1977-11-16

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On October 20 I rose in this House urging the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) to consider new coal mines on Cape Breton Island. I received a rather satisfactory reply. In his reply the minister said, and I quote:
My long association with the hon. member has made me very, very aware of the problems in Cape Breton. He can rest assured that his representations will be noted and remembered.
On Wednesday, November 9 in a speech made in this House the same minister stated:
We are slow in developing some of our coal mines. That is one aspect which-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a motion, would he put it forthwith.


Robert Muir: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to do so, although I have to lay a foundation for Your Honour's assistance. The minister went on to say the following:
... especially in Cape Breton because of the costs, and I think I should say perhaps because of the inappreciability of the Cape Bretoner for the retention of his job.
Then he admitted: "This is a serious accusation".


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a motion, would he move it.


Robert Muir: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That, in light of this insane and disgusting insinuation by the minister, which more or less implies in his view that Cape Bretoners are lazy and cannot retain their jobs, it is incumbent upon the hon. gentleman to make a public apology to the people of Cape Breton for his outrageous contumely.
I might add for the minister's information that "contumely" does not refer to a wheat combine. If he wants to know what that means, we will send him a dictionary.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am confident that there are members in all parties who would like to see this motion passed without debate. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs, now that he has learned very clearly from a great many veterans of their deep concern over the decision not to increase the basic rate of the war disability pension, to re-open this issue in cabinet, it being the view of this House that the basic rate of the war disability pension should be kept in line with the level of take-home pay of the five categories of public servants, as approved by parliament in 1973, and that action on this matter should be taken without any further delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
The CBC French program Tele Mag recently made public a poll in which 70 per cent of Quebecers questioned were in favour of a renewed federalism, 35 per cent, or more than the whole of the opposition parties, were for the Levesque adminis-

November 16, 1977

tration. Due to constitutional uncertainty prevailing at this time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House urge the government to state as soon as possible its views about a renewed federalism, association or other constitutional views, in order to restore a climate for discussion and not for confrontation with the Quebec government.
Mir. Speaker: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity as a result of the fact that information I have received within the last half-hour indicates that the so-called "Featherbed" file maintained by the security service is far more extensive than it was initially thought to be and deals with a number of additional matters of which I was not aware yesterday and that the "Featherbed" file is probably the government's most carefully guarded secret at this moment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That the Solicitor General make an immediate admission of the extensiveness of this file-
I move this motion despite the fact that a minister opposite cannot do anything but laugh at reality.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
-that he make public all subjects dealt with in this file and, in addition, that both he and the Prime Minister advise the House whether the statement made in Halifax overnight by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that he is sure that files exist on everyone going into public life, particularly cabinet ministers, is actual fact-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Would you shut up for once over there! You just can't face reality.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the continued deterioration in postal services and growing dissatisfaction on the part of the general public, many members of which consider the current television campaign advertising of that department to be a form of brainwashing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Postmaster General give priority to upgrading postal services rather than publicizing and extolling those services, which are unacceptable to taxpayers, especially during this period of supposed government restraint.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter concerning the Canadian textile industry.
In view of the government's failure to negotiate a three-year agreement on the imposition of textile quotas and since textile imports represent over 60 per cent of the Canadian market while European countries, Great Britain and the United States are restricting them to between 15 and 20 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the House urge the government to avoid other lay-offs in that sector of our economy and demand that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) maintain current quotas to their 1975 level for at least three years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 16, 1977


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 is made because a town in Ontario has suggested in a resolution that the House of Commons should not be debating the topic it did yesterday. My motion is therefore made in the spirit of complete political friendliness. I therefore move:
That the said town fathers do their best to cut the town taxes by 50 per cent and we in the House of Commons will applaud their efforts.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I am desirous of seeking the permission of the House to obtain unanimous consent under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That an all-party committee be set up forthwith to meet in camera with appropriate Cabinet ministers and staff to get to the bottom of alleged improprieties of the RCMP, the security service and the DND because there is public concern, first, that the image, decorum and performance and its traditions will be further destroyed; second, the public confidence in the RCMP, the DND and the national security service will continue to be in doubt and third, subversives and organized crime and their actions will continue to thrive and the lives and safety of innocent Canadians and the nation will be in jeopardy.


Mr. Speaker:: Such motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if I might take a minute before beginning the question period to remind hon. members that a short time ago I had asked their co-operation and assistance in seeing to it that we try to share the question period in a proportionate way between participants on both sides of the House, from all regions and with several subjects of interest. This can be done only if hon. members are prepared to discipline themselves to a certain extent with respect first, to the shortness of questions and second, to the shortness of answers.
I have been quite lenient with respect to the length of questions, so it is difficult for me not to be lenient with answers and therefore I have perhaps been a little bit generous
Oral Questions
on both sides in allowing prolonged questions which are responded to by prolonged answers. The result has been, I think, a little unfair to backbenchers on both sides of the House who have not been able to participate greatly in the question period.
I know I am speaking on behalf of all members of the House, not simply the Chair, in saying this because I know this concern is shared by everyone in the House. Therefore, perhaps we might begin by disciplining ourselves again to keep both the questions and the answers as short as possible today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In putting the question to him 1 hope you will permit me to say that on the day when the Prime Minister of Italy is arriving in Canada I would hope that at a more appropriate time members on both sides of the House would join with the Secretary of State and the government in welcoming him on his four-day official visit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In saying that, may I point out to the minister that the government of Italy has immense equity and financial stake in the contracting firm of Italimpianti, the partner of AECL in the nuclear reactor sale to Argentina and, I have been told by Italimpianti individuals, has authority over senior personnel of Italimpianti including Mr. Lucien Secouri, general manager of Italimpianti who knows where our Canadian payoff moneys went but who will not divulge that information to either a committee of the House of Commons or the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is hardly an exemplary start. I wonder if the hon. member would put his question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I was just indicating to my colleagues that you would start this new policy on the day I had the initial question.
My question to the minister is simply this, and it is a most serious one: has the government put on the agenda of its discussions with the Italian Prime Minister this subject to elicit the help and support of the Italian government which, if it was forthcoming in this matter, would give us some information which has not been forthcoming in the past?
8002 S -59

November 16, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Speaking from memory, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that this specific item is earmarked or spelled out on the agenda. However, there is a general topic relating to Canada's relations with Italy and, of course, the matter could be raised there. If the hon. member has any further requests to make and would convey them to me in specific terms I will, as I hope he will agree I have done up to now, transmit them, and I will be very glad to see what further steps we can take to get the information which I presume the former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee still wishes.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My only supplementary to the minister then is simply this: because of the lack of success that members of this House, including members of the Public Accounts Committee, have had in the past in getting this type of information from either the minister or his department, I wonder whether the minister or the government would object to a minor breach of protocol so that some private members of this House, even members of the Public Accounts Committee, could seek an audience with the Italian Prime Minister while he is here in order to emphasize the need for finding out what happened to that Canadian money?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is not aware of the fact, but the Prime Minister of Italy has very kindly agreed to meet with the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of this House during his stay here. I understand there are members of all parties who will be attending that event. Certainly, there is no restriction in so far as we are concerned of the kind of discussion which could take place, so I would say it would be entirely up to members what matters they discuss with him.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister. Since there is now evidence from South Korea that none of the 23 specific requirements of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited agreement for post-contract services arising out of the Korean electric sale have been performed by the AECL agent, Shaul Eisenberg, will the government, which has allowed AECL to advance over $2 million on these reportedly non-existent services, now direct AECL to demand the return of the money?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker,
I shall inquire and report to the hon. member.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would not mind addressing himself to this, since the testimony of the AECL chairman to the Public Accounts Committee has now been

placed in serious question, perhaps he would investigate these reports as well?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Fine, Mr. Speaker.


IMPORT QUOTA ON CLOTHING-SUGGESTED RETENTION FOR THREE YEARS
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in both his capacities; that is, the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
Since the first talks to negotiate new voluntary restraints on clothing imports have now broken down, creating a great deal of confusion in the retail clothing industry, will the minister now guarantee that present global import quotas will be retained at no more than the 1975 import levels for at least three more years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is the policy of the government. We imposed those quotas in November last year.


Max Saltsman: For three years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We implemented them last fall and we said later that they would be extended until July, 1978. Following that we have been negotiating an extension of these quotas for three more years. Those negotiations are still going on. Depending on the results of those negotiations, of course, it is the government's firm intention to provide a period of time in which the textile and clothing industry of Canada can adjust to the present situation. We envisage that as being for three years after 1978.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, about the only adjustment that has taken place has been one of disaster. Reports indicate that the talks with Korea about the levels of clothing imports have now broken down in what the press describes as wide differences. Can the Acting Prime Minister say what policy he will put in place to protect the domestic clothing industry because this talk about going to 1978 places the whole industry in a state of confusion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just said we are planning to act for three years after July, 1978. We acted last November. The policy that the hon. member is promoting at this time is the policy that I enunciated last fall. We do not plan to change it. We have to follow the international rules. The first step is to get involved in negotiations with those countries that affect our markets. When that is completed, we will act according to international law. However, we have to complete the first round of negotiations.
November 16, 1977


Max Saltsman: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of confusion in the sense that people do not know what orders to place and manufacturers do not know what orders to anticipate. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House how long he intends to go through this period of negotiation before coming to some final conclusion about the three year restriction and allocation of imports?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that I am quite surprised to hear him speak of confusion, for these decisions were taken following the establishment of a joint committee made up of the industry, the unions and the provinces concerned, and all parties were in favour of our following this policy. I feel the sources of the hon. member should seek additional information from their respective organizations, for the policy we have developed in this area was approved by all parties involved.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC ON RENEWED FEDERALISM
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations.
Following an opinion poll made public yesterday evening by the CBC French network, 70 per cent of Quebecers which were questioned opted for a renewed federalism, but the PQ government got 35 per cent of the votes, more than all the opposition parties in Quebec put together. I would like to ask the minister whether he intends to meet his Quebec counterpart, Mr. Morin, in a near future in order to discuss this matter of renewed federalism?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the government indicated clearly in the Speech from the Throne, that they were in favour of a new federalism in the Canadian system and that specific proposals would be put before the House during the present session which would include some amendments to the Canadian constitution.
As for the negotiation with the provinces and particularly with Quebec ministers, I shall remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister is now touring different provinces in Canada, that he has already met several premiers and that he intends to meet the Quebec premier in a few weeks on this subject, just as he met the other premiers. I can tell the hon. member that we are regularly in communication with the departments and the ministers of Quebec who are responsible for different sectors. If following the meeting between the Quebec premier and the Prime Minister it is necessary to pursue discussions at the ministerial level, of course I shall be pleased to be at the service of Quebec ministers to pursue these discussions.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY IF MINISTER WILL MEET HIS COUNTERPART FROM QUEBEC
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House whether he has already met the Quebec minister, Mr. Morin, to discuss a new formula of renewed federalism? Since the present discussions between the right hon. Prime Minister and the provincial premiers seem to be- according to the press for 1 do not follow these discussions- confronting discussions, particularly on the Quebec side, could the minister tell the House whether he has already met or intends to meet Mr. Morin to launch this renewed federalism which everybody is expecting?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the attitude or the option of this government is by no means one of confrontation and I do not quite understand how the hon. member can talk of an attitude of confrontation when we have yet to meet the premier of Quebec. However, I must remind the hon. member that it is very difficult to enter into negotiations with a government whose aim is to split this country into two parts and which has very clearly stated that its target was the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. As for us, this is a non-negotiable option. We are prepared to negotiate a new federalism with Quebec, with substantial changes. But it must be quite clear from the start that what we are talking about is a new federalism and not the creation of two different countries with some kind of economic association.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it is in regard to the so-called "Featherbed" File in possession of the security services of this country. I am informed it is far more extensive than I was able to indicate to the House yesterday. Will the minister confirm with a "yes" or "no" answer whether or not there has been in existence or still exists a file with the code name "featherbed" which is in any way in the hands of the security services of Canada.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would like to ask the minister this supplementary: Is he prepared now to outline to the House the general nature of the subjects dealt with in this file?


Francis Fox: It is a security service file dealing with extremely sensitive matters. It is not my intention to open up all the files of the security services, no matter what the code names might be. I have had the opportunity to review the operation "Fea-
928

November 16, 1977
Oral Questions
therbed" with senior officers of the service and I am satisfied it is a proper one for the service to be involved in.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: My final supplementary arises out of a statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Halifax and widely publicized today to the effect that he was positive that files were maintained on all those who are prominent in public life, particularly cabinet ministers. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to tell us whether this is true, whether it is government policy that this should be done?


Francis Fox: I assume there are a number of files on members of the present cabinet. A number of us were engaged in work in the Prime Minister's office before entering active politics and our employment there made it necessary that security clearance be obtained through the RCMP.


POST OFFICE
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Postmaster General. In view of the opposition of the general public to the present publicity program associated with the Post Office Department, can the minister tell us why the Post Office is spending taxpayers' money at a time when it is in such a serious deficit position?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: I listened with some interest to the hon. gentleman's motion under Standing Order 43. I am not aware of any ongoing publicity campaign being televised at the present time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I shall direct it to the acting minister or to the parliamentary secretary. It arises from a reference he made during the throne speech debate to the possibility of a Canadian meat import law or the establishment of a meat import authority. In the event that important legislation on this subject is not available by the end of the year, and in view of the fact that there has been only slight downward adjustments in world cattle inventories, especially in Australia and New Zealand, does the minister intend to announce temporary quotas on imported beef for 1978 as he did for 1977?
[ Translation]


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the question asked by the hon. member and I will immediately bring this matter to the attention of the minister.
(Mr. Fox.)


COW-CALF STABILIZATION-AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: My supplementary is for the parliamentary secretary and it has to do with the current cow-calf stabilization policy which has been in existence for the whole of this year. I would have asked the minister whether he intends to announce details of the pay-out under this policy and whether he would hazard a guess as to whether or not there will be a pay-out at all this year.
[ Translation]


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, as I did for the first question, I am taking note of it and I will report to the minister.

[ Translation]


THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to clarify a few things. Surely she had enough time to listen to the tapes made by university students of the speech she delivered before them last week. Could she tell the House today whether these tapes which we have all heard reflect exactly what she said before those students.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, rather than analyze the interpretations of interpretations-we are now at the third rendition of what I have said and I do not remember anything whatsoever. I did check what an hon. member in the opposition had asked me and also the only point on the cabinet responsibility upon which I would like to report to the House. As for the medical records of the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, and in as much as I have been able to check out, no medical record of patients or no-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: No, 1 know very well what I am doing. I am telling the House what it ought to know. No record has been communicated to agents of the armed forces or the RCMP.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, once more unto the breach. To my mind, the statements the minister made last week are very important bearing in mind the fact that she recognized that the instruments of the security service were such that the government no longer exercised any control over it. Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare make her statement on the lack of governmental control bearing in mind those powerful instruments which she described to the university students?
November 16, 1977


Monique Bégin: As far as I can remember, Mr. Speaker, I answered that question when I rose on a question of privilege last Wednesday.


HOUSING
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of his minister's commitment to include private rooming houses under the residential rehabilitation assistance program which was made some time ago, can the parliamentary secretary assure the House that he will effect such change through legislation at the earliest possible moment?


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for bringing this question forward to the House. This matter was discussed and focused upon at the Habitat conference in his very own city of Vancouver. I would assure the hon. member and all hon. members of the House that it is the minister's intention to bring forward amendments to the legislation in view of the limit of $500 under the present program.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and perhaps he will thank me for my question as well. As the minister knows, the House is currently debating a bill which gives about $ 1 billion in tax concessions to corporations ostensibly to create jobs. Considering that the Alcan corporation has responded to this and it will get about $11 million assistance from the government by laying off some 400 people at St. Lawrence at their fluorspar operation, I would ask the minister, who has been directly involved in negotiations with the company, I understand, whether he has anything to report to the House; and specifically can he tell the House whether the company has changed its mind and will keep that plant in operation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think it may be drawing a long bow to have me answer this question in my ministerial capacity. I am happy to do so, however, with your permission because it is a matter which affects my own constituency and, as the hon. member says, several hundred workers there. I had meetings
Oral Questions
on the weekend in connection with this matter, and regrettably I do not see any likelihood that the Alcan corporation is going to change its mind. I equally say that it is a quite shocking situation that in fact they have shown so little concern for the workers in that particular operation, but rather than cry, as it were, over events which cannot be turned around, we are looking for, and I hope can find, alternative employment for those affected.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that his colleague has just acknowledged that a corporation which is going to receive, out of the minister's present budgetary proposals which we are debating in the House today, $11 million, and is supposed to be involved in job creation yet is shutting down operations, not because it is losing money it is important to note, but because it can make more profit importing from Mexico, will the Minister of Finance consider retaliatory action to stop this company behaving in this way?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that kind of question. We have a tax system which applies to all companies and it may happen that some of them might be forced to cease their activities at this moment. However, I do not think that we could use the tax system to punish some and not others. The law is the same for everybody and we regret that company has taken that decision. However, I have investigated the matter myself and the hon. member's allegation that they had to do so in favour of another operation is not correct, because the mineral they extracted cannot replace the one they get out of the country for their operation.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to get it very clearly from the finance minister. Is he saying that this corporation can respond in this way, a corporation which is making hundreds of millions of dollars profit annually and which has benefited from the labour of people in that town for many, many decades, and that there is nothing the government of Canada can do in face of that action by the corporation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

November 16, 1977
Oral Questions
[English]	IMMIGRATION


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Since he has been in Winnipeg and appears satisfied that there is necessity for expansion of Winnipeg international airport, when will construction at the airport begin, and has the government at the present time let tenders for construction of the additions which will be needed? My question is for the Minister of Transport.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member addressed his question to the Minister of Finance, perhaps he might reword it for me.


Jack Burnett Murta: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. 1 address my question to the Minister of Transport. Since the government has at the present time expressed satisfaction that expansion of the Winnipeg international airport is necessary, I should like to ask the minister whether he has given thought to letting public tenders for construction of additional facilities at the airport, and when does he envisage construction beginning?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have just completed a very satisfactory and successful study of the question of the expansion of the airport and the alternatives which are available- that is to say, expansion on site or expansion in another place. Last week I released a study and asked for further comments on it within the next period of 60 days from members of the public. At that point we will begin to draw up a specific plan of action for the various improvements involved, and then in due course over time move to the actual construction phase.


MEDICAL CONDITIONS WHICH PREVENT ADMISSION TO CANADA-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister, in a letter dated November 3, announced that persons in Canada on the authority of a minister's permit, who could not get landed immigrant status due to medical prohibitions, will be eligible to receive landed immigrant status and possibly immediate citizenship status in some cases. I should like to applaud the government because this action has been taken finally. I should like to ask the minister: in what cases could persons be inadmissible due to medical conditions, as the minister announced on November 3.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we were aiming primarily at epileptics who could not get into this country before under the old legislation. They were allowed in by ministerial permits, but they could not apply for Canadian citizenship. We propose to land them as immigrants and start their time of residence in Canada from the time they actually came into the country to facilitate their securing Canadian citizenships.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the answer just given by the minister, can I ask him whether he would be willing to table the regulations whereby persons will know exactly which medical prohibitions will no longer be prohibitions and which will remain in place?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in this specific instance we had a target group in mind. Already we have communicated with them and expressed the government's intention to take this channel. Of course, the regulations will be tabled in the usual way. I hope they will be ready for study this month. We expect to proclaim the bill somewhere around the latter part of March.


REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON STATEMENT BY DR. EPSTEIN
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding an address given by Dr. Epstein at York University based on the following statement. "The defects in scientific testing range from extensive incompetence to manipulation and distortion and actual data destruction on food additives, drugs, animal feeds, pesticides, auto pollutants, chemical waste and water quality". My question to the minister is: in view of the serious effects of this statement, what steps has the minister taken regarding this situation?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to obtain the permission of the hon. member to reply thoroughly tomorrow or in the coming session.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in view of his absence, I should like to direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Over $200 million a year is being taken out of Canada from the auto industry to support research in the United States, according to Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan, the former head of the Science Council of Canada. Will the minister take steps, when he is having discussions on the auto pact, to see that this research money is spent here in Canada in order to create more jobs, boost our research and development efforts and keep Canadian dollars in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 16, 1977


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as regards the automobile agreement, we are now reviewing all measures taken in that sector, including our research policy, and I will draw my colleague's question to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the widespread concern expressed and the disappointment and discouragement of veterans' organizations across the country, as a result of the reluctance of the government to fulfil the commitment to equate the basic rate of pension with the five lowest categories in the public service, 1 wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to discuss again with cabinet the reason for its refusal and if this matter will be reviewed in the immediate future?
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I answered the question in the House a few weeks ago. The situation is still the same. The basic rate was not to be increased in the way requested. 1 want to remind the House that veterans will be receiving the cost of living index. When the financial constraints on the country become a little better, we will look at this again.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it is recognized that in January there will be a 7.2 per cent indexing to the basic rate of pension, 1 wonder if the minister will indicate whether he has heard concern expressed by the National Council of Veterans' Organizations which expressed their disappointment and discouragement. Is he going to meet with them? Will he refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in order for the problem to be dealt with and to express what veterans think is fair and just?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in relation to this question, I indicated previously that I see no problem in referring it to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs when it is called. As far as receiving anything authentic from the veterans' organizations as such, I have not received anything; but I have received considerable mail on the same issue.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINES TO AWARDING OF MEDAL TO PREMIER LfiVESQUE BY FRANCE


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the House if the medal awarded to Premier Levesque by the government of France, which I understand is the second highest award that can be given by the French government, fell within the 1968 guidelines issued by the government of Canada governing the receipt of medals and honours by Canadian nationals?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines referred to by the hon. member are precisely that. They are not binding in the sense of any legal requirement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Obviously we would have preferred that the guidelines be followed and respected by the donor country or indeed, for that matter, by the recipient. As I understand it, since the medal is rather widely distributed and it does not carry all that much distinction, it is not something I will get up tight about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: How come Pierre has not got one?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if he can tell us whether that medal or award fell within the guidelines issued by the government? I am not clear as to whether in fact it fell within the guidelines issued by the government.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me if it falls between the guidelines-


Mr. Hees:: Within, within. He did not say between.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Certainly, it fell between protocol, if you want to put it that way. Quite honestly, it has not concerned me enough to even look at the guidelines to see whether if fits or not.


George Harris Hees: Have you checked lately with the Prime Minister?


HARBOURS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. After the lapse of quite a bit of time, I should like to ask him once again whether the time for the second container pier in Halifax has yet come? Is the minister now prepared to make a firm commit-

November 16, 1977
Oral Questions
ment that the government will participate in the second container facility, as well as facilitate the planning and land fill which is already done?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government accommodated the move ahead with the land fill by the province in order for the site to be ready as soon as possible. There has been no revision, which I am aware of, in the date upon which we felt the completion of the terminal was necessary. Therefore, we will be taking the appropriate steps in due course; but I do not have an announcement to make at this moment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to a date. Can the minister give us that date?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, probably I can get that analysis for the hon. member. It indicated that construction would be required in the fairly near future in order that completion be available by a date, which is not exactly in my mind but is only two or three years away.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the absence of the House leader. In an analysis of Oxfam's financial position, a regional director suggested that it would be possible to obtain between $100,000 and $300,000 of Cl DA funds in advance of when it would be required, depending upon the poor accounting practices of CIDA. In light of that statement by a director of Oxfam, would the minister be prepared to undertake a study of the funding of Oxfam now and in the future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to do that. We carry out a continuing examination of the so-called non-governmental organizations. I have not seen that particular quote, but I will look into it and take the necessary steps to have it examined.

[ Translation]


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Small Enterprise).
Since the policy has been announced in the House some time ago and since it has undoubtedly been the object of a very serious study by the officials of his department, is the minister

now prepared to tell the House if the eligibility criteria have been established and would it be possible for him to tell the members of the House about it so they can inform their constituents who are awaiting the benefits of this policy, hoping naturally that it is efficiently carried out one day.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, in September I announced a policy which had been arrived at by my predecessor in a ten-point program. Some of this policy involves the burden of paper work, and in following legislation that we have introduced amendments to the CALURA legislation which have been given first reading. I hope to make further improvements in that area, apart from that legislation when it is passed. There are a number of other areas we are developing, including the purchasing policy of the government and its approach on venture capital, but a number of these things are going to take time, and I hope that when we do bring something before the House it will meet the hon. member's concerns.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary.
Would the minister tell the House very briefly, if he intends to call for information meetings in various areas of Canada and also in Quebec when the work he has just outlined is over in order to inform directors of small enterprises about it and enable them to benefit from it so they can help the government and the country put an end to unemployment?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that is an excellent suggestion by the hon. member, and we do intend to spread the message in the new year about the precise policies we have developed, but I think the hon. member would share my view that until we have something that is concrete to place before small businessmen it would not be advisable to go around the country simply making speeches about what we are going to do.


INQUIRY WHETHER TEN-POINT PROGRAM GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary for the minister. Are we being led to believe by what he has just said that the ten-point program he inherited from his predecessor is in fact government policy on small business?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the ten-point program as enunciated by me and developed by my predecessor was and is government policy, but the program as outlined anticipates a number of developments which are going to take place over a period of time, and therefore I am simply saying that I would like to see some of
November 16, 1977

these proposals put in a more concrete form before we have study sessions for the benefit of small businessmen.


ALLEGED REFUSAL OF BANKS TO GRANT LOANS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haiiburton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another supplementary question for the same minister. Is the minister aware that some banks are flatly refusing to accept applications from worthy, bonded customers for small business loans using the excuse that they would rather lend the money at 12 per cent and 13 per cent than at the rate recommended by the Small Businesses Loans Act?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have heard such allegations. I have been advised that some banks view the Small Businesses Loans Act with a lack of enthusiasm, and only as recently as yesterday in Kingston when some people were making the same allegation to me as the hon. member. I am investigating this, and I will be holding an early meeting with several senior officers of our chartered banks.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Environment) with respect to the concerns of a great many people in the southern part of Saskatchewan and the northern part of Montana about the potential pollution threat resulting from the Poplar River power project. I wonder if at this stage the minister can specify the actions the federal government will take to satisfy itself that this project will not in fact become a serious international air polluter, particularly once it develops beyond the initial 300 megawatts stage?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment) ):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Department of the Environment has been watching this project very closely. I want to assure-


An hon. Member:: Budgets, studies-


Len Marchand: Don't get excited. I want to assure the hon. member that we will be vigilant, and high environmental standards will always be followed by the federal government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it relates to the case of Mr. Danylo Shumuk, who the minister
Oral Questions
will recall is a man who has spent 35 of his 62 years in Soviet prisons exclusively for political crimes. Will the minister tell the House whether officials of his department or the minister himself have intervened directly-and I emphasize directly- with the Soviet authorities here or in Moscow to obtain the release of Mr. Shumuk and permission for him to travel to join his Canadian relatives?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition appreciates, I would have to check the list since the matter stretches over a number of years. I have not personally and specifically identified the gentleman in question in the representations I have made. Having said that, however, I have personally delivered lists of individuals to Soviet officials, so 1 will look into that to see if the name is on those lists, and I will get a chronology of whatever representations there have been.
In a more general way, as I believe the Leader of the Opposition knows since he has supported motions in this House and elsewhere, we have made repeated representations to the Soviet Union with regard to cases of political prisoners and others in similar categories.


Charles Joseph Clark: After the minister looks into this matter and if the name of Mr. Shumuk is not on any of the lists which have been submitted by the minister or his officials will he advise us why the name of Mr. Shumuk is not on those lists, and whether it will be the intention of the government to intervene directly in the case of this gentleman?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do that. By way of an interim answer I can say that individual representations are legitimate and proper when in fact travel to Canada or matters affecting relatives in Canada are concerned, and against that background I suspect that something has been done on an individual basis, but I will look into this matter and provide the answers.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is similar to the terms of a motion I sought to move today under Standing Order 43. It is also similar to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, but there is one important point the minister has not answered as yet.
In view of the fact that Canadians generally do not approve of the government's taking its economic troubles out on veterans and are anxious for the basic rate of the disability pension to be restored to the level established in 1973, will the minister
8002 5-60

November 16, 1977
Oral Questions
take this matter again to his cabinet colleagues and urge that it be reconsidered by the government?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave one impression, and that is that down through the years-not just this year and last year-veterans have been treated quite well by the governments of Canada, and not just particularly by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I would not like the impression to be left with this House or the country that we are not concerned.
I also would like to say that I am not the only minister who has been denied something he has been looking for. I want to make that clear because things can be very much misconstrued. However, as far as going back to the government with the proposals referred to is concerned, I cannot give the hon. member a date. I will go back to the government, but in all sincerity I would like to see that dust cleared first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the minister goes back to the cabinet with the question of the rate of the basic disability pension would he also re-open the question of improving the position of veterans' widows?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Veterans Affairs we always have the concerns of veterans under consideration.


An hon. Member:: Especially at election time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's statement in Jerusalem that the Middle East problem will have to involve some sort of territorial foundation and that there is a range of possibilities, what is the range of possibilities referred to by the minister?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rules would permit me to give the kind of detailed answer the hon. member wants.
I think perhaps my best answer might be to invite the hon. member-and any others, by the way, who might be interested in this subject-either in a formal meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence or separately to discuss it with me because it is far too complex, and I think the hazards of perhaps an improper statement at this time preclude my answering in detail.


MINISTER'S DEFINITION OF PALESTINIANS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's response I hope he will in fact refer the matter to the committee or make a statement on motions in this House as a result of his visit.
With reference to the minister's statement that the Palestinian Arabs cannot be left out of peace-making processes, who in the minister's opinion are the Palestinians? Are the Palestinians in fact those who live within the disputed territory, outside the disputed territory or both?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, again I will do my best to be brief and precise. I had in mind most particularly those who are presently in the so-called disputed territory. One can also refer to some who are so-called refugees-that is one definition that is given to them-who may be living elsewhere at the moment. Of course, there are other definitions as well. In the terms that 1 made the statement, it was to the effect that there are people who have either been dislocated in terms of their traditional homes or who are at present insecure in terms of their present homes. This was a humanitarian and political problem which had to be resolved if there was to be progress on a Middle East settlement.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all hon. members and to which Your Honour has already given some thought as a result of the notice I gave in this House the day before yesterday. It relates to the judgment given by Chief Justice Evans in the Supreme Court of Ontario respecting the "Regulations respecting the security of uranium information, S.O.R. 76-644." In my respectful submission, this judgment gave an interpretation of the extent of parliamentary privilege which I do not believe this House is obliged to accept, and I say with deference that I believe it should not be accepted. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows, at page 42:
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. Flowever, 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 that the privilege is finite and I would not be justified in extending the privilege to cover information released to constituents.
This judgment is no doubt consistent with the course of judicial interpretation, but I am not so sure it is consistent with procedural authorities and rulings by Mr. Speaker in this House. I believe, first of all, that it makes little sense and bad precedent to assert the clear line between the House and the
November 16, 1977

press which the judgment sets out. In this connection I would quote from one of your rulings, Mr. Speaker. In your ruling of December 19, 1974, at page 2383 of Hansard, in the case of remarks made by the late Mr. Real Caouette respecting possible bribery of press gallery members, you said:
I have additional concern about the fact that the allegations relate to the relationship between the members of this House and the members of the press gallery here, or at least some of the members of the press gallery, because to a certain extent the press gallery is an extension of the functioning of the House in bringing before the Canadian people, the electorate, the events of the House through the faithful and objective reporting of such events. This is not the sole responsibility of the press gallery but is a matter over which this House wants to exercise some interest-
That statement was an explicit recognition that free communication between a member and a constituent or the general public is more than a question of freedom of speech in the House. It is a recognition that the medium which transmits or interprets the message is part of the parliamentary process in a general sense and must not be subject to pressures or intimidations which do not permit conscientious and accurate reports to be made. The judgment of Mr. Justice Evans explicitly upsets the assumption made by you, Mr. Speaker, on the place of the press in this parliament. The judgment challenges our assumption that we are entitled to fair and accurate reports of our proceedings. May says, at page 80 of the nineteenth edition:
But the publication, whether by order of the House or not, of a fair and accurate account of a debate in either House of parliament is protected by the same principle as that which protects fair reports of proceedings in courts of justice, namely, that the advantage to the public outweighs any disadvantage to individuals unless malice is proved.
I would add here that if it is asserted that this quotation is inoperable because it is not the rights of individuals, but national security which is involved, should that be a criterion if the House has not taken the action which is its prerogative, that is, to resolve to sit in camera? Are members of the press, reporting on the comments of members, to be liable to prosecution because they did not, at the proper time, suddenly begin to act as if they were attending an in camera session at which their normal rights had suddenly vanished? To combine the points of fair reporting and the role of the press I would cite another quotation from May, the same edition, at page 81:
There is a distinction between the absolute privilege of members speaking in the House, or in any committee of the House, and the qualified privilege of a publisher reporting words spoken; in the latter case publication of parliamentary proceedings is protected, not specifically by privilege of parliament, but on the analogy of the publication of proceedings in courts of justice.
A specific case is cited, the conclusion being:
A fair and faithful report of the whole debate would therefore not be actionable.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that: first, the judgment by Mr. Justice Evans, in its comments upon parliamentary privilege are not in accordance with interpretations in this House on privilege as it relates to the relationship between members and the press. Second, 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. That is of vital concern to this House, as Your Honour has said. Third, the judgment usurps from the House
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
the responsibility of determining itself when its proceedings are to be secretive and in-camera. Fourth, 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 privilege.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that a committee of the House must look at this question as soon as possible. As I have said, there is no doubt that Mr. Justice Evans is entitled to rule as he did in keeping with judicial practice-and if we could, we would not want to call him as a witness. But we must act, as well, to protect the privileges of members. Because of the general, rather than the specific nature of the implied intimidation, you may consider it a matter for the Standing Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members. I believe the question is an urgent one, and I would move, if Your Honour finds a prima facie case of privilege:
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.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader of the opposition raised this matter two days ago. At that time I indicated that, like him, I had not had a chance to study the judgment very carefully and wanted to reserve my right to say something on the subject. I did not know that this matter was being raised today and, therefore, I have not completed my study of the Chief Justice's judgment as I would like to do. There are a couple of things I should like to say first. There is nothing substantial that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has said with which I at this point would want to take exception, but I would ask that this motion not be put right now until the House leader on our side has had an opportunity of considering the remarks of today and the motion.
There is, undoubtedly, some confusion caused by the judgment, as there was, of course, on the question of whether the uranium information regulations affected the rights and privileges of members of parliament in so far as debates are concerned, or whether members' rights to consult legal advice was involved. Counsel for both the applicant and myself agreed on that position in court and, as I understand it, the judge clearly found the regulation to be subordinate to the privileges and immunities of members of parliament. There is the matter of the effect on publication raised by the hon. member. I understand there is an action arising from some comment made after the judgment was rendered as to the effect on publication.
It is quite clear, and certainly my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that questions on the publication and reproduction of Hansard are matters for the House and the Speaker, and it is up to the Speaker and the House to determine those matters and to determine that the practice has been that there is no bar to such publication or reproduction of Hansard. Therefore,
80025-60(4

November 16, 1977
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
I am not entirely clear whether we actually need to examine this question.
I think there is probably agreement among us all as to what those privileges and immunities contain, as well as to publication, but I would ask that the Elouse leader on our side should have an opportunity of considering the remarks made today and whether we are in agreement with the motion of the hon. member. As I say, I did not know that this matter was being raised today. I should like to consider the question, and I might advise you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that it might be advisable for the Speaker to take action by way of appealing that particular part of the judgment. I would really like an opportunity to consider those questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear those hon. members who indicate their willingness to discuss this matter at this time. 1 certainly would have no difficulty in holding the matter over in order to permit a prepared intervention by the Minister of Justice or, alternatively, the House leader or his nominee in this matter. At the moment, I will hear those members who are prepared to speak to the matter brought forward.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, was unaware that this matter was coming forward today. I read that judgment with amazement, and it is difficult to understand that this judgment would have been delivered. As far as the interference with the rights of members of parliament contained therein is concerned, those rights are not determined in the courts: those rights are determined in the House of Commons and are not subject to interpretation by any court outside the supreme court of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: When I first heard the judgment and what was stated there and in the press, it was impossible for me to believe it was in accordance with what had actually taken place. In so far as a great portion of that judgment is concerned, it is in no way binding on anyone, certainly not on any superior court. It consists of observations which you, Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer, and lawyers generally, recognize to be what is known as obiter dicta.
The judge proceeded to give a judgment regarding a lot of extraneous matter, making up 54 pages or so. I read it instead of following the usual course of measuring that kind of thing and, having done that, I concluded that measuring it would have been the most successful course I could have followed. There is one matter I should like to have the opportunity of pointing out. I am impressed by what the Minister of Justice has said. I think his observations were very pertinent and very reasonable.


An hon. Member:: But!


John George Diefenbaker: But, I must point out that this judge, newly elevated to the height of Chief Justice of Ontario, refused to allow the representations of the Civil Liberties Organization of Canada as to whether the Bill of Rights applied. That, to say the least, did not receive my full approba-

tion. The Bill of Rights should have been considered. It provided, and provides, freedom of the press for the first time under legislation in this country. The civil liberties association should have been permitted to make its representations, and the fact that that course was not permitted would indicate the judge was unaware of the provision of the Bill of Rights.
In so far as parliament is concerned, I repeat what I said earlier: the courts have no right to interpret what the rights of this institution are or how they shall be determined. That type of action was acceptable in the days of Judge Jefferies, but not in 1977. Adjourning this matter for further consideration is a wise idea. I hope this parliament will announce that we do not intend to have our ancestral privileges and rights abrogated under obiter dicta by the Chief Justice of Ontario who denied any possibility of representations being made in connection with the Bill of Rights. I speak as one who is a member of the bar of this province when I say that-and as a member of three other bars across Canada-I cannot understand the reason he chose to endeavour to interfere with those rights, apparently unaware of the fact that what takes place here today is broadcast across the nation. This could cause a multitude of things to keep a judge in this country busy on worth-while things for a very long time to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties about this debate is that we are all on the same side. I am sure that even after the government House leader has participated and we have, perhaps, had a further intervention by the Minister of Justice, it will still be the position of hon. members of this House that our freedom of speech in this place cannot be curtailed from the outside, and that the people of Canada have the undoubted right to know what goes on in this place.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert pressed the point that no judge could limit our freedom of speech. I think, in all fairness to Mr. Justice Evans, that he has made no suggestion that we should be limited in our discussions in this House about the uranium cartel question or any other. However, in my view where he overstepped the line was when he suggested we could not convey to our constituents things we had learned in this House, and that members of the media must be careful about reporting what goes on in the House. I find that almost ridiculous, even though it comes from such a learned person as a Chief Justice. As other hon. members have pointed out, what goes in this House is printed verbatim in Hansard in two languages, and Hansard is published in 15,000 or more copies per day and sent all over the country and the world.
How any judge can say we cannot convey to our constituents what we have said or learned in this place is beyond me. Is he trying to say to me that on a day when there has been a discussion on the uranium cartel in this House, I cannot sent Hansard to my constituents?


An hon. Member:: What about TV?
November 16, 1977


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he saying to this House that if the hon. member for York-Simcoe gets up and starts to talk about the uranium cartel, the cameras over there must be turned off.


An hon. Member:: Or turn him off.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is just about that ridiculous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, even though I take that position very strongly, that I have done some reading in this area and that there are citations in the book even on page 80 which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton read from. That must confuse the learned judge. Even though sentences in May and in other books dealing with the matter seem to confuse, I think they make the position clear if you read them closely. May says although there is the unquestioned right that the papers and the documents of this House can be made public and distributed, and although there is the unquestioned right of the press and other media-even if I am adding that phrase-to report fairly and honestly what goes on here, there are still certain limitations which members must face.
For example, if a member of this House makes a speech which includes libel of a citizen outside the House, he can make that speech in the House, and I think it is still fairly clear that the press can report the speech that was made. But May says that if the member reprints that speech and publishes it by itself, particularly if he publishes it by itself rather than as part of the whole debate, and distributes it outside the House, he must face the fact that an action could be taken against him for libel. He can say it in the House, and there can be no libel charge against him. If he publishes outside what he has said here, there is the possibility of a libel action being taken against him.
This is part of the confusing law we have. But today we are not dealing with a case of members making statements that seem to be libellous: we are dealing with an order in council passed by the government which says we must not discuss a certain subject. This is a subject declared by the government to be forbidden. I suggest that is a totally different thing. If speeches are made on that subject, Hansard is circulated or the newspapers report it-and who is offended? Who is going to lay a charge? Who is going to prosecute? It will be the government which passed the order in council.
You can see the kind of Pandora's box which the learned judge has opened up. He has suggested to the government that its order in council was valid-some of us do not think so, but the judge says it is. He now says not only is that order in council valid, but if members debate the issue in the House and then report it outside, the government can take the members to court, not for what they said in here but what they published outside. Well, this government does some ridiculous things, but I cannot imagine it would do that.


An hon. Member:: You do not know this Minister of Justice.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a totally different category from the libellous things, the defamation of character that might be uttered in this House which lead May and other authorities to warn members there are some things about which we should be careful. In terms of discussing a policy of the government, particularly this whole area of the uranium cartel, I do not think the judge did all the homework that he should have done. First of all, I think his judgment, that the order in council was valid, is questionable. Even on that basis, he has gone on to say it is still within the privilege of parliament to discuss the matter here. Well, if it is all right to discuss it, and if that discussion does not involve defaming the characters of individuals out there but involves offending the sensitivities of the government that did not want its policy to be talked about, I see no reason why there should be any limitation on the fair reporting of what took place in parliament.
These things are pretty basic: they go back for centuries- the right of the country to know what is going on. It is not enough for us to have free speech in parliament. If the country does not know, it does not have full access to what is going on here. That would not be in tune with the whole democratic process. I do not think the learned judge was as learned as we call him when he made this pronouncement. I hope that when this discussion ends, whether tomorrow or some other day, there will be a clear ruling from the Chair or an agreement to refer the matter to a committee so that the House can make a decision.
I think it important that we affirm our right to freedom of discussion in this House of Commons and that we affirm the freedom of the press and the media to report to the country what is going on here. So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton on raising this issue today. I hope that by the time the discussion is over, the apparent unanimity that is already here will be solid and complete.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: I would like to make a few brief comments on the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton partly in response to two of the suggestions put forth by the Minister of Justice. As I understood the Minister of Justice, he said, first of all, that in effect he did not know there was too much urgency with respect to a ruling on the question raised by my colleague. He had asked for some time so that his House leader could review the situation with a view to making a fuller statement at a later date. He raised the question that perhaps a ruling is not needed in any event.
Speaking first on the question, I think there is a very high degree of urgency. If we read the full judgment of Chief Justice Evans, I agree with my colleague, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that much of what was said was probably obiter dicta. He has put us in a very awkward position. The Chief Justice makes it very clear that while we have certain privileges as members of parliament, those privileges clearly do not extend to the general public with respect to anybody in that class who has first-hand knowledge of what transpired within the cartel and the activities between January

November 16, 1977
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
1,	1972, and December 31, 1975, involving uranium production in Canada.
The type of person that is caught there, clearly not only under the first regulation but also under the newly amended regulation-which is presumably still a valid regulation-is a governmental official who has had some hand in the formation and operation of the cartel during those years I have referred to. I refer to those that are members still, or who were at that time members of the various producing companies active in the uranium industry, and who have some hand in uranium cartel activities.
The reason it is rather urgent that we get an interpretation as to our privilege is that we have some first-hand knowledge from some of those people who are still covered by the amended "gag" regulation that we would like to reveal, not only to this House but to the Canadian public generally. The unfortunate thing that has now arisen is that if we offer that information in the House, clearly our privilege, according to the Chief Justice is guaranteed, if you like-he does not question that within the House-but he makes it very clear and says the privilege stops at the press.
I am in this odd position. I have some danger in going to an official either within a producing company or within the government and seeking the information that some have indicated they are willing to give us. That might be aiding and abetting that person breaking the regulation as amended. I emphasize that. Second, when I get that fresh information and 1 offer it in the House-and 1 think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre touched on this-unless I alert the tv cameras and those who might be listening that 1 am about to reveal certain information that the Chief Justice indicates 1 have the right to reveal, but the press does not have the right to communicate, there is going to be an offence committed. We would be in a rather awkward position. Presumably, I have to give Your Honour an indication that I am going to reveal information. Your Honour could call for a black-out or something like that in case there is some offence. That is the rather ridiculous position we are in.
The Minister of Justice indicates that he is not sure whether a ruling is needed. I would emphasize that a ruling is needed very quickly. Contrary to what the minister has conveyed, the Chief Justice deals very specifically with what he regards to be the rules within the House of Commons. He cites various precedents; he goes into that; he does not stop simply with a judicial interpretation. But perhaps the confusion comes up at page 42 of his judgment. If I may, I would like to quote his words:
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 indicate that the privilege is finite and I would not be justified in extending the privilege to cover information released to constituents.
What the judge is apparently relying on is a House of Commons decision in England of a special committee that was set up there in 1938-39 entitled "a select committee on the Official Secrets Act". He refers extensively to comments made in that committee which were subsequently adopted by the House in England and presumably are now part of the privileges as defined in the House in England.
Where the confusion seems to have arisen is that the Chief Justice has likened the "gag" regulation, with which we are now dealing, with something that might fall under the Official Secrets Act. He is, in effect, saying that if they are one and the same, the limit to privilege under the Official Secrets Act of England would presumably apply to members of the House of Commons in Canada. With all due respect to His Lordship, 1 do not feel that is a fair comparison-in, there is nothing about this "gag" regulation that can be looked upon as an official secrets type of activity. In short, it is simply a gag on those who have first-hand knowledge with regard to what transpired in the production, distribution and sale of uranium between the years that I have indicated. In fact, members of the government have often tried to tell us that there was nothing secret about what happened.
We are in the awkward position where the government by order in council has said it is an offence to reveal anything, certainly of a first-hand nature. With regard to what transpired touching on this subject within those years, we have the Chief Justice indicating that our privilege does not extend beyond this House in the sense that we cannot communicate with our constituents or the press on their own if they want to release this information. We need an early indication of what, in fact, is the privilege we enjoy in this House and to what extent it extends to other members of the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has already made an intervention. I do not know if he is seeking the floor on a point of order or for clarification.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to move on. I want to raise a question of privilege on my own. However, with regard to the last intervention I just want to say, as the House knows, that the President of the Privy Council has been very seriously ill for some time. I would at least like some time to be able to consult with him before a decision is taken on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton gave notice earlier in the week, supported by the Minister of Justice, that the matter ought to be raised in a preliminary indication of the contents of the judgment by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Upon the request of the Minister of Justice today to consider the matter before making an intervention, I am certainly prepared to accede to that, provided any further intervention on the part of the government is made as quickly as possible. We would certainly be looking for that advice at the earliest possible moment. It is, therefore, appropriate that I should reserve on the matter pending the further intervention, and take some careful consideration of the judg-
[Mr. Stevens.)
November 16, 1977

ment itself and of the arguments which are all very valuable in attempting to come to a decision on this important subject.
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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 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. That is a danger we have to recognize. In this instance, and as it has been since this matter was first raised, it is very difficult to deal with potential difficulties that may arise. However, that may have happened in the House. We may be faced with something we will have to take into consideration in a different way. It seems to me always preferable to assume that a member has the rights, privileges and immunities that have always surrounded a member until such time as a member finds himself unable to function and brings before this House the interference with his ability to function for consideration on a question of privilege. That is the most direct way to deal with it.
However, the matter has taken on other dimensions and the Minister of Justice has asked for time to consider an intervention. Therefore, I will hold the matter over until that intervention is made.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that I wanted to raise what has become, under our practice, a question of privilege. It is probably more correctly a point of order. It arises from a speech made in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary North and words that he used in that speech. On Monday last Your Honour made a ruling on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River-a ruling against the Prime Minister for certain words that he had used in this House.
At that time Your Honour said that you were ruling in the interests of protecting the dignity of parliament and that you were being diligent in that respect. Obviously, that is a matter of concern to you, that the dignity and decorum of the House of Commons be preserved. It is a task for which you have our full support in endeavouring to achieve. Especially now, with television in the House, it is important that we re-examine, if need be, the rules relating to conduct, behaviour and parliamentary language. I know, having been talking to the public outside, that people have been watching television and that they have been very concerned and upset to see and hear daily the unfounded innuendoes, slurs and allegations directed against Ministers of the Crown by members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the past we on this side have not generally complained, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member for Peace
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
River recently raised a point of order and Your Honour took the occasion to make a ruling relating to the dignity of the House with regard to which you have our complete agreement and support. I therefore feel we have, as a result of your ruling on Monday, a new basis upon which to govern ourselves in the House.
Last night the hon. member for Calgary North made a speech, and I am sure he meant no ill. But in his usual exuberance and enthusiasm he made a forceful speech in the course of which he said, as reported at page 905 of Hansard:
It is not ministerial responsibility we should be talking about tonight, it is ministerial irresponsibility and culpability-
Well, Mr. Speaker, culpability is defined in the Oxford Concise Dictionary as "criminal or blameworthy" and in Webster's Third International it is described as "guilty or criminal". I think, therefore, it is quite clear on the basis of your ruling on Monday and from the citation to which you referred in that ruling-citation 140 which is familiar to us all-and the example cited from paragraph 155 of Beau-chesne's, that language of this kind is contrary to the citations of Beauchesne and contrary to the Standing Orders relating to debate and contrary to your ruling of Monday.
I will go on reading from the same page of Hansard, page
905.	As reported in the same column, the hon. member said:
Because the opposition are interrogating us, and we are covering up-
He was referring to the government. Again, the words "covering-up" have connotations of interference in the administration of justice and are unparliamentary. Further on, in the next column, the hon. member is reported as saying, "That is untruthful". It was a reference to a speech I made in Vancouver, and I think reference to Beauchesne would make it clear that the expression used is unparliamentary. On page
906,	the hon. member said:
This is merely a plot to take the responsibility and the heat off their own shoulders because of their irresponsibility and culpability in this matter.
I referred a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, to the use of the word "culpability". Again on page 906 the hon. member went on to say:
He could not have gathered a standing ovation from his audience by telling the truth.
The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) asked:
Are you calling him a liar?
Then the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) said "Yes, he is". And he was referring to me.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Vancouver South was again referring to a speech I made in Vancouver. It is unclear from the record to what part of that speech he was referring- whether it was that part of the speech which pointed out that despite the reorganization of the Conservative caucus it had been so reorganized that there was not one British Columbian member of parliament on the Conservative side who had been given a key position in the Conservative caucus. I am not sure

November 16, 1977
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
whether that was the part he was referring to, or whether it was the portion of the speech referring to the RCMP.
To my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that both Beauchesne and your own ruling on Monday show that to refer to people in this House as lying or as liars is unparliamentary. I can quote more examples. On page 907 the hon. member from Calgary North accuses us of blackmail and says the security services have been blackmailed by this government. That is clearly an allegation of criminal wrongdoing and is contrary to the rules laid down in Beauchesne.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Terrible!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Again, on page 907, the hon. member said of me:
I said that when they threw pumpkin pie I hoped the seeds of the pumpkin would be as hard as rocks-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not complaining about that, but it seems to me that for the hon. member for Calgary North to associate himself and align himself with crackpots in our society who throw pies is just a little disappointing. 1 will not, however, ask him to withdraw that. The hon. member then went on to say:
-when the minister made this, in my view, untruthful attack on the opposition-
Obviously, that is an allegation of lying which is clearly unparliamentary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Withdraw.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sure the hon. member was speaking with his usual verve and enthusiasm and did not really mean to use such unparliamentary language. Mr. Speaker, in line with your ruling of Monday in which you endeavoured to set out how we in this House should behave with dignity and decorum-an effort which we on this side endeavour to make-I would ask that the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Vancouver South withdraw those remarks which I have cited and withdraw them in a large and liberal way, as required by citation 141.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather amused, to say the least. I would, however, just point out that when the Minister of Justice was in the House he delivered quite an attack on the opposition. I find it rather interesting that he would take objection to what I said later. I feel I was making what amounts to fair political comment. Nothing in my remarks makes me feel otherwise. Last night when I spoke-and a fellow needs to have fairly good lungs sometimes-the hon. member for Restigouche spoke louder than I did all the time I was speaking. I would hope that now the minister has raised what he thinks is, maybe, a joke, when he means to be serious, I have to answer him seriously. These are the minister's words as reported at page 894:

That has been said by the Prime Minister and other ministers in the House and for the minister to suggest in his speech today to the contrary simply reinforces by thesis that today s debate and this resolution are nothing more than a crass, transparent device to manipulate public opinion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not illegal, though. That is not against the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the same sort of thing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the hon. gentleman would be silent for a few moments, I would read from Beauchesne, citation 132. The minister has been in the House and has made his speech. I do not think I would be breaking a confidence if I said I met the hon. gentleman and he said, "I understand you'll be speaking. I hope you don't mind, but I have a dinner engagement." I shall not go into that further. He knew I would be speaking. I had my speech prepared. It was not made off the cuff; it was written out. I delivered it with all the ability at my command. But the proper time for interference is when the offensive expressions are uttered, and not afterward-and 1 am not saying they were offensive. It may take place either on the Speaker's voluntary motion or a call to order of a member assailed, or some other member or a general call of the House. The speaker feels more strongly his duty to interpose such language as seems unparliamentary with regard to the absent member.
To be fair, Mr. Speaker, there was a large number of Liberal members in the House when I delivered that speech. Any one of them could have risen if it was thought that the language was unparliamentary. But no one saw fit to do so. I want, now, to deal with what I am really saying. Surely my remarks were fair comment. You pretty well have to read the whole thing. What I was saying was this:
What we are saying is this, that surely there would be no accountability at all if we are to believe the ministers, which I do not accept. They have never had any accountability. It is not a day to day job. They have not done it from week to week or month to month or year to year for eight years. There has been an absence of any accountability or any responsibility.
In the absence of accounting, I say that the minister or ministers were negligent. You are a lawyer, sir, and will appreciate that when dealing with the word "negligence" in the vehicles act it has a different meaning. I can quote a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada defined negligence in that sense as something greater than ordinary negligence, as having some culpable or blameworthy weight. I do not refer to culpability in the criminal sense of a voluntary statement; I am talking about the minister being called negligent in not giving some accounting for the security of the nation. I am not going to say anything more about that.
When I talk about covering up, Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone could sit in the House for 19 years, as I have, and not say that there has not been some covering up, to use layman's language, on both sides of this House from time to time. I am sure that when we formed the government, our ministers-I do not mean this in the criminal sense-may not always have told
*

November 16, 1977

everything. However, I have been listening to ministers opposite since 1968, and when I use the phrase "cover-up" in connection with them 1 do not mean covering up some criminal activity, as Richard Nixon did, but a cover-up in layman's terms. I just cannot believe that this "cry baby" can be so sensitive at this time.
I come now to the next point. The Minister of Justice has charged us with suggesting that the police workday should be monitored from day to day. I say that is utter nonsense. I am not saying that the minister lied, but it is untrue. If I had said that he had deliberately made a statement to falsify facts in this House, then I would not be standing where I am, I would withdraw.
I come to the next statement, that there is merely a plot. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you believe that there have not been plots in the Liberal caucus against this poor old party ever since confederation, then 1 am not Eldon Woolliams from Calgary North. There have been plots and plots. I am not talking about a criminal conspiracy or some illegal plot, but an ordinary plot. The Liberals often make plots.


Mr. Fraser:: In fact, they leave them behind them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sure that if they ever hid a wire recorder in our caucus room they would sometimes hear about plots. Perhaps we do not plot as well as they do, Mr. Speaker, but we plot. I am telling you honestly that we plot.
We now come to the fifth objection. This was when the noise in the House became so loud that you could not hear yourself think, let alone speak. This has to do with the hon. member for Restigouche. I do not know what happened to him, Mr. Speaker, or what he had for dinner, whether it was mustard on steak, but something upset his digestion, to say the least. He was yelling at me when I said that the minister could not have gathered a standing ovation from his audience by telling the truth but that the one thing the minister did accomplish was to get a pie in the face.
I said that perhaps a little facetiously, Mr. Speaker. I thought it rather funny, having come back from Calgary on an aircraft, when I saw the Minister of Justice wiping the cream from the pie out of his eyeballs. You could not help but think that funny, Mr. Speaker. I always get along with the Minister of Justice and he would be the first to say so. I was not trying to be cruel, unkind or bitter; 1 just wanted to have a little humour with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member enjoyed many opportunities for that last evening, and it looks like he is getting a second run. I want simply to intervene at this point to say that both members have had an opportunity to raise this matter. I think we ought to pay careful attention to the general principle here in accordance with the ruling that I made earlier in the week, namely, that no allegation of lawbreaking or of illegality, can be made by one side against the other side in this House. I think that is consistent with the principle of the judgment I made.
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
The expression referred to by the Minister of Justice can, I suppose, in some contexts have that effect, but I would not want to eliminate that for all time. However, the hon. member has already referred to the main point of culpability, cover-up and matters that might be untruthful; but those words do not seem to carry with them any suggestion of illegality in the context in which they were used.
The other point which gave me some doubt in the minister's argument was the question of blackmail, which at best is a slang term, one which cannot be taken from the annals of the Criminal Code. In the context which was used by the hon. member for Calgary North I do not see any allegation of direct illegality. However, I would ask all hon. members to be vigilant that we do not relax this practice of prohibiting allegations of direct illegality by one member against another.
I think this matter has been thoroughly discussed by both sides. Both members have had an opportunity to contribute to it, and I think we ought to move on to another question.


MR. CROSBIE-REMARKS OF MR. M. DIONNE
Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not want to keep Your Honour long, but I want to refer to a matter which came up last night, as reported at page 914 of Hansard, having to do with remarks made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. As recorded at page 914, the hon. member said:
We have heard repeatedly today that there is no effort on the part of the opposition to condemn the RCMP. They say they support the RCMP. Let us look at the record. I refer to a speech made on October 31 by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He said as reported at page 496 of Hansard:
"-I say the RCMP have to be brought to heel."
That is not a condemnation by the RCMP in their terms! They will bring in another apologist to try to eradicate that statement.
That is a misrepresentation, Mr. Speaker, of what I said on October 31.1 refer Your Honour to Hansard of that date. As reported at page 496, I said this-and compare it with the previous quotation:
I have no fetish about the RCMP, and if members of the RCMP are going about Canada committing illegal acts in the manner we have evidence they have done in three or four instances, then I say the RCMP have to be brought to heel.
The deliberate partial quotation made by the hon. gentleman is a complete misrepresentation of what 1 said, Mr. Speaker. May I refer Your Honour to page 130 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, where halfway down the page it says that the misrepresentation of the language of another is unparliamentary. This is a misrepresentation of my language. The hon. member took part of a sentence only, and there is a great difference between the two statements, one being "I say the RCMP has to be brought to heel", the other being:
I have no fetish about the RCMP, and if members of the RCMP are going about Canada committing illegal acts in the manner we have evidence they have done in three or four instances, then I say the RCMP have to be brought to heel.
I do not think an hon. member should be allowed to take partial quotes of another member and twist the meaning. I submit that that is a breach of the privilege of that hon.

November 16, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
member, and I should like the hon. member for Northumber-land-Miramichi either to withdraw or to correct his quotation.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I would commence my remarks by briefly quoting Shakespeare; "Methinks he doth protest too much".


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should tell that to the Minister of Justice.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I referred to several quotes of the hon. member, but before going back to them I might refer to what the hon. member for Calgary North just cited-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. John's West has raised a point of privilege which I do not propose to deal with at great length. The hon. member for St. John's West raised the point that the quotation ought at least to be in sufficient context to set it. There is no requirement upon a member to do that so long as he is using language used by the hon. member, in this case the hon. member for St. John's West. 1 am interested in knowing whether or not the hon. member is prepared to include a reference to a more expanded quote. However, I do not think the matter should be debated at great length.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to cite the same citation as that cited some time ago, namely, that the proper time to raise such an objection is when the offence is committed. 1 could have also quoted the succeeding statement of the hon. member for St. John's West, which I believe makes it even worse:
They have to be brought to heel, and their political masters who encouraged them, or who are hiding them, or who directed them or who condoned those acts, have to be brought to heel also.
On November 8, 1977, the Prime Minister used that same quotation in a question of privilege which he raised. At that time the hon. member did not raise a question of privilege, and in my opinion the hon. member has no question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for St. John's West had a point of order or some other argument when the matter was discussed during the course of debate last evening. Whether he has a point of order now seems to be in some grave doubt, certainly as a question of privilege. However, the hon. member for St. John's West has already had an opportunity to correct the record in so far as his expanded quotation is concerned, and to set it in context. Under the circumstances, that seems to be fair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, questions Nos. 181, 218, 229, 263, 272, 321, 379, 380, 382, 383 and 384 will be answered today.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the other questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation 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.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. Nil.
2.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.


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


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Municipal Development and Loan 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?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. Nil.
I Mr. Crosbie.]
November 16, 1977

2. (a) Nil; (b) Nil.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Agricultural Stabilization Board 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 Agricultural Stabilization Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Eugene Whelan: In so far as
the Agricultural Stabilization Board is concerned, the answer is: 1. (a) (i) to (x) nil; (b) (i) to (iv) nil, (v) one, (vi) to (x) nil.
2.	Main Estimates.
3.	(a) Ontario, $7.10. (b) Hourly rates paid by employment agencies to their employees are not known to the Department,
(c)	(i) nil; (ii) $426.


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


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Municipal Development and Loan Board 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 Municipal Development and Loan Board in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. Nil.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Agricultural Products 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?


Eugene Whelan: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the National Farm Products Marketing Council 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?


Eugene Whelan: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Consumer Council 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. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Nil.
2. Nil.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Patent 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?


Alan Gray Martin: 1. Nil.
2. Nil.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Copyright 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?

November 16, 1977
Income Tax


Alan Gray Martin: 1. Nil.
2. Nil.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 54 is acceptable to the government.
1 ask that all remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the other notices for motions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
COPY OF STUDIES REFERRED TO BY POSTMASTER GENERAL Motion No. 54-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the studies referred to by the Postmaster General at page 6530 of the House of Commons Debates of June 10, 1977, in his reply to questions raised by the hon. member for Don Valley.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-11, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill I want to say that I certainly do not support it. I do not support any legislation which will give this government the power to borrow up to $9 billion, because I do not think the government is fit or competent to spend $1, much less $9 billion. If hon. members opposite do not object, I should like to point out that the government brought the economy of Canada to heel. It brought the economy to a standstill and has given it a fearsome dart in the last five or six years. It mismanaged the economy of this country, which imperiled our lives. We are on the same slippery slope which the United Kingdom travelled after the war. The U.K. had much more reason to do that than we have: we have no reason to be on that slippery slope at all, except the mismanagement of our economy. The government has brought in this legisla-

tion which contains critical measures to stimulate the economy and get us going again. There is nothing in this legislation which will stimulate the Canadian economy and get it going again. In fact, it is far from it.
Our general economic position is a desperate one. There are no signs of progress. The Economic Council of Canada has given us the picture. Soon it will be abolished because it has given truthful opinions about the record of the government. In its annual review the Economic Council of Canada pointed out that we face a resurgence in inflation. The fact that the cost of living went up by 1 per cent to an 8.8 per cent annual rate in September and October confirms what the Economic Council of Canada has indicated.
The Council also foresaw heavy unemployment continuing and growing worse, failing businesses, failing consumer confidence and large government debts. Surely this bill is proof of large government debts. The government wants us to authorize the borrowing of another $9 billion. That would be another $9 billion for this group of spendthrifts to misappropriate, with large current account deficits stretching into the years ahead.
The deficit balance in our balance of international payments will exceed $4 billion this year. Yesterday, in St. John's, a newspaper columnist said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should wear a wreath in his buttonhole-not a rose- when he comes to Newfoundland next week. That columnist is dead-on. The Prime Minister should go to Newfoundland in mourning for the unemployed. At the present moment we have
29,000	unemployed in Newfoundland.
Dealing with unemployment, at the present time it is 11.4 per cent in Quebec; 17.4 per cent in Newfoundland; 14.6 per cent in New Brunswick; 10.7 per cent in Nova Scotia, and 11.2 per cent in Prince Edward Island. The average in the Atlantic provinces is 13.5 per cent. The youth unemployment rate in Newfoundland is 24.9 per cent. The percentage of the labour force looking for work and still unemployed for three months in Newfoundland is 43 per cent. The Prime Minister should go to Newfoundland in black; he should go with a wreath in his buttonhole and dressed in black, accompanied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The other day the Minister of Finance said with great pride in this chamber that the increased employment this year was 257,000. He was trying to fool the television audience.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The figure was 292,000.


John Carnell Crosbie: All right, 292,000. The figure I have for the increase in the labour force this year is 365,000, but it is probably more than that. We are all aware of the fact that every year more people will be employed as long as our population continues to grow. The increase in the labour force is outrunning the increase in the number of jobs created. What good is there in the Minister of Finance flapping his wings and indicating that the number of employed people has increased?

In Newfoundland it has not increased. The job creation in Newfoundland was minus 4,000 last month, while the labour force growth was 2,000-for another 6,000 unemployed. The sorry record of this government goes on and on.
The government should voluntarily resign and get out of power in order to let someone else attempt to do something for the economy that it has ruined. Cabinet ministers are like whirling dervishes. Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen a whirling dervish? I saw them once in the Egyptian Sudan. They stand in one spot and they whirl, whirl and whirl. They keep whirling, whirling and whirling for a long, long time. That is what is happening to cabinet ministers. Canada has had three ministers of finance in the last four years-whirling dervishes! Mr. Turner whirled like a dervish out of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) whirled like a dervish out of the House of Commons. My prophecy is that the present Minister of Finance will whirl like a dervish out of the House of Commons in the next year or two when the election comes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The "Shawinigan saviour" will not save his deposit next year when the electorate has a chance to get at him, even with the partial treatment which has been given to businesses and industries in his district. What are our financial, business and economic ministers doing about this tragic situation? What the Minister of Finance is doing is before us in this bill. What is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) doing about this situation? Well, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is doing everything under the sun but doing his job. He should get down to trying to produce some solutions. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is blaming Canada's present condition on everyone but himself and the government. Members might agree that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is only responsible to some extent because he has been in that portfolio for only six months.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: He has not had the time to muck it up.


John Carnell Crosbie: He has not had the time to really do a job, so we will not blame him too much. The minister is blaming everyone under the sun. I should like to refer to Hansard of November 9, 1977, page 757, which indicates that the hon. member for Crowfoot will have a lot of "crowfoot" to eat after the election next year. In fact, he will have lots of time to eat it. The hon. member for Crowfoot blames everyone but the government for Canada's present economic situation.
As hon. members in this chamber realize that the difficult economic times we have in Canada are not caused by the government and they have no relationship to the government? I quote the minister as follows:
We are having these problems partially as a result of the maturing of Third World countries.
Income Tax
We have to blame the poor Third World countries for the mess our economy is in, according to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Further on the same page the minister is recorded as saying the following:
This high inflationary period was certainly not the fault of this government or the result of its policies.
Six months ago he was saying every day that it was the fault of this government and the result of its policies; but now because he is on the other side of the House it is not the fault of this government. What does the minister think about unemployment? There is not a heavy, high unemployment rate in the minister's own district out in Alberta. Because of the good PC government in Alberta there is almost full employment there. They are begging people to take jobs out there, so the minister does not have to worry about unemployment.
However, as recorded at page 759 of Hansard, the minister was talking about Cape Breton where unemployment is as bad, if not worse, than it is in Newfoundland. I think the rate in Cape Breton is in excess of 30 per cent. People there have been subject to the unemployment tragedy for at least 15 or 20 years, and the history of unemployment goes back even further than that. But I am talking about the latest bout of unemployment for the miners and people of Cape Breton. What sympathy does the minister display for those who are out of work on Cape Breton Island? As recorded at page 759 of Hansard, the minister was talking about energy and saying that we have a chance to become self-sufficient. He said:
That should give any Canadian a great deal of hope and confidence. We are slow in developing some of our coal mines. That is one aspect which could be improved.
MR. blackburn: Especially in Cape Breton.
MR. horner: Especially in Cape Breton because of the costs, and I think I should say perhaps because of the inappreciability of the Cape Bretoner for the retention of his job. That is a serious accusation.
The minister himself acknowledged that it was a serious accusation. The minister accused humble mine workers of Cape Breton of being wastrels, sluggards, job-avoiders and welfare-seekers. He said that they do not appreciate retaining their jobs; that they "inappreciate". I have not heard that word before, but it is clear what the minister meant. He meant that Cape Bretoners do not appreciate working; that they do not appreciate jobs; that they "inappreciate" them.


Donald W. Munro: A "Hornerism"!


John Carnell Crosbie: According to the minister, it is the fault of the Cape Breton miner that he is unemployed. I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who also represents that area, will confirm that this is indeed the government's analysis of the situation in Cape Breton and that it is the fault of Cape Breton miners themselves that they are unemployed because they do not want jobs and that they "inappreciate" them. I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will have the good sense to come to this House, get down on his hands and knees before hon. members from Cape Breton and apologize for that insult to the people who live there.

November 16, 1977
Income Tax


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: So now we have some idea of what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce thinks is the situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We "inappreciate" his remarks.


John Carnell Crosbie: Our former leader, the respected hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) says we "inappreciate" the minister's remarks. I cannot imagine another member in this House who has more to "inappreciate" about the minister than the hon. member for Halifax.
What is the minister doing in the field of industry, trade and commerce? He is going around the country making little sermons to people in various industries and telling them that our poor economic situation is their fault and that it has nothing to do with the government. I am sure some hon. members are thinking I should not be too harsh with and critical of the minister because he is not here to defend himself. I cannot help it if he is not here. He can read Hansard, and I hope he will reply to the points I make.
The minister gave a speech to the travel industry on October 26. The fact that there is a huge deficit on our tourism and trade account which is going to be an estimated $2 billion this year-it was more in the first half of this year than it was in the whole of last year-is not the fault of the government, according to the minister. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the tourist industry, those dirty slobs! This is what the minister said about that industry:
In addition to high prices the Canadian tourist industry is also earning a reputation for being unfriendly, indifferent and sometimes prone to sharp practices in its contacts with travellers.
The minister said that if the tourist industry is going to be unfriendly, indifferent and prone to sharp practices, it will certainly suffer. I say that is an apt description of this government. This government is getting a reputation for being unfriendly, indifferent and sometimes prone to sharp practices in its contact with everyone. The minister went on to tell the tourist industry:
"Canadian, as well as foreign, visitors complain of rudeness, slack service of poor quality, quarters that could benefit from a little paint, not to mention soap and water."
After laying it on the line to the industry, Mr. Horner said-
I am quoting from the Globe and Mail.
-he had no specific answers to the problems other than a general and co-operative upgrading of the industry in which governments could help significantly.
Not the federal government, mind you. The minister gave a whole list of things, including the minimum wage, as reasons for the fact that we are losing our share of the tourism market. He said that the cost of travelling in Canada is too high. It is not the government's fault that that cost is too high, according to the minister. He says that it costs too much to travel here compared with the United States. He says hotel prices are too high, food prices are too high, gasoline at the pump is more
(Mr. Crosbie.]
expensive and that these problems are all the fault of somebody else, not the government.
He says air fares are too high and rail travel is expensive, inconvenient and uncomfortable. But really what is wrong in this whole situation is the fault of those "dirty slobs" in the tourism and travel industry in Canada! The minister says they are to blame and that they had better pull up their socks or this fearless minister is going to see to it that they wash behind their ears. That is the hon. gentleman's solution to our huge imbalance and our huge deficit on the trade account. In 1976 the travel deficit was $1,191 billion. Canadians spent more travelling outside Canada than tourists and travellers spent here.
In the first half of 1977 the deficit was $1,245 billion, more than that for the whole 12 months previous, and the greatest in our history. The minister has another solution to the whole problem, and that is ABC charters. He must have the news from the CTC that it is not going to agree to this, so he is covering himself in advance. He says this is one of the great solutions: ABC charters available in Canada. It is not what the government does, it is what the government says is important to it, because after the minister went to the trouble of lambasting the travel and tourist industry of Canada, what happened? The Prime Minister set a tremendous example for all Canadians as to how we should spend our holidays and recreational periods. He went down to the sunny Bahamas for three days, snorkelling and skin-diving. That is a fine example to set for the rest of us.
The government is either serious that something has to be done about this fantastic deficit, or it is not. It is no good for the government to say we should not travel outside Canada, if the Prime Minister even on a casual weekend prefers to spend three days outside the country. How can we ask the people of Canada not to go south next year and to give it up for a couple of years to help us out, if the Prime Minister and the rest of the government pay no attention to the situation and do not set an example themselves? For the government it is a matter of "Do as we say, and not as we do".
What is the solution of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to our precarious trade situation and the fact that we are not competitive any longer in international trade? His solution is to devalue the Canadian dollar. He is positively ecstatic because the Canadian dollar is going down in value compared with the U.S. dollar. Every day it goes down a cent and the hon. gentleman becomes thrilled and elated. Am I making this up? No, I am not. In a speech in Winnipeg on November 9, the minister said:
The fall in the Canadian dollar has been useful, and I hope it stays around for a while.
He positively loves the decline of the dollar. It is down to 89 cents. He certainly does not want its value to go up. He becomes annoyed if the Canadian dollar shows any signs of becoming healthy or gaining any strength. He is going to fight a strong Canadian dollar to the death because he says that a devalued dollar is the answer to all our ills.
November 16, 1977

I am sure hon. members would expect the Prime Minister to correct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to indicate that that is not government policy, but yesterday I asked the Prime Minister, and he confirmed that it is. He was positively ecstatic. I had never seen the right hon. gentleman looked so pleased with himself as when he said that this floating Canadian dollar which has developed a leak and is sinking would help our export situation. A few weeks ago the Minister of Finance in answering questions in this House, said that the Canadian government would do nothing to prop up the Canadian dollar. But his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, said in Winnipeg that the expenditure of millions of dollars by the Bank of Canada to hold up the dollar in the international money market was calculated to keep it from dropping below 90 cents in relation to the U.S. dollar.
So the Minister of Finance says we are not propping up the dollar-just doing a little tidying up, smoothing out the ragged edges. We are supplying a market that goes along smoothly, but we are not propping it up. We are not propping up the dollar: apparently it props up itself. When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce went to Winnipeg, he said we are propping up the dollar with the millions we are spending so that it does not go below 90 cents. Who is right, Mr. Speaker-the "propper-upper" or the "de-propper-downer"? We would like the minister to tell us who is right.
Let us consider another aspect of the minister's answer to our economic problems. He is quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press as saying that he is going to induce investment capital to stay in Canada "with the carrot rather than the stick." He must think the people with the investment dollars are like donkeys and will take whatever carrot the minister offers. But they have had four or five years to see what this government is doing. The smart money is now leaving Canada, not coming here. The idea is to get investment money out of Canadian-dominated investments and into United States-dominated investments. That is what the smart money people advise their clients. There will have to be a lot of carrots if that trend is to be reversed. I do not know what the minister's carrots are. As long as hon. gentlemen opposite stay in power, there is not a carrot in the universe that will attract investment money to this country. The financial community knows we are being mismanaged.
Is the lower value of the Canadian dollar the solution? You do not have to hold a Ph.D. in economics to know that if the Canadian dollar goes down in relation to the U.S. dollar, the Japanese yen, the German mark, and so on, it will help us sell our exports because they will be temporarily cheaper. They are 12 per cent cheaper now. We also know that Canada has tremendous imports. Many imported materials are used in manufacturing. A lot of our food is also imported. Because of the decline of value in the dollar, imports have gone up in price as much as our exports have gone down.
Income Tax
We know that workers will need more money to keep up with the increase in the cost of living. We also know that Dr. Hood, assistant deputy minister of finance, has said that for every cent the Canadian dollar declines in value compared to the U.S. dollar, the cost of living in Canada within a year will increase by one-tenth of 1 per cent, and within two years by three-tenths of 1 per cent. We know that the dollar has gone down 13 per cent in the last 12 months, from $1.03 to 90 cents. We know that within the next year, for that reason alone, the cost of living will increase by at least 4 per cent. We know it is going up now and has gone up by 1 per cent in just this last month to an annual rate of 8.8 per cent.
How long is this devalued dollar going to help us, Mr. Speaker? How long will it be before the idiotic practices and policies of this government, their inertia, their economic insanity, their political will to stay in power and survive-how long before all that forces the dollar down even lower than 90 cents? One thing this government will not do is take effective action to reverse our economic malaise. It will do nothing until the next election is over, and then if they stay in power they will be forced to take action just as the government of the United Kingdom was forced to take action. If this government stays in power, we will have foreign exchange control, travel control and all those controls that the Prime Minister likes so much. He is an anti-free enterpriser, a state socialist. All these controls will go into effect. That is my prophecy, Mr. Speaker.
It used to be said that Turkey was the sick man of Europe. Today, Canada is the sick man of the western hemisphere. How far have we descended in the last nine years under the leadership of the Prime Minister? I wish he would come into the House one day so that we could tell him what we think of some of his policies. If this government does not take some important steps to halt this economic malaise, get more productivity, persuade people to work harder and set an example for them, tell them that there have to be sacrifices that will affect our standard of living, in six or nine months' time it will not matter that the dollar has gone down to 90 cents or goes down to 85 cents, because our advantages will all be gone.
No fundamental reforms were introduced during the wage and price control program-so what was the point of it? We had two years of controls. We still have them, but what did the government do to change the basic economic structure of things that were interfering and causing unemployment and inflation? Nothing has been done to change it. There will be no improvement by the time controls are lifted in a few months. On November 9 the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce delivered a speech with all the zeal of the convert. He had the gall and the audacity to remark, as reported at page 756 of Hansard:
-the Conservative party has attempted to ride to power on the backs of the Mounties.
He said that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) could straighten out the Conservative party when he got back to parliament. The right hon. gentleman came back yesterday and he straightened out the hon. gentleman opposite on what he thinks of this issue. The Conservative

November 16, 1977
Income Tax
party does want to ride to power, but not on anyone's back- just on their own hard work and the things they have tried to do as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition since 1963. We do not want to creep on our bellies across the floor of this House to get into power, or to go on our hands and knees to the Prime Minister to get into power. When we get into power it will be when the electorate vote us in. We will not be going any other way. It takes gall for the hon. minister to say that the Conservatives are attempting to ride to power on the backs of the Mounties.
He should not speak too much of these matters. He has done very well for himself by leaving his background and tradition of the last 20 years and crossing the floor. We will ride to power if the electorate will support us; otherwise we will carry on as we have done for the last 20 years. Had the hon. member for Halifax taken power several years ago, we would not be in the sorry state we are in now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: One thing that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, is that I never have enough time to speak in this House. Maybe hon. members will agree unanimously that I may continue. The Tokyo round of trade negotiations is continuing. I am the critic of the official opposition for the industry, trade and commerce portfolio. Knowing that I will receive decent treatment from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I wrote to him on October 25 saying that the government of Newfoundland had submitted a brief to the Canadian trade and tariff commission dealing with questions that the province felt were important to raise at the negotiations in Geneva. I asked if I could have a copy of the brief, or if he would ask the Newfoundland government to let me have a copy, as 1 am interested in their position. I do not think it is marked "Top Secret"-surely the RCMP have not stamped this one "Confidential". It would not be breaching the "Featherbed" file to let me have a copy of the brief. I said I would appreciate it if he would send me a copy, and I went on to say:
With respect to the whole issue of these negotiations, do you intend to brief the opposition critics with reference to these negotiations, the position to be taken by Canada, the state of the negotiations and our prospects? I understand that you are briefing the various provincial governments and interested industries and it therefore seems to me that the same kind of information should be made available to the opposition parties so we will know exactly what is happening in this area which is of such great importance for Canada and the various provinces.
I have not received an answer to the simple request that I be allowed to see a copy of the brief of the government of Newfoundland. Are we to be briefed on these negotiations which affect everyone in Canada? The minister is just as slack as the slackest of his slack colleagues-and he has only been over there since September. He was in opposition for 19 years prior to that, so you would think he would be right on his toes and would reply within a day, giving full co-operation. Somebody should ride on his back, Mr. Speaker. Let me quote from the Globe and Mail of November 5 under the heading "GATT Talks off to Slow Start with Late Lists":

-most countries, including Canada, missing the designated day for tabling lists of barriers to agricultural trade-
The United States tabled their list. This is dated November 5. The United States tabled their list on time, identifying the cuts that they want made. Let me quote:
The Canadian list is wending its way through the federal government-
God help it if it is wending its way through that wearisome, weird mass-because it will never come out. The report says it-
-could be tabled as soon as next week.
That is very optimistic. It goes on to state:
Canada's agricultural exports totalled $3.96 billion in 1976.
Why is our list not being tabled at Geneva? What is the minister up to? Incidentally, when is he going to carry out his promises to Alberta? When is he going to get entry for Alberta petrochemical products into the United States, as well as their agricultural products? That is what Premier Lougheed wants. Perhaps, then, Premier Lougheed will loosen up on the gas- not the type we get from hon. gentleman opposite, but the real gas that you can light a match to: that useful gas. Perhaps he will loosen up on the gas and we will be able to export more gas to the U.S. When is something going to be done there?
Here is the minister from Alberta whose brother is the deputy premier of that province. I do not know whether they still speak. I suppose they still speak to one another. He has been in office now, as the minister, for the last three months. Why did that gentleman, who was in the cabinet at the time- the hon. member for Crowfoot-allow this agreement to be signed with the United States in respect of a pipeline, that great pipeline from Alaska down through Canada to the U.S., without Canada receiving some trade concessions at the time? Where was this great, big, tall Texan-type Albertan when that signing was taking place? Why was he not sticking up for Premier Lougheed and his government of Alberta to get these concessions when that agreement was signed?
I hope 1 am not being offensive to the hon. gentleman. If I said of someone in this House, "I shall see Otto Lang tarred and feathered and driven out of Saskatchewan. I will pay for the oil and I will pluck the chickens," as the minister said as reported in Hansard in 1974, I am sure I would be asked to retract it. I wonder if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to retract that since he got into the cabinet. He was going to see the Minister of Transport tarred, feathered and driven out of Saskatchewan. He was the man who accused the Prime Minister of being "diabolical"-and I take "diabolical" to be something not favourable to the person to whom you apply it. And if I were to say that as well as "putting the "torch of tyranny" to Canada, I would hardly expect to find myself in the same cabinet with that gentleman. That was said only on January 7, 1976, by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I will not go into the rest of the things he said about the Prime Minister then, such as there being similarities between Prime Minister Trudeau and the Nazi dictator, Adolph Hitler,
November 16, 1977

or the fact that he said the Prime Minister was "a dictator who is attempting to undermine our system of government", that "Mr. Trudeau must not to be allowed to win his class war. Stopping him is the duty of every Conservative in Canada. It is the task of every Canadian who cares about the freedom and prosperity of this great land." I ask, what is that duty? Was it to get into the cabinet? No, not at that time: it was to get the government out. I hope we will not hear any more from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and when he comes and speaks in this House I hope he will keep himself to the business before the House and not cast any aspersions and insults about the colleagues he left behind when he crossed the House to go into the Prime Minister's cabinet.
There is so much to get one's teeth into, Mr. Speaker, that you just do not have the time. We have an hour and a half to speak in the Newfoundland Assembly, but here we have 40 minutes. Let me refer to the home insultation program which is directly relevant to this bill, because this bill makes these mingy, stingy, wingy, paltry, putrid grants taxable. What was said by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) when he announced this great new program, this great new bonanza, last June? The minister stated at a press conference on Monday of the week of June 29 that eight provinces concerned with the new home insultation program had been consulted about the program. That comes directly from the minister's press release, right from the minister's own lips. He said that the energy ministers had shown a great deal of enthusiasm for it. That is what the minister said the ministers of the eight provinces concerned had said.
The provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are Liberal provinces and have their own schemes which are much more generous. We understand that-it is political. They are the only two Liberal provinces in Canada. They have their own special schemes. Their grants are not taxable. They get greater grants and greater assistance. That is fine, and we understand they are being rewarded for voting Liberal provincially. But the other eight provinces are not Liberal, so they got a lesser program. However, the minister told the world that the energy ministers had shown a great deal of enthusiasm for it. I am not going to accuse the minister of lying-certainly not-or of exaggerating, never, or of being too enthusiastic. I would not say anything like that. Then I looked at the papers and 1 saw that Premier Ed Schreyer described this new program as "restrictive and unequal". Have you ever heard such enthusiasm as "restrictive and unequal"? The press article goes on to state that Manitoba would enjoy "only a fraction of the benefits enjoyed by the two maritime provinces". He said that insulation requirements were greater on the prairies. That was his reaction. That was, certainly, frantic enthusiasm.
Then I looked further and saw that the deputy minister of energy for Ontario said they were not even consulted except for a telephone call. That minister certainly was not very enthusiastic. In fact, he was decidedly not enthusiastic. The deputy premier of Alberta said that Alberta was not going to accept such a program when the federal government interfered with provincial jurisdiction and inserted conditions that were
Income Tax
not acceptable to them. That was deputy premier Hugh Horner. That was enthusiasm. That was certainly accurate when the minister said that Alberta was enthusiastic. Of course, he was undaunted-but a few days later he put out a press release, on August 17. All these comments were made in between, and I will come to them. I have some ripe ones yet. On August 17 the minister put out another release in which he said:
Six of the eight provinces eligible for the Canadian home insulation program, and the territories, have responded favourably to the conditions outlined by energy minister Alastair Gillespie.
Now the enthusiasm of all eight-that great deal of enthusiasm-has now become muted and now it is only six, and they are responding favourably. He certainly could not say Alberta and Quebec responded favourably, because they would not go into the program at all. What do they think of it in Newfoundland? What was the great enthusiasm displayed by the minister there? He stated it is a slapdash effort designed to win the support of the provinces for the July 1 increase in the price of domestic oil. He was unable to give details of the scheme because this knowledge was limited to a telephone call from the minister, Mr. Gillespie. That is what he said. He protested the ad hoc approach. That is what he said and that was his enthusiastic approach.
What did the Premier of Newfoundland say? How did he display his fantastic, unconquerable enthusiasm for this great offer of the federal government? Premier Frank Moores said, in a release on July 5:
I am extremely upset over the discrimination against the citizens of this province exhibited by the federal government in offering us an ill-conceived version of the conservation program which was given to the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
How in the devil do you describe this as being enthusiasm? This is how accurate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in reporting to this House and putting out releases. The premier was "extremely upset" over a proposed federal program which was conceived in haste without any meaningful consultation with the provinces. He said:
The reason for this unseemly haste in announcing the program was to regain political points which may have been lost through the recent petroleum price increase.
I also strongly resent the use of federal financial power to interfere in the internal policies of the provinces.
That is absolute enthusiasm and acceptance of the program. Newfoundland is accepting the program, it not being in the financial position to follow Alberta and say "No, we will not have anything to do with your ridiculous, foolish program". They have gone into the program, and it is recommended by the premier that the program be withdrawn and that there be a federal-provincial conference to draw up a proper program.
In fact, I understand that the eight provinces described by their minister in June as showing a great deal of enthusiasm for it are coming to meet with the minister-if he has agreed to meet with them-to put before him another scheme they have described to replace this ill-conceived scheme that discriminates against the citizens of eight of the provinces of this country. The minister should come into this House and confess

November 16, 1977
Income Tax
his errors and sins: he should not be pretending the enthusiastic acceptance by eight ministers when none of them accepted it with any enthusiasm that we know of, and when everyone who spoke publicly-every premier I have quoted-was definitely against this unwarranted intrusion, this political interference in the rights of the provinces, and in an ineffective manner, ineffective because now it has been admitted that there have been only 2,800 applications received, or a figure which is only a figure 800 greater than the anticipated daily inflow is supposed to be.
The government is now going to change the grant system to apply to pre-1931 houses in places like Ontario, and so on, instead of pre-1921. I have not time to go into all the inadequacies of this program-but it was a cod, and the people of Canada saw it was a cod and they are not responding to it. When they get their mingy grant after fixing their home- which 1 think is a maximum of $350-they are taxed on it: it is added to their income. If they do not live in Nova Scotia or P.E.I., it is added to their income. But if they live in those two provinces it is not added to their income. Ye Gods, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will certainly be flipping their lids and losing their senses if they re-elect a government that will try to put an atrocity like that across on the public.
They talk about the unity crisis in the province of Quebec. That is only half the problem. The whole unity crisis is caused by the heavy-handed, ham-fisted approach of this government-autocratic, arrogant, overbearing, covering up. I will not bother with the rest of the adjectives, because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) will come here tomorrow and complain.


An hon. Member:: "Featherbedding."


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, featherbedding as well. Mr. Speaker, that covers the insulation grants and the inaccurate forecast of revenue. We used to think that the Department of Finance was first-class and had first-class people. I suppose, I hope they still do. Here is a little province like Newfoundland caught $20 million short this year from the estimates in its budget because it was given a wrong estimate by the government of Canada, the Department of Finance, on what it was going to get in corporation tax and personal income tax this year. They give projections each year to the province, and we all know the tremendous amount which goes to Ontario.
Now, our minister of finance, who has a hard job to rub two nickels together, has to find $20 million more-and he is going to have a current account deficit in Newfoundland. There is something very, very wrong. There is something wrong in the Department of Finance's forecasting. I do not think I have time to get into the income tax system, but I will return to that in committee.
I now return to the case of John C. Doyle. I will take it clause by clause in committee because that case needs rectification. I do not have time today to get into it. The Supreme Court of Canada has had two appeals which have been pend-

ing for seven years. The Department of National Revenue and the Department of Justice did not do anything about pursuing them because of Mr. Doyle's connections, apparent connections with the government or the party that forms the government. One of these was brought out three weeks ago as a result of my bringing it up, and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed it. They did not even withhold judgment. That will show you something about gross negligence. There is a man, a fugitive from justice, who owes the government of Canada $3.5 million for income tax for 1950 and 1954. He has fooled around and has been allowed to get away with owing that money. He has not paid, and he has not put up adequate security. He has been allowed to do that from 1950 to 1954- 27 years in one case and 23 years in another. He lost his income tax appeal board case and his exchequer appeal court case in 1970. The government did not do anything for seven years until I raised it in this House. One of these cases has now been heard and the judges have dismissed it. That will show you how serious the appeal was.
There is one still to come for a larger amount of money- $3.5 million. The person involved is now in Panama, a Panamanian citizen. The government has not adequate security. However, I will go into this matter when I have more time. I object immensely to favouritism for somebody who is a friend of the government. When the ordinary taxpayer is reassessed, he has to put up the money at that point or the department will haul it right out of his pocket. Or the department will slap you right into jail. If you are an ordinary taxpayer, you have to put up security, bank guarantees and bonds. But Mr. John C. Doyle-and the right hon. member for Prince Albert explained this in his book-I do not have it here today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to inform the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the previous speaker. I would like to make one or two comments. First of all, the hon. member attributed the wealth, the well doing of the province of Alberta, to a great Conservative government. If he uses the comparison that the Conservatives are responsible for the prosperity of Alberta, I wonder what he says about the depression in the province of Newfoundland, also led by a provincial Conservative government. Does he attribute that, sir, to the provincial Conservative government? No. He says, of course, that is the federal government. But where there is prosperity in Canada, that is a result of a provincial government, especially if it is a Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members and those who see these proceedings will realize the foolishness of a statement of that kind. Surely the government of Canada is composed of provin-
November 16, 1977

cial, municipal and federal governments, and it is very simplistic to say, "Well, my goodness, isn't that nice? We have that great government there, and look how well they have done". Of course, it is a collective thing in Canada that all governments are a part of the whole.
I think it is all very well, Mr. Speaker, to take one section- to take Bill C-ll and put it in the context that it is the only thing the government of Canada is involved in. Those are only programs with which we are concerned. Therefore, to take this bill solely in the context that there is no other spectrum in the economic life of this government, 1 would like to point out that in British Columbia in 1977, an agreement was signed between the province and the federal government, in the amount of $181 million, for industrial development in the province. I would also like to point out that in 1977, in the province of British Columbia, another agreement came into force. I refer to the salmon enhancement program, worth approximately $153 million to British Columbia. 1 refer also to the coal development agreement under which the federal government is funding, in part, studies to explore the possibilities of using northeast coal and open up the northeast portion of British Columbia. In addition, the agreement regarding the ferries in British Columbia can be used as part of that spectrum of economic life in Canada, in British Columbia, which is not specifically dealt with in this bill. It occurs on a day by day, month by month basis, as the hon. member is well aware.
I did not hear, Mr. Speaker, any contrary remarks about the measures included in Bill C-ll referring to reducing taxes by individuals in the sum of $500 million in 1977. As 1 understand that, in 1978 this amount will increase to $1,200 million. This is a reduction in taxes for the people of Canada which can be said to be very small. But are we disagreeing with the principle that in order to make the economy more buoyant, tax reductions should be made at this time and perhaps should flow to the purchase of consumer and other goods which will, hopefully, stimulate our economy?
I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-ll to note that for a number of years representation had been made to increase the maximum deductions in employment expenses. Finally, this year it has been raised from $150 to $250. Mr. Speaker, I have had several hundred letters from members of the IWA in the province of British Columbia who have complained over a number of years that this should have been increased because the purchase of logging boots, the purchase of clothing-which is expensive and has gone up over the years-has now been recognized and there should be greater allowances for those people.
People who work in the bush, in the mines and in various other manual occupations will be able to take advantage of a tax cut. They will be able to put this on their income tax. I applaud the fact that this has been increased. No one has said, at least this afternoon, that the tax credit has been increased to $300 from $200 and $50 for each dependant child which will be of benefit to lower income taxpayers. If the hon. member
Income Tax
who spoke before me was opposed to this, let him say so and perhaps we can have a debate on it.
Unfortunately, what happens in many cases is that instead of debating the actual bill, we end up in a dialogue on the ills of the country. In many cases there is more gloom and doom than actual fact about the economy of Canada. All hon. members are aware of the impact of this House and what is reported to the people across Canada through the various media. If the opposition parties day in and day out continually emphasize the failures or shortcomings, whether of a longterm or temporary nature, in our economy, they do a disservice to the Canadian people.
Obviously, there are things that must be corrected. I agree that there are problems in our economy. However, I ask hon. members whether we are the only country that has these problems. This is not something unique to Canada. If hon. members are honest, I suspect they will say there are dislocations throughout the world economy, on some of which we can have an impact, some we can try to correct, but many are outside our boundaries and we cannot correct. We cannot change the policies of other countries. There are many examples of this: the OPEC countries have quadrupled the world price of oil. When the price of coffee doubles or triples, at the source-whether it be Brazil or some other country-the government of Canada has a very small role to play. The consumer may have some part to play by refusing to buy such items as coffee and other goods where there is a discretionary power of purchase. Our message to the people of Canada should be that instead of complaining about the cost of goods coming into this country, they should do something about it. If people boycott or reduce their purchases of goods because of high prices, those prices will become lower.
It is our job, as parliamentarians, to show alternatives to people rather than to decry the fact that something has happened over which we have no control. 1 feel very stongly that we do have a discretionary buying power. I hope that out of these debates there will be one thing to which I can contribute when we have a dollar that is approximately 13 cents below the American dollar. The government and parliament should come out with the message, strong and clear, that if Canadians do not like the prices they are paying for their imports, they should buy Canadian goods. If we bought more Canadian goods, we would not have the unemployment we have today. If we are sincere, members on both sides of the House should be encouraging people to buy Canadian goods instead of trying to find the lowest possible price in the markets which put our people out of work. This is a goal for which we should strive.
Instead of crying crocodile tears about our dollar being 13 cents below the American dollar, we should get our own house in order. This would give us a means of being more competitive. We are not only non-competitive in world markets, but in many cases we are not competitive within the Canadian economy. If a Canadian article costs a few cents more, we should stress that if people "Buy Canadian" they will create more jobs in Canada.

November 16, 1977
Income Tax
Members on both sides should stress that point. I hope the government of Canada will come up with a program, whether it be through advertising or some other form, to bring this message to the Canadian people. In order for our economy to grow, Canadians must purchase Canadian goods. If it does cost a few more cents, it is better to have more jobs within our nation.


Leonard C. Jones: That includes the government.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I trust all my remarks refer not only to consumers, but governments-whether they be municipal, provincial or federal. I thank the hon. member for bringing that matter to my attention. Where we have hydro development in provinces such as British Columbia, the maritimes, Labrador and Quebec, we should "Buy Canadian". Why not build the turbines and generators in Canada? If it costs a few more dollars, the retention of Canadian jobs will more than offset that extra cost. It should not only be the responsibility of consumers, but municipal, provincial and federal governments. If they sincerely believe that unemployment should be lower, perhaps they should put their money where their mouth is and "Buy Canadian".
If for no other reason, I am very pleased to participate in this debate in order to bring that point across. It is very important that it be brought to the attention of the nation. 1 referred earlier to the 90-cent dollar. An unpegged dollar reflects a decreasing demand for the Canadian dollar. The dollar is like any other commodity, such as a loaf of bread, a tire or a battery-it is bought and sold: it has a certain demand and a certain demand price. We have not been in a strong economic position in exports over the past few years, especially in manufactured goods. This is reflected in less demand for our dollar to buy goods which are manufactured or produced in Canada. Surely this should be an indication that we have a problem.
Instead of saying "Isn't it terrible that we may have to spend more to go to Hawaii, Cape Cod," or wherever, we should heed the warning that we are consuming more from abroad than we are producing. I hope hon. members opposite recognize this fact. It is also an opportunity for Canadian manufacturers, producers of raw materials, farmers, and others. Goods that we purchase from abroad cost us more. Maybe that is not a bad idea. We may not want to purchase as much from abroad. In the province of British Columbia-and I hope I have agreement from my colleague from British Columbia-we are given an opportunity in the mining industry and in the forest products industry to be more competitive in world markets. In the past we have lost some of our competitiveness. This gives us a chance to be more competitive.
I now want to refer to the copper industry in British Columbia. The largest open-pit copper mine is in my constituency on northern Vancouver Island. I wish to quote from a paper given to me by a mining engineer, John Giovanetto, of Trail, B.C. He made the following point:
It has been stated that Canada is one of the few countries which has an abundance of mineral deposits available for exploitation. This is incorrect. On [Mr. Anderson.}
the basis of equal surface area, Canada is no better endowed with mineral deposits than any other area in the world. In mineral wealth Southern Africa, Western South America, Australia, Melanesia in the Pacific, ail have concentrations of minerals equal to or greater than Canada's . . .
A flourishing copper mining industry was established in this province on a copper content which is so low that in other parts of the world it was not considered economically viable. The copper grades in the southwestern U.S. mines average about 0.8 per cent copper. In South America, the copper ranges from 1 per cent to lid per cent; Africa has copper grades of between 2!d and 4 per cent. The mines in Melanesia are in the range of 1 per cent to 1 Id per cent plus gold. In contrast to these, the copper mines in British Columbia run between 0.45 per cent and 0.55 per cent copper. These are very lean deposits which require very close operating controls, and which can quickly become uneconomic with even modest increases in taxation.
However, under the right incentives the mining industry created a viable copper industry in British Columbia. Referring to the 90-cent Canadian dollar, it is my understanding that if the apparent price of copper had been unchanged during 1977, many of those mines in British Columbia would have had to lay-off men or close down operations entirely.
The 90-cent dollar has allowed these mines to remain open. I would find it very hard to accept massive unemployment in copper mining in British Columbia. As some hon. members may be aware, some of this copper is of very low grade, and at the best of times the operation is very marginal. Nevertheless, by reason of the technology which has been developed, particularly in British Columbia, we have managed to make the industry competitive in the copper markets of the world. But given the very low prices which have been in existence for the last year or so, it would only have been a question of time had the Canadian dollar continued to be quoted at $1.03 U.S. before mining operations were severely curtailed or shut down altogether. Thus, while the hon. member who spoke before me appeared to find something ridiculous about the present standing of the Canadian dollar, I have placed before the House one concrete example-and there are many others-to show that there is a positive side to this development.
If we are wise, we will use discretion when purchasing goods from abroad and take advantage of this opportunity which is now given to us to be more competitive in world markets.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Is your answer an 80-cent dollar?


Hugh Alan Anderson: Returning to Bill C-ll, might 1 point out that there is one provision in it which to my mind has not been brought to the attention of the Canadian people to the extent it should have been. By virtue of the indexing feature, a married taxpayer earning less that $8,435, with two dependent children, will not be called upon to pay income tax in 1978. It means that no tax will be payable in these circumstances by persons making approximately $700 a month. This is not to say a man earning $8,400 a year will not have problems, especially if he is still buying a house. But surely indexing is a step in the right direction.
The hon. member spoke about deficits. We are all aware that if the government collects less in taxes from the people, deficits are likely to result. We are all aware that when people are laid off work they are usually in no position to pay taxes
November 16, 1977

and that government revenue suffers accordingly. But in times of economic dislocation it behooves the government to stimulate the economy to some extent, always bearing in mind that those who call for massive tax cuts are inviting massive deficits. Regard must be paid to what we can afford. Surely, no members would wish to go through another period of high inflation such as led to the establishment of the Anti-Inflation Board in the first place. I know that Bill C-ll provides for certain benefits to corporations and shareholders and that an effort is made to introduce investment incentives. It is not my intention, though, to attempt to deal with all the various parts of the measure at this time; other hon. members have already referred to them.
We in Canada have a great deal to be proud of and a great deal to be thankful for. I suppose it depends on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. A pessimist, I suppose, would say we have 7 per cent or 8 per cent unemployment; an optimist would say we have 92 per cent employment. Coming from British Columbia, and being a Liberal, it is easy for me to be an optimist because I believe we have a great future before our province. Indeed, I believe Canada generally has a great future. Canada has one of the highest promises of any nation in the world.


An hon. Member:: Who made it?


Hugh Alan Anderson: This does not mean we will not be affected by dislocations which take place in the world economy. We are not an island with a wall around us. If the price of steel goes up on world markets, we will have to pay higher prices in Canada. If the price of oil continues to rise, it would be unrealistic to imagine that Canada would not be affected.
I do say, though, that we have a discretionary power. Even in the field of energy we have a discretionary power. Remember that a large proportion of the oil we produce or purchase is used for private travel, to drive people back and forth to work, and so on. We have all seen rows of cars, each of them carrying only a single occupant to work. We all knew that the supply of fossil fuels would run out at some point. Alternative sources of energy must be found. It is unrealistic to expect that the low fuel prices which have existed for so many years will continue. But there does remain an area for discretion, and I wonder if that discretion will be exercised if the price of a barrel of oil is $3 or thereabouts, as was once the case.
What reason would we give the Canadian people for asking them to conserve energy? What reason would we give them for saying that car pooling is a better idea than using larger numbers of cars to drive separate individuals to work? Should we not be encouraging the development of mass transportation systems? Should we not be encouraging the development of automobiles which will secure better mileage? To my mind, the encouragement of conservation is one of the most important parts of government policy. It is surely an important role of government to encourage the conservation of resources.
I hope that with the introduction of new technology we can cut down our dependence on oil. I thank the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) for his statement that funding
Income Tax
will be available for research into the development of methanol which can be combined with gasoline to reduce the amount of gasoline used in Canada. If I can paraphrase him, his department has given the green light to this development. This is a step in the right direction, I hope we will go on giving this green light to ensure the possibility of 40,000 new jobs in Canada just by the introduction of methanol. I believe the minister said we could save $800 million on this single item- the combining of methanol with gasoline.
This is the sort of thing which gives an optimist grounds for hope. People are looking toward the future and saying, "Isn't everything terrible?" Sure, we have problems. But our people have proved time and time again that they are equal to meeting changes. One of the problems we have now, and I include Quebec, is that for many years we have had very few problems to look at and people have lost their challenge or feeling of adventure in this country because things have been very good and there has not been anything to challenge them. I am not suggesting that there are not people below the poverty line in Canada, but generally speaking we have had years of growth and years of good times-and when these good times are taken away or are a little less good, instead of moaning and groaning, surely we should meet that challenge. I have always been of the opinion that we should test the mettle of a person or of a country with challenges. We can either rise to meet them or you sink in hopelessness and despair and say "My goodness, poor me".
I do not think Canadians are like that. We do have challenges which we will have to solve, and I am confident in the ability of Canadians to solve them. Perhaps it is time we had some good ones to solve. Indeed, the situation in Quebec may lead to a greater feeling on the part of Canadians for their country; they may have a greater appreciation of what it is to be a Canadian. I think that many times in the past we have not had the sense of pride that we are Canadians, and I think the present situation may lead us to greater heights. Indeed, 1 hope so, and I think that economically we shall also rise to the occasion.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some care and attention to the hon. member who has just spoken, my good friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson). He was critical of the opposition, berating us for what he termed "doom and gloom talk". On a number of occasions in this House, commencing last March when the previous minister of finance presented his budget, one of the results of which is this bill, Bill C-l 1, and since as I listened to other members of the government and to the financial critics of the official opposition, it kept going through my mind that 1 had heard all this before. When I considered that there were upward of one million people in Canada out of work and looking for work, and when I considered the general state of our economy, I said to myself, "My God, it's Herbert Hoover, R. B. Bennett, Mackenzie King and 1930 all over again".

November 16, 1977
Income Tax
I believe it was Herbert Hoover in 1930 and 1931 who told the critics after the stock market crash that they were crying doom and gloom, that prosperity was just around the corner, that they had to show restraint, tighten their belts and take less. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been telling us that they are not only taking less, but they have got less. It seems to me that the economic managers of this country, in the private sector but particularly in the federal government, have learned nothing during the last 45 years. They still mouth the same kind of talk and propose the same kind of measures which got us into much of the difficulties in other years of depression and recession, measures which have not succeeded in the past.
The way to make Canada work is to put Canadians to work. Surely the measures contained in Bill C-ll in large part will not only not do that, but in many instances will be counterproductive. They will not lead to any significant or necessary reduction in unemployment. They will not lead to any significant increase in the well-being of Canadians generally, particularly Canadians of low and middle income.
Since last March the government has proposed tax benefits of various kinds in excess of $1,200 million to provide incentives to the corporate sector to increase their capacity, to retool, to increase their production and to create jobs and put people to work. Well, Mr. Speaker, although manufacturing concerns have known about this tax incentive for many months now, statistics tell us that in the first nine months of this year, as compared to last year, there has actually been a decrease in the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector, from an average of 1,945,000 last year to 1,915,000 as at the middle of October. There has been an actual loss of 30,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone, and this in spite of the knowledge of the manufacturing sector that $1,245 million in the form of tax credits designed to put Canadians to work was available.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: And $2
billion was given in the previous budget.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, as my colleague reminds me, prior to that, $2 billion was given in the budget of the previous minister of finance. But what has happened, Mr. Speaker? There is even more unemployment. This measure did not work and it is not working now. Such a method has been tried before in other decades when we had depressions and recessions. It was the wealthy who received the breaks; it was the poor and unemployed who paid.
We have been proposing for many months now, and we will continue to do so, that it makes more sense to make sure that there are more dollars in the pockets of the majority of Canadians at the low and middle income level. They are the ones with needs. They will spend those dollars in consuming production, much of it Canadian production. Surely that not only makes more sense but is more civilized and more fair. Providing extra savings and benefits for the wealthy, for corporations who do not need them, means that they will put them away into reserves or into savings. The impact on increased consumption will be minimal.

We believe there are many things which this parliament could be doing to deal with the economic situation, which members on all sides agree is bad. I should like to refer to some of the things which we could and should be doing, rather than what we are doing in this bill. It seems to me that in the budget and the budget bills, the government-and, I am sad to say, some spokesmen of the official opposition today-keep remembering dollars and forgetting people. They place dollars and the welfare of the privileged ahead of the people.
Let me illustrate, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that most, if not all, of us attended Remembrance Day services just a few days ago. A few days prior to that we had the government's announcement that it was not about to meet the goal of increasing disability pensions for war veterans, which I am told would cost in the neighbourhood of $30 million. The unanimous recommendation of a parliamentary committee and of another group looking into the whole area of war veterans' pensions and disability pensions and allowances set, as a goal, certain pensions for five categories of employees in the public service. With the government's refusal to put that into place, a 100 per cent disabled veteran has now fallen $536 a year behind. The government says that in view of the economic situation and this time of restraint it could not see fit to give $30 million to our disabled veterans, yet it can give $1,200 million to corporations. Yet they want us to vote for this bill! If one of the cabinet ministers will move an amendment to the bill which would restore $30 million of taxation on corporations and high incomes, and allow the Minister of Veterans Affairs to announce at the same time an increase in veterans' disability pensions, I would be more inclined to support this legislation, and 1 would be more inclined to say there is some humanity and decency here. The government is giving no increases in basic pensions for veterans to whom this nation owes a great debt and can never fully repay it. The government has forgotten these people!
I listened to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) complaining about a wealthy gentleman who is allegedly escaping millions of dollars in taxes, after being in Newfoundland for many years working for, with or under a Liberal government at a time when the hon. member for St. John's West was in the Liberal government. In any event, he complained about this gentleman being able to evade $3 million or more in taxes. A veteran in Regina gave me permission to quote his letter. His wife wrote to me first in regard to the matter of pensions. I am referring to a Mr. and Mrs. Howard Brown, 8 Osier Avenue, Regina. The letter reads as follows:
Thought I'd write to you. I am the wife of a disabled war veteran. It was most disappointing to read and hear on radio and TV that the feveral government did not have the extra money for the disabled veterans. My husband has been disabled for 34 years now, and after all that time I guess one does get sick at heart, when four days before they could raise the MPs salary. Please thank Mr. Stanley Knowles for his hard work for the veterans. Hope you're able to do something for us. Would appreciate hearing from you.
I have received another communication from Mr. Howard S. Brown, addressed to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. November 16, 1977

Guay). Mr. Brown is a self-employed man in construction work. He filed his income tax return in March or April of this year and owed slightly over $1,300 income tax for 1976. He suffered a massive heart attack in May or June. At the moment his total income is $492.34 a month, being $347.88 in disability pension as a veteran and $144.46 from the war veterans' allowance. That is their total income. They have been faithfully paying all they can afford, namely, $40 a month, on their income taxes for 1976. I was advised just a day or so ago that the Department of National Revenue has placed a lien on their home for $1,365 in taxes owing. There is no money for disabled veterans. There is no increase for them. But there is $1,200 million for corporations-and a lien can be put on a veteran's home.
Mr. Brown's disability pension and war veteran's allowance gives him an income of less than $500 a month. He is not old enough for the old age pension, and he will never work again. The government will not increase his pension, and it has put a lien on his home. This government has the nerve to expect me, or anyone who has any conscience or consideration for people, to vote for a bill which gives an allowance of $1,200 million for corporations.
Unemployment is costing Canada. The figures vary, but they are anywhere from $7 billion to $10 billion a year at the present rate of unemployment. We have $4 billion or more in pay-outs from the UIC fund, and $1 billion or more pay-outs from additional welfare benefits because of unemployment. Is that $1 billion, $2 billion or $3 billion in lost tax revenues for all levels of government? Surely this parliament should be acting on measures to spend as much, nearly as much, or half as much as what unemployment is costing. It is not only for the sake of our people and our nationhood, but if one wants to be a crass dollar considerer, also it can be for the sake of restoring revenues to levels of government as well as putting people to work.
Even though measures have been proposed by the New Democratic Party, I think they are insufficient. They call for the expenditure of $2,450 million to create something in the order of 300,000 to 350,000 jobs quickly; and another $400 million in a federal-provincial-municipal capital works program which the statistics indicate would mean 60,000 jobs. The need is present in the municipalities. Not only do the municipalities have needs, but our towns and cities have needs as well. These needs have to be met in a host of areas. In fact, the $400 million proposed by my party for the new federal-provincial-municipal capital works program, if it is direct funds from the federal government, should be augmented with a $2 billion or $3 billion low-interest loan fund which municipalities can draw on. I am referring to interest at one-half the bank rate or below the bank rate. Any deficits on those interest charges should be picked up by the nation as a whole.
It is called sharing, co-operation and working together. Municipalities know what needs to be done. They know how to put people to work. They can build police stations, fire-halls and parks. They can widen their streets and they can renew their sewer and water systems. They can do a host of things
Income Tax
which need to be done. They can improve their traffic systems. Most of these things are high labour-intensive and are legitimate needs of our communities in this country. That would not be lost money. Not only would it increase the well-being of the people in our towns and cities, but it would increase the assets of the nation as a whole. It would be money well spent.
My party suggests income tax cuts double what the government proposes. They would be in the order of $1.5 billion for people on low and middle incomes. They could take the form of tax credits. People with incomes of $20,000 and over would get nothing, and it could be graduated upward to the ones on the lowest end of the scale with tax credits of $400. If they do not have enough income to pay $400 income tax, instead of a tax credit they would get the difference in a tax rebate or a cheque. We would be putting $1.5 billion into the pocket of the lower income section of our population. That is the section of the population which will spend it.
We propose that $500 million should immediately go into housing and urban transit. This government promised in writing $290 million for urban transit in the 1974 election campaign. It has now announced $230 million by shifting $200 million from other areas. Urban transit in Canada needs something in the order of between $2 billion and $3 billion. Even the $500 million we propose is just a start.
Small business employment assistance of $50 million is proposed. If one would look with objectivity and fairness at the program of grants to small business for actual permanent jobs created in Manitoba a short while ago, he would see that that resulted in another 1,300 jobs in very short order. That can mean 20,000 jobs for the nation as a whole. We estimate that the income tax initiative we propose for low and middle income people would mean anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 more jobs because of increased consomption requiring increased production, and another 70,000 as a result of what we propose for housing and urban transit. That is for the short run. We could think up more proposals, and for the long run there is much to be done.
Let us look at the immediate and long-term things which need to be done. Some of them involve very little money, and some none at all. Some of them involve a lot of money. If there ever was a time, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni says, for challenging Canadians, now is the time. We did that in wartime. Instead of the hon. member's emulating Herbert Hoover, decrying gloom and doom and letting us think that prosperity somehow is just around the corner, let us place the challenge before Canadians, like we did in wartime. Let us say that over the next eight to ten years we are going to spend between $8 billion and $10 billion to rebuild and modernize our harbours and our railroads. Let us put some sanity into the use of the different modes of transportation. Let us do something about freight rates and passenger fares so that we can stop discriminating against people and goods because of where they happen to be made and live.

November 16, 1977
Income Tax
Let us treat one another equally when it comes to the accessibility to, the use of and the cost of transportation. Of course it would cost money, but that would help Canadian unity. Let us treat people equally, no matter where they live. That would increase the assets and the well-being of the nation as a whole. Let us stop worrying about competition, about whether the CPR made a profit last year and about whether the CNR should be instructed to make a profit and sell off profit centres to private enterprise. Let us stop thinking of dollars instead of people and our nation.
What has happened to grain prices? The drop in net farm income in this nation and in the three prairie provinces has been one of the biggest drops in the last 20 or 30 years. Let us stop attacking the statutory Crowsnest pass grain rates, as they are commonly called. There is justification for that because those rates are beneficial to Canada as a whole. They are in place for the benefit of Canada as a whole, and they are not some subsidy or gift to prairie producers.
Those who attack the statutory grain rates are not interested in the welfare of this nation. They are not interested in protecting our grain producers or enabling them to compete with other nations in the world which export grain. Those who attack the statutory grain rates conveniently forget that our competitors produce their grain much closer to export centres than do our producers in Canada. Most of the grain production in Australia and Argentina is within a very short distance of ports. Even the grain that is produced far inland in the United States and the Soviet Union has access to cheap river water transportation. Canadian grain has to travel thousands of miles to get to export centres in competing with grain produced in other nations. That is the reason and the total justification for the statutory grain rates. For the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) or anyone else to attack those rates or to suggest that somehow farmers should get the benefit of the rates in some other way is irresponsible. If the Minister of Transport thinks he is going to emulate Jimmy Gardiner and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and run around handing every grain farmer a government cheque for wheat or refunds on freight charges for grain movements, he has another think coming. Neither the minister's party nor any other party would get away with that.
To attack those statutory rates would be a betrayal not only of western Canada but of something which is of massive benefit to Canada as a whole. What those grain exports mean to our country in terms of balance of payments alone more than offsets any costs there may be because of the statutory grain rates. 1 submit that any legitimate deficits transportation companies have on moving grain out of the prairies to export centres should be made up out of the treasury of the nation as a whole and paid directly to the transportation companies- two cheques a year. That is a sensible, fair and proper way to maintain the statutory grain rates for grain producers in western Canada while at the same time paying a reasonable price to transportation companies for moving it.
Orderly marketing is essential to the well-being of producers of many kinds of agricultural products in all parts of Canada.

The attacks on orderly marketing in western Canada continue, aided and abetted-I am sad to say-by some politicians. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board enlarged what was started by a former Conservative minister of agriculture by putting feed grains on the open market, with the support of the official opposition, in spite of the fact that the three prairie wheat pools and the United Grain Growers, which represent something in the order of 80 per cent or 90 per cent of grain producers, objected. The most recent example, I am very sad to say-and I know there are many Conservatives on the prairies who are horrified and shocked at this happening-was when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was in Manitoba in August. Lie is reported in the Valley Times of the Pembina Valley as saying-and this has been verified by the notes of two reporters who were there- the following:
-expansion of the Wheat Board's selling efforts, but permission given to private organizations to sell grain in competition with the Wheat Board. Mr. Clark said private organizations working alongside the Wheat Board would "stimulate" the board's efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the very reason for the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board through legislation originated by the Conservatives in the 1930s and implemented by the Liberals in the 1940s is because of what private organizations were doing to grain producers then. They are doing the same thing now in feed grains. The Leader of the Opposition says we should allow private organizations to sell export grain, not just feed grain, in competition with the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Speaker, I am going to do everything 1 can to make sure that every grain producer in western Canada has a copy of that quotation.
In this parliament we should be dealing with the strengthening of orderly marketing and the removal of the private grain trade from the backs of the producers. If we want to do more for our economy and an important sector of the agricultural industry, we should deal with legislation to strengthen orderly marketing and provide a better two-price system. That was a good idea, and we supported it, but there has been no increase in the domestic price since the program was initiated. At least the price of grain produced for human consumption in Canada should be raised in order to offset the increased cost of production and the decreased income of farmers over the last year and a half.
This parliament should bring to an end some of the government's restraint programs. The official opposition demands more for one program that I would have put an end to yesterday if I could, and that is restraint in the Post Office department. In every city of Canada there are tens of thousands of homes that do not have mail delivery because of the restraint policies of the government. At the post office in Regina there is parking for about 20 cars, but they seem to expect 11,000 home owners to come there for their mail. We are told they cannot put boxes in the mud in the new housing areas, but at the same time they are spending nearly $2 million
November 16, 1977

for automated equipment to sort the mail. Why sort it if they do not deliver it?
I estimate that something in the order of 2,000 or 2,500 jobs are needed for efficient postal delivery in the cities. The people of Canada do not expect the Post Office to make money or to break even. They have always been willing to pick up the deficit in the Post Office as long as they get service. I do not know of a post office department in any country that breaks even. They all make money.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the 1970s ours made money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If ours is to lose money, it should at least lose it in such a way as to maximize the service. Instead, it buys automated equipment to sort the mail and then refuses to deliver it. There are other things this parliament should do to help the economy. If we want to do something about pollution and unemployment at the same time, we could begin a seven or eight-year program to spend several billions of dollars at all three levels of government for sewage systems in each city and town that has tertiary sewage treatment. The manufacture, transportation and installation of such equipment would create jobs and reduce pollution. That seems to me to be a worthwhile program and the sort of thing that should be included in Bill C-l 1, rather than $1.2 billion in gifts to corporations and the wealthy. When they get it, they will not spend it in ways that would increase employment.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, dwells too much on dollars and not enough on people. I illustrated what a cruel hoax we have perpetrated on the veterans of Canada. How anyone in this chamber will look a disabled veteran in the eye if this bill is passed is beyond me. In view of past experience, I had hoped that the government would change their ways, try new methods and, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) said, challenge the nation. The knowledge and the money is there, but we need leadership, planning and direction. We can only get that from a national government, not in a bill like C-l 1-and I say that sincerely. If the government can find $1.2 billion for this, but can only find $30 million for disabled veterans, I cannot support such legislation.


Mr. Lumley:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question in the time he has remaining.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Edward C. Lumley: Could the hon. member tell the House how he arrives at the figure of $1.2 billion for incentives to industry?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will check Hansard, as 1 shall, I am sure I said $1.2 billion in tax revisions, incentives, write-offs and relief for corporations and wealthy people.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend all my colleagues who have taken part in this debate. Their comments have been very useful. The Income Tax Act is very difficult for the average Canadian to understand. It is becoming so complicated that more and more
Income Tax
Canadians are turning to professional people for assistance. Tax experts are emerging in the legal and accounting fields and many of our middle and larger corporate citizens have special tax departments to assist them in taking maximum advantage of tax provisions and in computing the amount of money they must pay under our tax laws. This is an expensive process.
In 1971 we tried to deal with this complicated matter and to simplify it. Instead of becoming more simple and straightforward, it is becoming more complicated. Every time we, as law-makers, attempt to confer a benefit on a select group of people or to provide an incentive or stimulant to a sector of our economy, we make our income tax much more complicated. Projecting our performance for the past ten years, we must ask ourselves, "Where are we heading?" Clearly, we are heading into an era when we will see double the number of accountants with probably half the clients that each now has. How much can one mind absorb? Can one chartered accountant or one lawyer deal with this myriad of taxation legislation which we are developing? I doubt it. I feel we are heading into an era of specialization and team approaches to some very complicated taxing laws. It is, clearly, becoming too involved. Just like government, it is too big.
Our present taxation system places a severe burden on the average Canadian. To a great degree, our taxation policy penalizes this group of people and in particular small businessmen and small professional men who simply lose their incentive. When Canadians in the middle income group take a look at the large portion of their income that goes to the government of Canada, they find that their ambition is stifled and the incentive is not there to expand and provide more jobs. The wealthier people, people earning over $50,000 a year, may find they are involved in different companies, in capital gains and in a taxation system in which they have more options available to them in dealing with their taxation problems. They can protect themselves.
We do have a number of anomalies in our existing tax legislation that raise the question of fairness and equality of all Canadians in respect of our tax laws. For example, a private duty nurse who is self-employed and works at a hospital can deduct the expense of her uniform, while another nurse who works beside her but is employed by the hospital as a member of the staff cannot make the same deduction even though she performs substantially the same services.
Our lumberjacks working in our forests cannot deduct the cost of their mackinaws which are essential to protect them against our cold Canadian winters, but they can deduct the cost of their chainsaws. A carpenter who comes into your house to perform a small service can deduct the cost of his tools if he is self-employed, but the same man coming in to perform the same service cannot deduct the cost of his tools if he works for a construction company. A judge cannot deduct the cost of his robes that he is required to wear in the
958

November 16, 1977
Income Tax
performance of his duties, but lawyers practicing before him can deduct the cost of their robes.
The tax application of government grants to industries, and the requirement that such grants be deducted from the value of machinery for depreciation purposes under the Income Tax Act, really means that these non-taxable grants are in fact taxable, and it does not appear to give sufficient consideration to the fact that the purpose of depreciation or the depreciation allowance is to provide a fund to replace the machinery when in fact it becomes obsolete. Clearly, personal tax cuts for low and middle income earners are steps in the right direction to stimulate consumer buying and assist us at a time when our economy of Canada is in a critical condition. The proposal of the Economic Council of Canada in this respect should not have been dismissed out of hand by this government.
Tax credits to corporations which provide jobs in slow growth areas and which provide jobs for young people coming into the labour market-a group where unemployment is extremely high-are steps which I would commend to the government. New approaches to achieve increased industrial research and development, particularly in fields where Canada has an inherent advantage, are long overdue measures which are badly needed. A policy of incentives for small business without increasing the pressure and paperwork which so many small businessmen are subjected to by government would be a welcome measure.
Clearly, our objective must be to recover and maintain the real economic growth potential of our Canadian economy while achieving full employment and stable prices. This is a most worthy objective, it is an extremely good goal, and even if it is not achieved by moving in that direction we can greatly improve our economic performance. For the past decade our economic performance has deteriorated. There may be more than one million Canadians out of work this winter, and inflation continues to sap our economic strength. One of the most disturbing bits of news has been the drop in productivity and our competitive international trading position. Our $10 billion deficit on trade in manufactured products has been caused in part, although not totally, by Canada's failure to keep abreast of technological improvements.
This is a very significant factor and one which has not been reflected in our taxation policy. A deterioration of our trade position is perhaps the most important shift that has taken place in our economy. We are consuming more than we are producing and we are borrowing foreign money to make up the difference. I feel there must be a massive effort to assist Canadian business through tax incentives to attain technological breakthroughs in fields where we have an inherent advantage. Clearly, with the resources of people and money available to us there is a need for selectivity in this program. There is a need to concentrate on areas where we have an inherent advantage. These fields include agriculture, our fresh water supply, resources of our three seas, and those industries drawing upon our mineral and chemical wealth. Farm machinery and mining equipment are examples.

An imaginative taxation policy can do much to induce small businesses and large businesses to improve their technology and its application in industry to increase our gross national product and, through planning, to enable Canadian products to re-enter and expand in the trading markets of the world. It is essential that Canada restores its technological advantage in the production of goods for export if we are to maintain our present standard of living and create good jobs for Canadians without serious social disruption. Let me give you an example. Canada has always been a large exporter of pulp and paper products. Now plantations in South America and Europe can produce marketable trees in six to ten years, compared to our 40 to 50 years. This is an area which urgently requires early attention if we are to use incentives to improve our productivity. I shall have more to say about this particular subject in the days to come.
This bill's provision of an investment tax credit of 5 per cent to 10 per cent is an avenue that can be used to fund new technology breakthroughs, but it will require a more sophisticated strategy with greater dynamics than this lowly measure. The magnitude of the effect of a tax credit depends to a great extent on the size of the incentive and the period within which it will operate. Research and development is an important and expensive exercise, and a small tax credit of 5 per cent to 10 per cent with no policy commitment as to the time it will be in force will not yield the same benefits as a credit of 20 per cent to 25 per cent and a commitment for ten years.
In relation to the respective g.n.p., American, German and Japanese government funding of research and development is twice as high as ours. The Japanese have increased their international sales effort for existing products and have developed new products through government-sponsored research. For example, the Japanese government has spent $214 million in the past five years to help the computer industry compete with IBMs series 370. We no longer have a full-time minister of science and technology in Canada. And we should. Our taxation legislation has become so complex that it is extremely difficult for legislators to vote intelligently on it. It is so complex that I foresee all kinds of litigation over conflicting interpretations. Chartered accountants have to work morning, noon and night to keep up to date with all the changes, and this time so spent is reflected in the charges they have to pass on to their clients. The 1972 reforms are changing all the time. Some are being cancelled, others are deleted, and many of them are being amended. It is a most confusing situation for the average Canadian. The amendments announced last year have been reintroduced and already they are changed. The tax shelter provisions for multiple unit residential buildings have already been changed. The 10 per cent depreciation write-off allowance for frame buildings has been reduced to 5 per cent the same as that allowed for buildings built of concrete and steel, because apparently our tax people did not want to give an advantage to one form of construction over another, in spite of the fact that the two types of construction are so different. This, however, would be too simple a change to make, so they inserted the word "most". "Most" wood frame dwellings will
November 16, 1977

have the rate reduced from 10 to 5 per cent. On the one hand, we want more apartment buildings built, and on the other we reduce the capital cost allowance except for those where the higher rate is "clearly warranted".
To which ones does this provision apply? Your guess, Mr. Speaker, is as good as mine-and to guess is exactly what the Canadian taxpayer will have to do.
The rules regarding the distribution of corporate surpluses through profits are changed again, and the rules as to what is and what is not taxable are enough to drive a Canadian lawyer to Philadelphia. The only constancy the average Canadian can look forward to in this government's taxation policy, is that every year there will be a multiplicity of changes. I am pleased with the decision of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to withdraw the budget proposal which would have taxed a portion of life insurance proceeds payable at death. Unfortunately, the problem has not been completely resolved. Amendments to the bill will still tax the policyholder at the time of taking out a policy loan and disallow the deduction of interest on the loan as an expense incurred to earn income. Such interest deductions are usually allowed to small business people when they borrow working capital from the bank and, in the past, have been allowed when they borrow it from their life insurance company.
I feel that a policy loan should be treated the same as any other loan, because it is repayable and if the policyholder passes away before the loan is repaid, then it is deducted from the proceeds of the life insurance policy. Loans against life insurance policies are usually a last resort by many people who have a real financial need of a critical nature, and this does not appear to me to be a good time to levy an additional tax on them.
Strangely enough, if a policyholder takes his life insurance policy to a bank and uses it as collateral, he can then borrow money from the bank and the interest he pays on the bank loan is deductible for income tax purposes if it is used to earn income. The policy of treating a loan against life insurance as income, and the policy of disallowing interest payable in respect of such a loan, does not make very good sense. One final thought I would like to leave with our taxation people is to suggest they study the concept of permitting Canadians to deduct a portion of the interest charges for mortgages on their principal residences and municipal taxes from earned income for taxation purposes. My suggestion is only that this concept be studied, because until 1 get the answer from some order paper questions I cannot determine what expense would be placed on the public purse.
It is conceivable that such programs would have to be phased-in over a period of time. First, perhaps, one and then the other-and indeed each of these programs-may have to be phased in by permitting such deductions only for persons in certain income categories or permitting only portions of interest or taxes to be considered for deduction. I think the concept should be explored by an appropriate committee of this House.
Income Tax
I am fully conscious that in making this suggestion I may well be contributing to the confusion that already exists in our badly overworked taxation system, and I would gladly forgo these suggestions and all the other ones I have made for a simple income tax system where the benefits from a simplified administration could be passed on in lower income tax rates to all Canadians.


Donald W. Munro: The final comments of my colleague, the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie) give me an excellent introduction to this bill. Tax laws are complex. This document represents only amendments to the tax laws. Mr. Speaker, in some respects you are fortunate in not having to work your way through this particular document. 1 do not know whether you have lifted it. It contains 225 double pages. The amendments are on the left-hand side and the actual laws or regulations are on the right-hand side.
The first thing I want to do in this debate-and I believe in being constructive-is to suggest that those who draft cumbersome laws like this should be required to provide an index at the back as well as marginal comments. They should be easily visible. There is no order whatever in the way this bill is set out. What we, as legislators who are responsible for commenting on this bill, need in order to find our way through it is an index. It should be attached. That would assist us immeasurably when dealing with amendments that may or may not be agreed upon. The index could be carried on into the Revised Statutes. We need something to find our way through this maze. The income tax consultants for small businesses will have difficulty. Is it any wonder that small business is folding up its tent and going away? They need very expensive consultants to deal with amendments such as those being proposed.
As my hon. friend said, the proposals that were put forward earlier have already been amended in this bill. For example, there was the suggestion that death benefits were going to be taxed; that portion of the insurance policy which amounted to the investment portion of the individual's contribution during his lifetime were going to be taxed. That provision has been withdrawn. I cannot emphasize too much the need for bills as monstrous and horrendous as this to be provided with an index.
I cannot possibly deal with all the items that are in this bill. One deals with an insulation scheme. The only comment I want to make about the insulation scheme is to underline what was said earlier in the debate this afternoon. Exemptions for income tax purposes or grants obtained under the insulation program will be applicable only in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I want to further underline that these are the only two Liberal provincial governments in Canada. That is not just plain coincidence. The citizens of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are going to be exempted from paying income tax on loans they get under the insulation provisions of this bill.
8002 s-61 '/2

November 16, 1977
Income Tax
There are thousands of other matters. There is one other comment I want to make before coming to a couple of specific cases. That is the way we got into this particular debate. It is worth while noting that we had a procedural gimmick invented, simply because the proceedings of this House are being televised, in order to present a budget speech. True, the House leaders eventually agreed to the use of that gimmick. However, four or five days in advance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) delivering his budget speech, arrangements were made with the CBC for that time to be blocked off. I do not know whether they blocked off "As the Stomach Turns" or what. It was not "As the World Turns". However, as he stood up, the stomach turned. That was all done by prearrangement with the CBC.
In addition, equal time was not allotted to the opposition as is normally the case with a budget speech. When I look back to October 20, I see that the Minister of Finance began his budget speech at 2001 hours. He went on until 2038, approximately 38 minutes. I was not in the chamber that particular night. However, I watched it over television for that particular reason. I wanted to see whether equal time would be accorded to the opposition. It was not. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) stood up at approximately 2038 and, gentleman that he is, resumed his seat at about 2053 in order that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) could speak within the hour.
On a contribution of this importance to the Canadian people, there should have been two hours taken out of CBC's time so that all parties would have had equal time to make their comments. It was a gimmick, pure and simple, three or four days after the introduction of television to this House in order to exploit that opportunity, and I find it an unacceptable manipulation by the government of the rules of the House, taking advantage of the situation to profit from the installation of the television facilities.
I feel the CBC ought to have been asked to set aside V/2 hours or two hours that evening so that all parties might have had an equal opportunity. In fact, I remember now that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge did not get on live from the House. The hon. member for York-Simcoe was interrupted very shortly after he had started, and the CBC went out into the entrance hall and took video-tape and broadcast live the leader of the NDP. This is an improper exploitation of the rules of the House, and it is quite unacceptable.
I have spoken about the need for an index. This brings me to two of the matters I want to speak about particularly. One is the capital gains provision in this bill with respect to properties being rolled over from a sale and the acquisition of another property. The provisions relating to this are to be found on page 27 and page 4. It is section 6 on page 4. An accountant or other person who is called upon to advise a client about this area has to explore this extremely complicated bill without the help of an index.

When the matter of the capital gains provision was first brought to my attention, I turned to page 27 only. Then I found I had to refer to page 4, because that page is relevant. One element which has to be taken into account by anyone thinking of changing his property is the definition of a taxation year. The words "taxation year" occur right at the top of section 18, the new section 44 on page 27. But whose taxation year is involved? Is it the government's year, or is it the businessman's taxation year? I believe the businessman does have an option to set up his own taxation year, but that is not clear from the section. When we get to clause by clause study, I will return to this matter and ask for definitions. Whose taxation year is it which section 44 has in mind?
Then there is the time period which is to be allowed between the acquisition of new land and the sale of the old. What is the time period allowed? I think I have that question straight in my mind by doing some collation of clauses on page 27 and page 4, but I am not sure. I want to be absolutely sure, and so does a man selling a piece of commercial land; he wants to be darned sure he is not going to make a mistake.
The other matter he has to take into account is the order of the sale and acquisition operation. In this particular operation, a businessman obviously has to take advantage of situations that occur. A piece of land may be coming on to the market; he may bid on it and acquire it before he has sold his old piece of land. I never thought I would be talking about milk and the milk problems of British Columbian farmers who are in my riding, but supposing a man has to acquire a new piece of land before selling his old piece-what about the interest charges on the bank loan he may have to make in order to acquire the land; settling up once he has sold his old piece of land? Are those charges a legitimate business expense? Then, what about other charges that he may have? Supposing he sells a piece of land before acquiring a new piece of land, what does he do with his cattle meanwhile? He will have to pasture them somewhere. Would this be an expense which is tax deductible when he changes from one piece of property to another?
Then there is the measure of a capital gain. Supposing the properties are of different sizes. Supposing a farmer wants some bigger pasturage, or he needs some better hay land and he has to pay more for that land than he receives for his previous farm. Is this done on a unit basis, or is there just a roll-over of the amount? Supposing for some reason or another, because of technological developments, he gets a smaller piece of land and makes a big profit on the sale; is this going to be considered a capital gain? I think these kinds of questions should be answered, and when we get into clause by clause study I am serving notice that we will require answers at that time.
I should like to quote from a letter which I received from this man's accountant. He writes:
In visualizing the exchange of properties we believe there are two basic situations that a taxpayer could find himself in. These two situations are:
November 16, 1977

I put them in his words because he is the tax expert, not me.
1.	The sale of their existing properties and the subsequent acquisition of a replacement property.
I think 1 have covered that in my comments.
2.	The acquisition of replacement property which is subsequently followed by a sale of his original property.
It is a question of which comes first, the buying or the selling.
This can happen in a situation where a taxpayer is planning to expand his business but because the availability of suitable land, buildings or other related factors, may require him to acquire a new property prior to arranging a sale of his present property.
These are real problems for a businessman. Dairy farmers in my area have 70 or 80 head of cattle. I do not know exactly how many. I see them every time I go down the road to my home from my office, but since they are all black and white and there are so many, I cannot count them. The principal objective in life of these farmers is to produce milk, not to try to work their way through this bill. We have to work our way through this 225-page book. I hope that when the time comes these questions will be answered. Supposing there is a capital loss-how would it be calculated?
Another matter which concerns me is the taxation of insurance loans. I was delighted that all members in this House and even the members on the government benches have made representations to the Minister of Finance to have that benefit tax taken away. Last night someone said that it was all done because of representations from the government side of the House. Mr. Speaker, that is poppycock: we all made legitimate representations; we have all heard from our constituents.
Taxing widows is outrageous. I do not know what the responsible public servant had in mind to get involved in this matter. The government has not backed off fully, just partially. I should like to quote from the minister's information sheet which was tabled along with his budget. It reads:
The government has decided to withdraw, pending further study, the proposal that would have made taxable a portion of the investment income on certain life insurance policies realized on death.
Apparently that has escaped our notice. What further study is required to eliminate that unjust imposition of taxing widows? No further study is required on that. It had better not show up again, because there will be another attack on it. Further, in relation to the taxation of policy owners, the minister indicated that the remaining proposals will go forward as originally proposed. There are two proposals, both of which require careful examination. An allusion has been made to them already. The information continues:
Despite the dropping of the death tax, Life Underwriters Association of Canada and its members must continue to oppose the highly objectionable proposals.
Income Tax
I share their position. The highly objectionable proposals are those to tax the alleged investment element at the time of a policy loan, and to disallow the deduction of interest paid on a policy loan in all circumstances. The last time I said "comprehensible", and somehow an "in" got in front of it. This time I say that it is incomprehensible that there would be a disallowance of the deduction of interest paid on a policy loan in all circumstances.
As the previous speaker mentioned, one can bring an insurance policy to his insurance company in order to borrow against it, and the interest charges will be non-deductible. One can take that insurance policy and go to the bank in order to borrow against it, and pay an interest rate of 12 per cent or 13 per cent, and the interest charges are deductible. Why the difference? It is clear. It has been described as an Alice in Wonderland theory that a policy loan is not a loan, and that policy loan interest is not interest. Not only is that unfair, it is fantastic. The language of life insurance policies clearly requires a policy loan to be repaid. It will be repaid. The insurance company is in the business of getting repayment of its loan. Anyone who has received a loan from an insurance company and does not pay it back, knows what happens. That is a fair deal: that is their business.
This nonsense about not being able to deduct the interest on a policy loan when it is taken out from an insurance company, but being allowed to do it when it is taken from a bank, using insurance as collateral, is absolutely beyond my belief.
I would like to deal with clause 116. It is on page 210. I have had to do a bit of my own indexing here. Clause 116 deals with supplementary borrowing authority and reads, in part, as follows:
The governor in council may ... at any time before 1979, raise by way of loan ... the sum of nine billion dollars, as may be required for public works and general purposes.
Mr. Speaker, would you believe me if I were to tell you that the total budget of this government when it first came to power was just $9.9 billion? Now it wants to borrow $9 billion. Its budget this year is over $40 billion. It has gone from, let us say, $10 billion in 1968 to $40 billion-$45 billion or $47 billion; I do not know. One loses count. Does anyone know how much $1 billion is? Tonight I heard some hon. member opposite say, "Oh, what is a zero or two?" When I resume tomorrow I am going to tell the House how much $1 billion is, and it will shake the House rigid. A billion dollars is a lot of bucks.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it 6.30?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Thursday, November 17, 1977