerns of opposition parties for the sake of ramming a piece of legislation through which, on its face, is full of contradictions and deserves to be severely criticized.
If one looks at the forecasting record of the government even cursorily, one cannot really blame the government for wanting to get this piece of legislation out of sight, and hopefully out of mind, as far as the Canadian people are concerned. On March 31 the minister's predecessor forecast 4 per cent real growth, 6 per cent inflation, and a $6.4 billion cash requirement. This was not a forecast of which one could be very proud. Even government apologists would have a great deal of difficulty in suggesting that this was living up to Canada's potential as a trading nation.
As a result of further mismanagement and incompetence the forecast had to be changed to 2 per cent real growth, at least 8 per cent inflation, and a $8.5 billion cash requirement. With a performance like this, with a record like this, and with a bill which is, as I said, a monstrosity which would require many hours just to put fully on the record and to have explained, it is little wonder that the government is seeking to bring in closure to justify its own incompetence.
I wonder if this precedent is going to be used again and again because, if so, it has the potential of making this institution practically meaningless. Certainly the opposition cannot do better than have the opportunity to examine just a fraction of the important clauses of this bill which purport to change the very basis upon which Canadians have to plan their affairs. If that is so, and if the government is going to come into this place and say after a few hours' debate that it wishes to restrict the time for the scrutiny that members of parliament are bound to give legislation like this, by virtue of their mandate as members of parliament, I wonder where this institution is going to go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.
December 5, 1977


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, one of the
earlier speakers said something about taxes and livestock, and that reminded me of something which happened to me just a few months ago. I was up in my constituency in one of the homestead areas where there are still people working who remember the days of pioneering. One of the competitions they had at the annual fair I was at was the selection of "Mr. Homesteader" or "Mrs. Homesteader of the year." Each of the people taking part in this competition was set some tasks, and one of the tasks was to milk. They could not bring a cow into the hall, so they brought in a poor old nanny goat.
None of the six or seven people involved was experienced at milking goats, and they tackled this goat from different directions, one from one side, one from the other side, two lay underneath-and I forget what the others did. Just when it was all over 1 was sitting on the platform, and the nanny goat looked at me. She was bleating and looking miserable. I wondered where I had seen that face before. It was the face of the Canadian taxpayer who has been milked by the last six or seven ministers of finance. The present minister is just like the last competitor who stood, if I remember correctly, astride the goat and reached underneath searching for something to milk. He obviously did not have much experience. He only knew he was supposed to get milk out of the poor old goat, forgetting his predecessor almost milked it to death. This, as I say, was reminiscent of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). He does not know where he is going to get what he is after. That is the background against which this debate is taking place.
If this bill stood in isolation I would probably say that there has been enough time on the debate, but it cannot be considered in isolation. We must consider it against the background of an incompetent, inept, scandal-ridden government which has shown its inability to deal adequately with issues which confront this country, and a calendar of ineptness, indecision, corruption, and all the things we have seen manifest in this land.
These are the people who say, "Let's get through with this budget." They treat budgets like housewives treat paper towels and toilet paper. They tear off some and use it, wait a little while, and tear off some more. They do it in budgets, minibudgets and legislation. There is neither rhyme or reason; no sense, no intelligence. I would guess that before this budget is finished the Minister of Finance will introduce between 12 and 20 amendents.


An hon. Member:: At least.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. members who were in this House at the time Mr. Benson was minister of finance at the time the famous bill that was brought in concerning the white paper and the new approach to taxation, will recall that bill was debated at very great length to the accompaniment of screams
Allotment of Time for Bill C-II of anger from the government who said that we were taking too much time. Before that debate was concluded, hundreds of amendments were introduced and hundreds more were brought out in the Senate. Hundreds more were promised. I would wager that some of the amendments we are now dealing with were contemplated by Mr. Benson,six, seven, or eight years ago, and we are still dealing with them. We will probably still be dealing with them ten years from now in the aftermath of this unfortunate measure inflicted upon this country.
Under those conditions it is essential that we in this House take the one limited remedy left to us in the course of a debate in the Committee of the Whole, and point out the inequities, the improprieties, the bad measures, and suggest that amendments should be made. Each amendment which the government may bring in may well result in a benefit to the Canadian taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of time. If we should take an extra five or six days in the course of this debate, as we well could and if the government would listen to us and accept the amendments which have been proposed by my colleagues, the savings to the taxpayers of Canada would be well worth the time spent.
I do not think the government will do it. It will probably introduce some amendments it has seen fit to deal with. It probably has a great many more to be processed through the bureaucracy of the Department of Finance. This is the situation. It is a sad story.
Parliament has deteriorated in its powers. It has a Minister of Finance who does not know where he comes from or where he is going. This has led to the deterioration of our parliamentary institutions, and has allowed the country to fall into decay from the point of view of national unity.
The government has failed to grapple with regional difficulties and needs. On the one hand talking about national unity, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) travels around Canada interviewing the premiers, suggesting a third option, suggesting what should be done to bind together the wounds of our country, and at the same time the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) makes a speech in Ottawa where he says we do not want a third option. The idea of a third option is to give to the federal government even more power than it has, to take away from the provinces some of the authority they now possess.
The government, in litigation pending before the Supreme Court, instructs its counsel through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to challenge the rights of provincial governments with respect to natural resources. This is the sort of government that comes before us asking for taxation proposals contained in this bill, and at the same time says, despite the obvious inequities, despite the fact that we intend to improve the legislation before it is finished by moving amendments, "It is not for the poor peasants in the opposition to have the opportunity for adequate debate at this particular stage." However, if this bill stood by itself in isolation, I would agree with the Minister of Finance that there has been adequate time. But you cannot do that.

December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-ll
I suggest the Minister of Finance will be back to this House, and to this parliament within a year, admitting some of the things proposed now are not working, asking this parliament for changes to the income tax legislation, to his fiscal policy. He may be back in six months. If we are going to have an election, he will probably be back even earlier than that. Under those conditions, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is mere folly for the government not to listen to the very intelligent and earnest representations which could be made by this side of the House to the minister and to the government so that this bill, which is before us, will leave parliament in vastly improved condition.
Obviously the Minister of Finance is not interested. Nobody in the government is interested. They have their minds made up. "All systems are go. To hell with the taxpayer. To hell with the Parliament of Canada. Hurrah, hurrah for our side." This is the situation we have to face, Mr. Speaker. It is essential that we who care for the values of this place, and the things it can do, should protest not so much the element of time but the cavalier treatment which is accorded to the members of the House of Commons by the government in connection with its budgetary measures, and the steps it has taken in connection with this particular bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You are in your seat.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry, I was not in my place when I started to raise my point of order. I do not want to get involved with this debate about the government cutting the throat of the opposition-


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Could the minister give us some indication tonight as to the number of amendments which he intends to bring in in order to make a bad bill just a little bit better? Could we have an indication of the number of amendments he has in mind?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have already tabled a few technical amendments when we were in committee. On Friday I gave the opposition parties one further amendment I wish to introduce, that is, an amendment my colleagues approved only last week, so it was impossible to deliver it previously. These are the only new amendments we are proposing.


An hon. Member:: How many?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The others are well known by the opposition. We have approved five clauses in the last five weeks-


An hon. Member:: How many amendments?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and at that rate it will be 110 weeks before we pass the bill.


An hon. Member:: How many amendments?


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I appreciate the comments of the minister, but unlike other ministers with whom I have dealt in terms of other pieces of legislation, we have always had the number of amendments. All I am asking the minister is this: how many amendments? Un, deux, trois, quatre, cinq, six, etc. How many amendments has the minister at 8.40 p.m. on this date? I am not asking for a rundown of what they are about-just how many.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They are all on paper.


An hon. Member:: Get out your computer. How many?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, since we will be under closure when we get back to the Committee of the Whole, how is the minister going to get amendments before the committee to clauses we may not have reached before the guillotine falls?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A very good question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If we do not reach an item, we will not have any amendments. We will have to live with the bill as it is. As we say in French-

They bitterly regret it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Following on the rather evasive answers by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to my colleague from Hamilton West, I wonder if the minister could be more explicit. Are the amendments we have yet to consider in committee of the whole, beyond the technical ones that he referred to, the ones that were given to us in private on Friday afternoon, numbering eight, and there will be no more amendments?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member received only the amendments which we will suggest if we reach that clause. I think it is clause 14. However, at the rate we are going it will at least take three weeks to come to it.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, if one had listened to the discussion in the House since eight o'clock, one would have the feeling from listening to the opposition that this bill had only just come into the House of Commons, that it had been discussed for perhaps just one day, and there had been practically no time spent on it in the House of Commons.
December 5, 1977

I am informed that the facts are somewhat quite different. In fact the bill has been in the House of Commons for five solid weeks. There has been a great number of opportunities for hon. members to make contributions to the debate on the bill. One of the difficulties, and I think opposition members have pointed out a real problem, is that not very much time has been spent in Committee of the Whole House.
The interesting thing about the bill, of course, is that it originated in the budget of the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), sometime last spring.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is very much a point of order that none of us should sit here and have misstatements going on the record. This bill has not been before the House for five weeks.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. When time limitation was brought in on second reading, the opposition had five hours for debate. They could not even muster enough speakers to use the five hours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: 1 certainly apologize to hon. members if I was mistaken, and that we have not spent five weeks on this particular debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You were misinformed.


John Mercer Reid: My understanding at least is that it was four weeks.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: It's coming down.


John Mercer Reid: I am now informed that we spent some 32 days-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: -which seems to me, the way the House of Commons spends its time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has the floor. We should all listen to him.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He should stick to the facts.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let him say something honest.


John Mercer Reid: The only point I want to make is that we had plenty of time to discuss the bill in general but not enough to discuss it in Committee of the Whole. The problem is that members are great on the generalities but not so great when it comes down to the specifics.
One of the frustrations that members have is the fact that we still use the Committee of the Whole House for finance bills. It is clear to me that this system is archaic and useless. If
Allotment of Time for Bill C-II we had any intelligence, we would take the finance bills as we take all other bills, send them off to committees, allowing the committees the freedom with finance bills that we have with every other bill. They could call outside witnesses and outside experts who could prepare themselves before appearing in front of the committees.
When we put this bill in the Committee of the Whole House, we limit ourselves in what we can do with it. We cannot bring other people into the House to hear testimony, and find out what we can do with the bill. In effect, we limit the bill as it is before us, that is, to the opinion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and of the Department of Finance. In financial matters, we ought to try to cut a wider swath as with any other bill.
I recognize that when the rules were reformed it was considered we would make a distinction between the bills that were sent to committees and those which would stay on the floor of the House of Commons. To give greater prestige to the finance bills, it was decided to leave them on the floor of the House. It is amusing that, in the seven or ten years we have been working under this system, we have discovered that the least efficient way of handling these bills is the choice we made, that is, to deal with them on the floor of the House of Commons.
What happens? Members spend all their time on second reading. When we come to the Committee of the Whole, members are unable to comprehend fully all of the technicalities. Ministers often have that problem as well. Instead of being in a forum where we can get technical assistance and have people come before the committee or the House, we cannot do that because of what we have done. One of the things we should look at is to get rid of this archaic system of having the finance bills passed in committee on the floor of the House of Commons. It simply does not work.
The second point I want to make is with regard to the question of closure, time allocation, or whatever one wishes to call it. Basically, we do not use our time very well in the House of Commons. It is a great tragedy that, with a technical bill such as a finance bill, we will spend very little time actually going over the technical details of it. This would have happened with this bill regardless of closure or not.
We have to come to some kind of agreement among ourselves that we will limit what we do on second reading and spend more time in committee studying the details of legislation. There very seldom is legislation brought into the House of Commons without any kind of warning, that is, as a surprise. Basically we know what the government's plan is and we know what will be brought forward. Therefore we have to start focusing on how we use our time.
There is a whole series of other legislation before us. We have not been able to get to it because we have spent all our time dealing with this finance bill and the Speech from the Throne. Those are the only two items we have had, plus the elections bill.

December 5, 1977
Allotment of Time for Bill C-l 1
This bill has been around since last spring when the then minister of finance, the hon. member for Rosedale, presented his budget. We have already passed two or three bills which he presented. What is in this bill is not new. The additions brought down by the Minister of Finance in his so-called mini-budget were not extensive in terms of technicalities.
The other point is the comment which was made in the Financial Post by a lawyer whose name escapes me. I paraphrase what he said. He stated that anyone who knows anything about tax law would have to tear out his hair in frustration if he expected to find any enlightenment about what was going on from what was said in the House of Commons. Quite frankly, that is an appropriate comment. All one has to do is look at the speeches made over the last four weeks on this bill to find out how little goes on. He also made the point that members opposite did not understand the proposals they were criticizing. Even in some answers by the Minister of Finance, he was not as fully informed as he ought to have been.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: That ought not to be surprising because of the technicalities. At least the minister has access to some advice because of the House practices, where the opposition has none. The only point I am trying to make is that it is absolute madness-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, sit down.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1 feel that the record should be constantly brought up to date. I have just received another amendment that will be proposed to be made during the committee of the whole stage. There will be nine amendments that we know of so far which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will be making.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is true, Mr. Speaker, but we are not even sure how many days it will take to get to clause 14. Perhaps that will only be on Friday afternoon. In addition, it is an amendment that is desired by members of parliament. It is all related. It is to make sure that further changes on this question of insurance companies will be brought about. I have listened to representations by members of this House as well as from outside. If members opposite do not want it, we will not have it, but we will know who to blame. It is important that the people of Canada know that we are completely on their side. It is about time we decided who is running this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I am sorry, but the time, has expired. It being 8:51 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 the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
[DOT]	(2050)
The House divided upon the motion (Mr. Chretien) which was agreed to on the following division:
[DOT]	(2102)
(Division No. 13)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Dupras	MacEachenAnderson	Duquet	MacGuiganAndras	Ethier	Marceau(Port Arthur)	Faulkner	MarchandAndres	Fleming	Mclsaac(Lincoln)	Flynn	McRaeBaker	Foster	Milne(Gander-T willingate)	Fox	MunroBegin (Miss)	Francis	(Hamilton East)Blais	Gauthier	Nicholson (Miss)Blouin	(Ottawa-Vanier)	O'ConnellBoulanger	Gillespie	OlivierBreau	Goodale	OuelletBuchanan	Guay	ParentBussieres	(St. Boniface)	PelletierCafik	Guilbault	PortelanceCampbell	Harquail	Poulin(LaSalle-fimard-Cote	Herbert	Prud'hommeSaint-Paul)	Hopkins	RailtonCaron	Horner	ReidChretien	Isabelle	RobinsonClermont	Kaplan	RoyCollenette	Lajoie	(Laval)Condon	Lalonde	Sauv6 (Mrs.)Corbin	Lang	SavardCote	Langlois	SmithCullen	Lapointe	(Saint-Jean)Cyr .	Leblanc	StolleryDaudlin	(Laurier)	TessierDawson	LeBlanc	TrudeauDemers	(Westmorland-Kent)	TrudelDionne	Lefebvre	Turner(Northumberland-	Lessard	WatsonMiramichi)	Loiselle	WhelanDouglas	(Saint-Henri)	Wood(Bruce-Grey)	Lumley	YanakisDrury	MacDonald	Young-98Duclos	(Cardigan)	Dupont	Macdonald (Rosedale)
NAYS Messrs.	Alexander	Hargrave	NeilBaldwin	Hnatyshyn	NielsenBeaudoin	Holmes	NowlanBenjamin	Huntington	NystromBrisco	Jarvis	OrlikowCaouette	Johnston	Pa proski(Villeneuve)	Knowles	PattersonClarke	(Winnipeg	Peters(Vancouver Quadra)	North Centre)	Pigott (Mrs.)Crosbie	Knowles	RitchieCrouse	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	RocheDarling	MacDonald	RodriguezDionne	(Egmont)	Scott(Kamouraska)	MacKay	StanfieldFirth	Mazankowski	StevensFriesen	McCain	StewartHamilton	McKenzie	(Marquette)(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McKinley	SymcsMountain)	Muir	TowersHamilton	Munro	Whiteway(Swift Current-	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Whittaker-52Maple Creek)	Murta	
December 5, 1977


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


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish at this time to reserve the right to raise a point of order at a later date arising from the preceding proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the deputy government House leader makes reference to some question about the application of the Standing Order on the duration of the ringing of the division bells in circumstances of this sort. I must say it would benefit the House, and certainly benefit the Chair, if either the House would address itself to the problem or the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, because the language of the Standing Order is not entirely precise regarding the application in all cases of a 15 minute bell in situations in which a vote is anticipated but not at an exact time. It would be of great help to the Chair if it could be discussed, either in the House or in the committee. The point is well taken for another occasion.
I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 1, consideration in committee of Bill C-ll, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose at its last sitting an amendment to Clause 6, presented by the hon. member for St. John's West, was under consideration. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Before we proceed to the debate on the amendment brought in by my colleague, I wonder if the committee would consent to the Minister of Finance tabling further amendments which he is proposing to make to this bill. Eight of these amendments were offered to us on a private basis on Friday. The minister has added a new one today. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that a week ago today the minister tabled ten or 12 amendments, and they became part of the record of the proceedings of this House. I think it would be
Income Tax Act
very helpful if we could have these new amendments also tabled by the minister, if there is consent.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to comply with the wishes of the hon. member.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member and the minister that there is a procedural problem. Such documents cannot be tabled in committee. They must be tabled when the Speaker is in the Chair, but there is nothing to keep the minister from putting the amendments at the disposal of the members of the committee, and then tabling the documents tomorrow or on some other occasion when the Speaker is in the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think the trouble arises simply because of the wording of the request made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. The last time this happened the amendments were not tabled; they were just handed to Hansard, and the House agreed that they be printed in Hansard as if they had been read. If the hon. member for York-Simcoe had put the request in that form, I think there would have been no problem.


Gérald Laniel: I do not see any significant difficulty with the last suggestion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: With the unanimous consent of the House, I should like to table the amendments to clause 14 and following clauses for distribution to all hon. members in the House. Those amendments on insurance companies have been asked not by all hon. members but quite a number of them, and in particular by those on this side of the House.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree that the amendments mentioned be printed as if they were read to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: The amendments referred to above are as follows:]
Subclause 14(1) Pages 21 and 22
That subclause 14(1) of Bill C-ll be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out lines 32 to 35 on page 21 thereof and substituting the following:
"the end of paragraph (ee) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraphs:"; and
(b)	by striking out line 7 on page 22 thereof ans substituting the following: "365; and
Policy loan repayments

December 5, 1977
Income Tax Act
(hh) an amount in respect of all or any part of any policy loan repaid by the taxpayer in the year not exceeding the amount, if any, by which
(i)	the amount required by subsection 148(1) to be included in computing his income in the year or a previous year from a disposition described in subparagraph 148(9)(c)(ii) in respect of that policy
exceeds
(ii)	the part of any loan on that policy repaid by the taxpayer that was deductible under this paragraph in computing his income for a previous taxation year."
Subclause 14(2) Page 22
That subclause 14(2) of Bill C-l 1 be amended by striking out line 21 on page 22 thereof and substituting the following:
"March 31, 1977 except to the extent the amount thereof is verified by the insurer in prescribed manner and prescribed form to be interest paid in the year on that loan that is not added to the adjusted cost basis (within the meaning given that expression in subsection 148(9)) of the policy.
"Life insurance policy"
(2.2) For the purposes of paragraphs (l)(c) and (d) a "life insurance policy" does not include a policy referred to in paragraph 148(1 )(b)."
Subclause 52(4) Page 100
That subclause 52(4) of Bill C-ll be amended by striking out lines 18 to 20 on page 100 thereof and substituting the following:
"(b) the amount, if any, by which
(i)	the amount included by virtue of subsection 148(1) in computing the income of the taxpayer for the year in respect of the disposition of an interest in a life insurance policy
exceeds
(ii)	the portion thereof arising from a disposition described in subparagraph 148(9)(c)(ii) in respect of that policy."
Subclause 74(4) Pages 161 and 162
That subclause 74(4) of Bill C-l 1 be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out line 44 on page 161 thereof and substituting the following: "year, subsection (1), section 16 or para-";
(b)	by striking out line 3 on page 162 thereof and substituting the following:
"of interest thereon or any repayment of a loan that was deductible pursuant to paragraph 20(1 )(hh), and"; and
(c)	by striking out lines 9 to 12 on page 162 thereof and substituting the following:
"as it would have read on that date if subsection (8) had not been applicable) of his interest in the policy on that date"
Subclause 74(6) Pages 163 and 164
That subclause 74(6) of Bill C-ll be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out line 28 on page 163 thereof and substituting the following: "respect of a policy loan other than interest deductible in the 1978 or any subsequent taxation year pursuant to paragraphs 20(1 )(c) or (d);"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 8 to 12 on page 164 thereof and substituting the following:
"(ii) in respect of a policy loan made after March 31, 1978, means the amount of the policy loan;"
Subclause 74(7) Page 164
That subclause 74(7) of Bill C-l 1 be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out lines 15 to 24 on page 164 and substituting the following: "subsection:
"(10) For the purposes of this section,"; and
(b)	by striking out line 34 on page 164 thereof and substituting the following: [The Chairman.]
"a reference to an annuitant under such a life".
Subclause 74(8) Page 164
That subclause 74(8) of Bill C-ll be amended by striking out line 36 on page 164 thereof and substituting the following:
"(8) Subsection (1) and (2) are appli-"
Subclauses 74( 10), (11) and (12) Page 165
That subclauses 74(10), (11) and (12) of Bill C-ll be amended by striking out lines 1 to 9 on page 165 thereof and substituting the following:
"(10) Subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) are applicable after March 31, 1978. (11) With respect to the 1972 to 1977"
That subclause 110(1) of Bill C-ll be amended by striking out lines 6 to 14 on page 209 thereof and substituting the following:
Application rule
"(8) For the purposes of paragraphs (l)(d) and (2)(a) there may be deducted from the aggregate referred to in those paragraphs, 9% of the portion of that aggregate that is attributable to the 1974, 1975 or 1976 taxation year."


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, before my amendment is carried, I would like to summarize for a few minutes.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Oh, no!


John Carnell Crosbie: Do not get excited. I am giving hon. members a chance to vote against this.
This is a clause in the minister's bill which discriminates against the residents of eight provinces of Canada, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. This clause provides that any grant a householder gets in any of the provinces or territories except Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island will be taxable. Grants made to those lucky people in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. will not be taxable at all. We on this side propose that we do away with this discrimination and that grants to recipients anywhere in Canada be not taxable. We support the programs in Nova Scotia and P.E.I., but they should be the same across Canada. They should have the same non-taxable status. The only answer the minister has given in reply to this amendment is that it will cost the treasury $560 million over seven years if we pass this amendment to delete that clause. That is an errant piece of foolishness. The minister has produced no figures whatsoever to show that that is the case. As a matter of fact, government figures show that this year the program is supposed to cost $45 million. We know it will cost much less than that.
The program has not been successful. In the year 1978-79 the cost is to be $145 million, and in seven years the cost is to be $1.4 billion. The minister is saying that if this clause remains in this bill one half of the expenditure of the government will come back to the government in tax revenue. As I explained this afternoon, for that to happen four million householders would have to receive the maximum grant of $350, and every one of them would have to be taxed at a 50 per cent personal income tax rate. In other words, they would all have to be wealthy and earning something like $30,000 or $40,000 a year in order for the government to get back this $560 million over seven years. That is a piece of errant nonsense. It is not an accurate figure.
December 5, 1977

It is not going to cost the government much to put the people who live in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory and Quebec on exactly the same basis as the people of Nova Scotia and P.E.I. That is why we are moving this amendment.
Incidentally, there are only seven million households in Canada which could possibly receive this grant over the next seven years, and only 1.223 million are eligible next year, so how the minister is going to lose $560 million through this clause there is no way of telling.
If hon. members vote against this amendment they are voting to put a tax burden on the people who live in their provinces. That burden is not justified, and it will not be placed on the people who live in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. Being from Newfoundland, I am certainly not going to vote for that. We in Newfoundland should pay the same taxes as people who live in Nova Scotia, Ontario or British Columbia. We should not be taxed differently because we live there. I have never heard such a principle being suggested before.
Because we have closure I cannot go into the other 1,000 arguments in favour of this, but any hon. members opposite who vote for this clause certainly deserve to go down to resounding defeat, particularly hon. members from New Brunswick and other unfavoured parts of the country like the north. Any hon. member who votes to have this tax apply to citizens in their constituencies and not to other citizens should be defeated. I hope hon. members opposite will break the heartless, merciless discipline they are under and vote with the opposition.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just one clarification. I have had those estimates looked into again by my officials, and they maintain that it will probably be $560 million which will be lost in terms of revenue. That could vary, because it is an estimate of the situation over a period of seven years, and we cannot forecast exactly what will be the rate of income tax for everyone who will be receiving grants. Of that $560 million, $360 million will be lost to the federal government coffers, and $200 million will be lost to provincial government coffers. I am very surprised that a former minister of finance of Newfoundland would not care more about revenue for his own province's treasury.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, on the same question, I would like to ask the minister if he has assessed the effect upon an old age pension recipient who has supplementary benefits when she is reported to have an additional income of $350. If it is interpreted in the regular way, it means a decline of some $15 or $18 per month in the supplementary benefits which the old age pensioner would receive. Has that little snag been considered by the minister's department or by the Department of National Health and Welfare? Are old age pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefits to be penalized?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure the situation described by the hon. member will apply. There is provision in
Income Tax Act
the bill that a person in that circumstance will not see her supplementary income diminished by that, and I will provide the hon. member with the clause. It is clause 115.


Fred Alward McCain: The reason I raise the question is that an old age pensioner in receipt of supplementary benefits in my area was advised by the officer supervising that structure in New Brunswick that she would definitely lose somewhere between $15 and $18 per month if this amount of money is considered taxable.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member would like to pass the information contained in clause 115 on to the officer who gave that misleading information. CHIP grants will not affect the amount of the supplement.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if what he is stating is confirmation of a question which was addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and a statement she made on this issue in the House earlier this year.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is exactly the same question, and my colleague was giving the same information to the House at that time.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Crosbie) negatived: Yeas, 39; nays, 55.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: At an earlier session of this committee I raised the procedural question as to whether subclause 5 is in order, bearing in mind the wording that we find in the income tax motion. You will recall, Sir, at that time I made the basic argument that there was a very wide discrepancy. Subclause 5 is worded as follows:
That it will apply to any proscribed program of the Government of Canada.
Whereas the actual income tax motion refers to a much more limited type of taxation, being limited solely to the Canadian home insulation program. Mr. Chairman, when we dealt with this on December 1-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member is raising a very important point of order on which the Chair will have to make a decision. I hope the hon. members will either listen or, if they have other business to attend to, leave the committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On Monday when we were discussing this point of order I asked the Minister of Finance to explain to the committee why he felt that the wording we have in this bill is proper. I pointed out to the minister that the wording in the income tax motion seems to deal only with the question of taxation of the home insulation program-which presumably means the grant-whereas the wider wording in the bill would appear to cover any program

December 5, 1977
Income Tax Act
that the cabinet might proscribe. At that time the minister was very candid, and as reported at page 1478 of Hansard he stated:
We can introduce a program. It is not a question of having the right to tax. We can decide to extend or modify a program or decide to give more grants, for example. This bill will authorize the government to make it taxable, if it wishes.
Further on the Minister of Finance continued:
If we want to apply the same system of giving a grant and taxing it, we are getting this authority for that kind of program and it is related to a program of the same nature.
With all due respect I would suggest what the minister has indicated is their intention is exactly the reason why we must not find the provision in the bill in order. He has, in no uncertain terms, spelled out they anticipate the provision, if passed in its present form in the bill, will be much wider than was proposed in the income tax motion.
As we know, Standing Order 60(11) states:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
1 will repeat that:
... to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
"Based on" I would suggest are the key words. Therefore, is there a substantial change between the wording in the income tax motion and the wording in subclause 5 to which I have referred? On that particular point, Mr. Chairman, I would refer you to a ruling by His Honour, the Speaker, on December 18, 1974, at page 224 of House of Commons Journals-a question of a similar nature-but I would say not nearly as serious as the one we have before us tonight. It was then reviewed by the Speaker and he made these observations:
The question is an extremely important one because it relates to the financial initiative of the Crown and to one of Parliament's most basic processes-Ways and Means.
Later he went on to state:
I wish to repeat and emphasize however that the terms of the Ways and Means motion are a carefully prepared expression of the financial initiative of the Crown and frequent departures from them can only invite deterioration of that most important power.
Furthermore, I have considerable sympathy for the argument that once the Ways and Means motions have been adopted by the House, changes of a nature any more substantial than the one before us now, ought to be made by the House.
Obviously, the most desirable practice is for the bill to adhere strictly to the provisions of the motion, and departures, if any, ought to be the subject of the strictest interpretation.
My argument is a very simple one. If you read the wording in the income tax motion which refers solely to a grant received under the Canadian home insulation program as being something to be included for the purposes of calculating taxation on a person's income, and then, if we read the wording in subclause 5 proposed by the Minister of Finance, I would say we have no alternative but to find that there is indeed a much wider interpretation being given in the bill than in the income tax motion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I think we can save some time of the committee. It is not necessary to continue arguing this point. I agree with the hon. member. I again checked this and I feel that he has a good point. Rather than having a complicated procedural problem referred to Your Honour, I want to state that I agree with the hon. member. The ways and means motion is more narrow than the bill and this should not be.
If the hon. member will co-operate with us, I will propose some amendments right now that will define that this power will only apply to the Canadian Home Insulation Program. The power will not be broad enough to be brought into all other grants. The hon. member made a good point, and I recognize it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Minister of Finance that he has changed his attitude very quickly tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: He said that the other day.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The fact is we do have a provision before us and I feel, if the minister is sincere in stating that he is willing to alter it-


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: He just said it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, could I get some order? If the minister is willing to narrow his proposed amendment down to precisely what was in the income tax motion, 1 suggest that we give him some time, stand the subclause, and that will mean we cannot vote on the whole clause tonight.


Gérald Laniel: I cannot make a judgment until I hear the proposal of the minister. If the hon. member has no objection, I will call on the minister at this time to let the committee know of his intention. When I have that proposal in front of me, I can make a judgment. I am ready to accept the suggestion of the hon. member to stand the clause if the hon. member wants to consider the proposal of the minister, either procedurally or otherwise. I am open to any suggestion, especially in view of the time we have now arrived at tonight.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I have here three amendments I should like to table and which will enable us to answer the objection of the hon. member. Obviously, the description in the motion introducing the bill is different from that contained in the bill and so these three proposed amendments will straighten out the situation so that the power will apply only to the program for housing insulation in Canada.
[ English ]


Gérald Laniel: The proposal of the minister is made in the form of an amendment. Possibly I should read the amendment proposed by the minister applicable to this clause and, for the
December 5, 1977

information of hon. members, read the other amendments in reference to the other clauses, without trying to make a decision at this time. The hon. member will then have until the next sitting of the House to consider the amendments. That will give the hon. member an opportunity to raise another point of order if he wishes. It is moved by Mr. Chretien:
That subclause 6(5) of Bill C-l 1 be amended by striking out line 38 on page 7 thereof and substituting the following:
"Government of Canada relating to home insulation for the purposes"
The next consequential amendment reads:
That subclause 23(2) of Bill C-l 1 be amended by striking out line 6 on page 35 thereof and substituting the following:
"of the Government of Canada relating to home insulation by"
The other amendment intends to make the following change:
That subclause 115(1) of Bill C-ll be amended be striking out line 8 on page 210 thereof and substituting the following:
"the Government of Canada relating to home insulation for the pur-"


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I have just received these amendments for the first time. Could we stand subclause (5) of clause 6? We could have further discussion on clause 6, other aspects of which we could now debate.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree that clause 6 be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, it was my intention-


Gérald Laniel: If the hon. member is suggesting that we stand a subclause, that is impossible. The entire clause has to be in front of the committee. This does not prevent any member from raising any other relative question. However, the only way we can suspend consideration of the subclause is by suspending consideration of the whole clause and by going on to clause 7.


Mr. Peters:: There is another way. Call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Gérald Laniel: I hear another suggestion. We could at this time call it ten o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill again tomorrow at the next sitting of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,
I am calling for the reinstatement of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Special Investigation Division, otherwise known as the fraud squad.
The fraud squad was disbanded in 1975 after two hours notice, by Mr. Guy Cousineau, the then chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and now president of Loto Canada. Mr. Cousineau's reason for disbandonment was that the squad was submitting too much overtime and travel expenses. Mr. Cousineau also ordered that all fraud squad documentation be destroyed.
I am requesting that Mr. Cousineau and the former minister of manpower, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), appear before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to explain the destruction of documents and reasons for the squad's disbandonment. At present, each district office investigates its own fraud situation, which is completely unsatisfactory. The findings of the fraud squad were becoming too embarrassing for the minister and the government and were the main reason for dropping the fraud squad so suddenly. I am also informed criminal embezzlement was reaching $100 million yearly.
At a special investigation division conference held in Ottawa in December, 1974, a UIC official, Mr. D. Coates, stated, and I quote from the conference minutes:
... the SID was established almost overnight at the insistence of senior management and under the direction of senior management to meet an urgent need. . .. To talk, however, of abolishing such a division cannot be a responsible position in light of the evidence of internal and external fraud.
Statements this past week that private investigators in Toronto can gain access to UIC computers and receive unemployment insurance records is further evidence that the fraud squad should be put together again.
There are other areas of concern. My informants state that internal fraud has infiltrated the pay system in the Unemployment Insurance Commission. UIC employees are receiving cheques from UIC computers. Embezzlement in the UIC is out of control.
Investigation should also be launched to confirm how easy it is to obtain extra social insurance numbers needed to defraud the UIC. One UIC embezzler working out of Edmonton and Calgary had 100 social insurance cards in his possession when arrested for UIC fraud by the former special investigation division. He was fraudulently receiving $10,000 weekly in payments when arrested. A similar racket was discovered in

December 5, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Montreal; an individual in possession of a collection of social insurance numbers was embezzling funds with the aid of a UIC employee who was destroying all inside files, leaving no evidence of illegal payments in the office. I am informed that this practice still continues today.
If an unemployed person holds one of these cards and has an inside contact, details are fed into a form headed "Initial Claim Data". One part of this form is fed into a computer which results in a cheque being sent out. As long as the other portion of the document is destroyed there is no evidence of anything improper having been done; they can keep feeding the computer, and cheques can be sent out by the computer indefinitely.
There was evidence just last week, in a story out of Toronto, of the possession of additional social insurance numbers by a Mr. Charles Templeton. Mr. Templeton has admitted that he has two insurance numbers-that is something else which should be investigated. Hon. members will understand that, faced with this type of misuse of UIC facilities and the easy access possible to computers, there should be no delay in reinstituting the fraud squad which was disbanded in very mysterious circumstances. I trust the parliamentary secretary will inform us tonight that this fraud squad is to be reinstated without delay.
[ Translation]


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on November 28 the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) released a communique to the press in which he accused the government of doing too little to eliminate internal and external frauds under the unemployment insurance program. He claimed that a special investigation squad under the old UIC had been disbanded for political reasons. In support of his claims, the hon. member published duplicates of secret UIC documents on the special investigation squad.
In the House of Commons, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) called those allegations nonsense because they have no foundation. It is quite regrettable that a member of this House should distort the facts to that point and produce information obtained from a source which is, obviously, neither qualified nor reliable. The special investigation division of the old UIC was put together in late 1973 and early 1974 at a time when the control of UIC benefits was coming under a reorganization following considerable amendments made to the administration of the UIC program in 1972 and 1973. By the end of 1974, the situation was obviously beginning to stabilize. The operations of the special investigation division, up until then distinct from benefit control, were integrated with the latter. So they were decentralized on a regional basis under the old UIC.
Mr. Speaker, the statistical data prove that the efficiency of unemployment insurance control increased substantially since that decentralization took place. With the help of their support staff the investigators made 450,000 investigations in 1974. This number is estimated at over 675,000 in 1977. In 1974 the investigations resulted in 1,081 prosecutions. That number has

increased progressively since and should exceed 6,000 in 1977. In addition to those results the number of fines imposed as a result of the decentralized benefit control process increased from 23,000 in 1974 to an estimated figure of 60,000 in 1977.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had bothered to check the facts before making his allegations he would have realized that the decentralized control of UIC benefits represents a substantial improvement over the situation that existed before. The minister stated that he was firmly committed to continuing to improve benefit control while at the same time maintaining the quality of the services provided to jobless Canadians whose incomes must be supported while they are looking for a job.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time alloted to him is now expired.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-EXCEEDING OF DEPARTMENTAL APPROPRIATION-POSSIBILITY OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, on December 2, as reported at page 1493 of Hansard, when the Minister of Indian Affairs was replying to my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), he said:
-I have only one responsibility as a minister and as a member of this House and that is to uphold the law-
I took this opportunity to ask the minister what action he had taken when an appropriation within his responsibility of $1 million had been exceeded deliberately by some $400,000. The minister replied as follows:
-the hon. member knows that we have taken disciplinary action. He was told that in the committee.
If I had been told that in committee, Mr. Speaker, I would not be here tonight. When the deputy minister was before the committee, he admitted that the law had been broken, and stated that under the Financial Administration Act the controls in service at the time were inadequate. He also advised that disciplinary action had been instituted-not taken; that action was put in motion this November past and that this infraction took place early in the year, or became known to the department early in the year. We were advised that the individual was up for incompetence, that as of December 2 this year the personnel officer did not have all the answers and still had the following important questions unanswered. Here I quote from the proceedings. This is the personnel officer speaking:
Did he do it on his own or was he pushed into it or asked to do it or directed to do it? Is he the only one implicated in this? That I do not know.
The disciplinary action which the minister speaks of-and this is what has happened to date-is as follows:
All signing authorities, all supervisory responsibilities, have been removed from the individual and he has been relegated to a specific task which removes him from this area of responsibility.
He is, however, Mr. Speaker, temporarily on the same pay status, and this action was only put in place approximately one month ago. The excuse given was this:
December 5, 1977

In view of the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act and some of the procedures in existence, it is not a quick process.
A $1 million appropriation was deliberately exceeded by $400,000. The official responsible for this is at the same pay level, but he has had his signing authorities removed and he has been given a special task. And the minister tells this House that disciplinary action has been taken! I say this is not good enough and that we will not stop this all too common practice of exceeding budgets and appropriations until proper corrective measures are taken.
This department of government is out of control. If you doubt what I say, Mr. Speaker, all you have to do is to read the 1976 and 1977 Auditor General's report at paragraph 18.7. There is little point in having laws if they mean nothing and are not enforced. This only lessens respect for the rule of law not only outside but within government.
I suggest that there is foot dragging on this matter and the minister was not correct when he said in the House that disciplinary action had been taken. The action taken has been surprisingly slow. The knowledge of the case is shallow. Important questions are still to be answered. When one considers that $400,000 is the amount of the infraction, and that the actual value of the inventory against the book value is in question, coupled with the serious charges contained by the Auditor General in his 1974 report, I suggest that the minister take a personal interest in this runaway aspect of his department.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, I want to say that all hon. members should not lose their sense of perspective about this unfortunate circumstance.
Let me make it clear that no one has stolen money, no one has got away with public funds. The $400,000 by which the revolving fund's authorization was exceeded represented services rendered, and arts and crafts inventory on the shelves. Nevertheless, it is perfectly true the authority granted by parliament was exceeded, which is the important point. That is unmistakable and, as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts was told, this should not have happened. Steps have been taken to guard against a similar problem arising. In view of these facts, I think members deserve an explanation of how such a thing could occur. Therefore, let me trace the sequence of events.
When parliament authorized the revolving fund in 1972 to assist in the marketing of Indian arts and crafts, it attached certain conditions to the operations of the fund. Parliament said that all revenues and expenditures must be charged to the fund. That was a sound decision. If it had been properly followed, we would not be discussing this unfortunate error today.
Some time after the fund was established, the Treasury Board approved a submission permitting certain charges to be made, not against the revolving fund, but against the depart-
Adjournment Debate
ment's operating appropriation vote 5. It is at that point the authority of parliament was exceeded, because basing themselves on Treasury Board operation, the department charged certain management fees and certain advances made to the fund's managers to vote 5. This should not have happened.
When this situation was discovered earlier this year, the present management of the department immediately recognized that it was a violation of the limitations placed upon the authority granted by parliament. Steps were taken to prevent a recurrence. The charge against vote 5 was reversed, and the $400,000 was shown as an expenditure under the revolving fund beyond the fund's authority.
The hon. member essentially centred his question around what has been done in terms of the individual's responsibility. I should like to refer to page 2:29 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of Thursday, November 10, 1977, when the Assistant Deputy Minister is reported as saying the following:
All signing authorities, all supervisory responsibilities have been removed from this financial officer and he has been relegated to a specific task which removes him from this area of responsibility.
Also I should like to refer to page 2:26 which reads as follows:
It is a serious matter, I agree. I have said that the individual is up for incompetence. I have requested personnel to document the case, to face the individual and to go through the machinery.
That is in keeping with the minister's answer where he indicated that the hon. member knows disciplinary action has been taken, and he was told that in committee.
I emphasize that funds were not spent to the benefit of any individual. They were not pocketed by anyone. The services were appropriate services, and they were rendered to the fund. The arts and crafts were purchased, and they remain as saleable inventory of the marketing service.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS-MEETING OF RESOURCE MINISTERS-DISCUSSION OF OWNERSHIP AND TAXATION OF RESOURCES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address a question to the parliamentary secretary in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) of whom I made an inquiry on November 24 with respect to the position of the federal government relating to a very important decision the Supreme Court of Canada handed down regarding the CIGOL case. At that time I attempted to obtain some information from the government as to its intentions relating to a clarification of the rights of provinces with respect to the ownership of mineral resources.
What we have, so far as the CIGOL case is concerned, is a very momentous decision which is the result of a case which has been carried on both within the province of Saskatchewan and between the province of Saskatchewan and the federal government. The decision has left the people of Saskatchewan in a state of concern. They do not know at this time whether or

December 5, 1977
Adjournment Debate
not they will have to bear this heavy responsibility, the potential repayment of about $600 million as a result of this one decision.
We have the spectacle in the province of Saskatchewan of a provincial government which has demonstrated a very substantial capacity for mismanagement of the affairs of our province by getting us into a form of taxation which has now been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, notwithstanding the fact that the government had been warned well in advance of putting on this tax that there might be problems so far as its constitutionality was concerned.
On the part of the federal government there has been a history of confrontation over mineral taxation between the federal government and the provinces. It was bad enough when the federal government took a position with respect to the deduction of provincial royalties and taxes in its computation of federal taxes on resources, but we have also the situation of the federal government actively intervening in the CIGOL case, siding with the oil company against the interests of the province with respect to the ownership of mineral resources.
I say to the parliamentary secretary that the situation was brought about by the provincial NDP government and the federal government, and it is leaving the people of Saskatchewan out in the cold. I am afraid that this decision may have far reaching implications, and it is most important that we get a clarification as to what the rights of the provinces are with respect to mineral taxation. So far as Saskatchewan is concerned, the province's natural resources were handed over to provincial jurisdiction in 1930, and we have always assumed in that province that we are the owners of the mineral resources in that province. Now we find, as a result of this decision, that we have less than full ownership. It appears that we have ownership so long as the resources remain in the ground, but as soon as we try to extract them and sell them, all of a sudden the federal government appears to have the upper hand if there is a conflict between the jurisdictions of the provincial and federal governments.
It is incumbent upon the federal government, in the interests of national unity if nothing else, that it clarify immediately the extent of ownership of mineral resources, because if we do not have that, a situation will develop, particularly in western Canada, of increased alienation toward the federal government in particular if the rights of the provinces with respect to their resources are being limited. This clarification could be made at a meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is going to Regina on Wednesday, and the premier, or with the appropriate ministers involved.
The basis of the decision has been twofold. One is that there was indirect taxation and therefore it was unconstitutional. The second basis of the majority decision was that as soon as a resource passes into interprovincial or international export trade, if there is a conflict between federal and provincial jurisdiction, the federal government has the priority.

I suggest that the implications of this decision, are very wide-reaching, and I think what has happened as far as other provinces are concerned is that they have come to the point where no one is really attacking the arrangements as far as the amount of the tax payable, for example, to the province of Alberta or to other provinces with respect to oil, is concerned. The federal government receives a certain portion. The oil companies receive a certain portion of the increase in value by way of increased profits, but I suggest that the principle involved here is that a federal government which is inclined to exercise its authority in that area could very well shut out a province, effectively taxing the mineral resources contained within the boundaries of the province.
This is a very serious problem. Are we going to have the concept of mineral resources being owned by the provinces, as we have understood over the years? We now have this decision staring us in the face, and if the federal government insists on exercising or flexing its muscles with respect to the provinces, one can only expect a sense of alienation on the part of the provinces. That is why I called upon the minister at the time I raised this matter to consider, on an immediate basis, a proposition that there should be some consensus as to what is involved in mineral resource ownership. In this way we could avoid a very serious confrontation between the provinces and the federal government. At a time when we have many things in dispute between the federal government and the provinces, this is one very important area which, I think, demands immediate attention.
The final point I want to make is that, judging by the way the government of Saskatchewan is talking, it may well be that it will take the option nationalizing the oil industry and the resource industry generally. Then the federal government will have to consider its position with respect to taxing Crown corporations within the provinces or taxing the provinces themselves with respect to mineral resources. However, that will be another question in another debate.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, just briefly to recapitulate, in his remarks in this House on November 24, and again this evening, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) suggested that the Supreme Court decision in the CIGOL case had far-reaching implications for the ownership of mineral resources within the provinces. With respect, I do not see such import in the decision of the court. The question of ownership of these natural resources was not in issue.
By an agreement made in 1930 between the governments of Saskatchewan and Canada, Saskatchewan was given the ownership of all public lands, mines and minerals, and the power to administer and control natural resources within the province. The agreement was in the following terms:
... in order that the province may be in the same position as the original provinces of Confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the British North America Act, 1867, the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom within the
December 5, 1977

province . .. shall. . . belong to the province ... and the said lands shall be administered by the province for the purposes thereof. . .
The agreement was subsequently ratified by an act of the British parliament. As Mr. Justice Dickson said in the recent decision, "Subject to the limits imposed by the Canadian Constitution, the power of the province to tax, control and manage its natural resources is plenary and absolute."
What the court decided in the CIGOL case was precisely this: the impositions placed by the province upon the production of oil in the province were found to constitute taxes of an indirect nature and an attempt to regulate interprovincial and international trade in the commodity. Both of these powers are ones that lie beyond the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature. The court did not say, however, that the province was powerless to levy direct taxes and other levies on the oil resources or producers in Saskatchewan, and indeed I understand from press reports that the Saskatchewan government has now introduced new legislation to this effect.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it can be said that the province is without power to exercise the rights conferred upon it in 1930 in relation to its natural resources. It might also be noted that, in the judgment, the Supreme Court
Adjournment Debate
expressly upheld the provisions of the Saskatchewan legislation providing for expropriation of property rights and the imposition of property taxes.
I also understand that the premier of Saskatchewan will be proposing to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) an amendment to the constitution that will confer upon the provinces a power to impose indirect taxes upon natural resources produced in the provinces. I am sure that the federal government will be prepared to give close examination to any such proposal. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly indicated with respect to constitutional amendment, he is prepared to review any or all aspects of the constitution, including the distribution of legislative powers, with the provinces. This would obviously include those powers relating to the raising of public revenues. However, constitutional review and revision are not something to be undertaken on the basis of an isolated situation, but rather in the context of a range of subject matters where there is agreement that a review of the existing powers is desirable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Tuesday, December 6, 1977