1977-02-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity, namely, that with 34 per cent of Ontario's construction workers now out of work-up substantially over last year-and with construction starts at a low, which augers poorly for an upswing in construction activity this spring, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence), to move the following motion:
That this House urges the ministry to participate in a task force made up of labour, management and provincial representatives which commenced meeting in Toronto today and which hopes to determine ways and means of relieving this alarming unemployment situation in Ontario's construction industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST CABINET RESCIND DECISION WHICH CAUSED INCREASED BREAD PRICES IN QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask leave of the House to move a motion related to the decision the cabinet should make about the strike in the flour mills of Quebec. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House request the cabinet to rescind the Anti-Inflation Board decision which forces Quebeckers to pay a higher price for their bread and which, if maintained, will provide additional benefits of about $450,000 to the companies concerned.


Mr. 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 unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ren£ Matte (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the increasingly persistent complaints by producers of manufacturing milk, since that production is essential and that the government's policy compels some producers to give up their business, which could be disastrous for the future, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the Minister of Agriculture reconsider his decision taken last year and grant to producers of manufacturing milk the fair revenue which they were seeking by removing the export levy on powdered milk, this new decision having a retroactive effect to April 1, 1976.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Canada was the

February 15, 1977
Home Insulation
strongest proponent of basket three incorporated in the final act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, popularly known as the Helsinki Agreement. As such we have reason to be concerned about what are regarded internationally as serious violations of the spirit and letter of that agreement by the Soviet Union. I refer in particular to the recent arrest of certain citizens of that country who have been endeavouring to ensure the full implementation of the Helsinki Agreement and who have been defending fundamental human rights whenever they are menaced in the Soviet Union or elsewhere.
From my own experience as foreign minister, I am aware of the difficulties and dangers of appearing to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. I am also aware of the implications of selecting particular individuals for mention. Since the signature of the Helsinki Agreement, however, such matters can no longer be regarded as purely internal, and there are occasions when specific protest is both justified and necessary, since failure to do so might imply indifference.
Accordingly, I seek leave to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and with support from all parties:
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs convey to the government of the Soviet Union the disappointment and deep concern of the elected representatives of the Canadian people in parliament assembled at the arrest of Alexander Ginsberg, Mykola Rundenko, Alexy Tikhy and Yuri Orlov.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the recent announcement of the government of its intention to issue grants and loans to assist home owners in improving the insulation of their dwellings in both Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, and in view of internal financial figures from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which show a surplus of $300 million in the oil import compensation program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

That the government use these surplus funds to initiate a nationwide residential energy conservation program to conserve energy through better insulation of homes, and at the same time to assist in job creation.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and it relates to the alarming report of the review of the Beaufort Sea drilling-or at least the first year of drilling in that area-being prepared by officials, which report, among other things, apparently states that a number of potentially serious problems remain unsolved. Inasmuch as the problem areas mentioned concerned Canmar's ability to handle well blowouts, will the minister assure this House that when completed, this report will be tabled immediately in this House so that it may be examined by the appropriate committee of the House, and if the report is available now, would the minister undertake to table it this week?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the review process is still under way. It will continue for a few weeks to come. Once the report is received, I will see what can be done to meet the request of the hon. member.


William Herbert Jarvis: In his press release of April 15, 1976 the minister said that a continuous monitoring system by ship-based federal inspectors was implemented to ensure that environmental standards were being maintained in that drilling area. Serious breaches of safety procedures have been reported, and federal safety inspectors were on board the drill ships when these breaches occurred. Can the minister say whether he has any plans to improve that federal monitoring process now in effect and if so, would he indicate when he will make us aware of the nature of those improvements?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the review process was to determine if the conditions imposed on Canmar were adequate. Once the review process is completed, we will announce whether we will have more stringent conditions, in what areas and also if a more adequate monitoring system is necessary. I might say that last summer there were those
February 15, 1977

officials from the department on the drill ships. It was their duty to see that conditions laid down were followed and as far as I know that was done. It may be necessary to have more stringent conditions and that will be dealt with in the report.


DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA-ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT IN REVIEW PROCEDURE
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister might indicate a target date for the accomplishment of some of the programs. In the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment may I put another supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the general opposition to the Beaufort Sea project expressed by the predecessor to the Minister of the Environment, and in view of the series of uncertainties regarding the ultimate responsibility for the environmental protection of the north, will the minister tell the House what role the Department of the Environment is playing in the review procedure resulting from the first year's drilling operations and what voice that department will have in making the decision on the conditions under which the project will continue?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question, there is a definite deadline for the termination of the review process and the receipt of the report. We will be making an announcement well before the drilling season commences with respect to this year's drilling. With regard to the Department of the Environment, it is involved but I do not have the exact details of that involvement in the House right now.


ALLEGED RELAXATION OF DRILLING REGULATIONS IN BEAUFORT SEA-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He will recall that last week I asked about the reported relaxation of drilling regulations governing the Canmar project. In light of his promise to investigate the matter, is the minister now prepared to tell the House if the regulations were relaxed and if so, on whose authority?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did check that out. The authorization by cabinet for the drilling did not contain specific details as to how far the concrete casing must go and so on. Those details were not part of the authorization. They were originally agreed to by departmental engineers for the region and changed afterwards by the same engineers. The question of how far down the drilling should go and how far down the casing should go will be part of the review process referred to in earlier questions. We will have more stringent conditions this year.
Ora! Questions


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise whether the engineers who relaxed the regulations in question referred the matter back to cabinet?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not done. I do not know if it is correct to say they relaxed the conditions. They had originally agreed to certain conditions in respect of the drilling and after reviewing it themselves they felt it was not necessary, so agreed to new regulations or new guidelines. It was not discussed with cabinet at all or with my officials in Ottawa.


DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW REGULATIONS FOR DRILLING FOR OIL AND GAS IN THE NORTH
Douglas Charles Neil: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the northern oil and gas regulations were suspended some seven years ago, and in view of the fact that the existing uncertainty is threatening the development of oil and gas in the frontier areas, can the minister tell the House when he expects to bring in a new bill and new oil and gas regulations? Is the rumour that it will be some time in June, correct?


William Warren Allmand: Maybe sooner, Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of misery, officially known as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Mr. acFarlane: Some refer to him as the minister of hope.


John Edward Broadbent: On page 42 of the labour force survey for January of this year, some 573,000 men and women are listed as no longer being in the labour force and since in a statement the Economic Council of Canada pointed out before the weekend that they supported the New Democratic Party's contention that a large portion of such people ought to be listed among the official unemployed, I should like to ask the minister in all seriousness what he was referring to as garbage yesterday? Was he referring to his own government's official statistics? If not, if he finds the truth unpalatable, why does he not act to improve the situation instead of denying its existence?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a headline in the Globe and Mail to flush out the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 15, 1977
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: You mean, to wash it away?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, they have to fight back. Not one statistic put out by Statistics Canada is secret or has to be leaked. All that information is available to any Canadian citizen at any time. That having been said, it becomes a question of how these statistics are to be used, and for what purposes: whether they are to be used as a basis in part for government programs of job creation, for political advantage, as they are used from time to time by the hon. member, or misused and misinterpreted. That, too, must be considered.
The official Statistics Canada report indicates that in 1976,
309.000	individuals were not looking for work at the time the labour force survey was conducted. Of this number, only
34.000	individuals gave as a reason for not looking for work their belief that no work was available in their area or suited to their skills. The remainder gave a variety of reasons for not looking for work, such as illness, family responsibility, attending school, awaiting recall to former jobs, awaiting replies from employers, etc. I think all that information should be brought forward. If the leader of the NDP is to use statistics, let him use all the information available and not mislead this country. He is the one who is spreading the misery abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if noise were a substitute for a good argument, the minister would have won his case. I ask the minister, has he consulted his own officials in Cape Breton, in the Gaspesie region and in Newfoundland on this very question, has he consulted about the numbers of people he has alluded to who are no longer in the labour force? Has he asked those officials if, in their view, those people left the labour force because they were not able to find jobs? If so, does he not agree that such people should be listed on the official statistics of the unemployed in this country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, not only have I consulted with my officials, I also took the other course which may not be known to the hon. member, of consulting colleagues in the House of Commons who represent those areas. Only yesterday I met three or four of them from the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. They indicated that because of some measures we are taking, it would be extremely difficult for people to take advantage of unemployment insurance, in that they would be cut off. They asked what action was being taken.
I was able to indicate to them that by virtue of our job creation programs additional amounts of money, on the basis of two to one, even three to one, will be poured into those particular regions. That, to me, seemed to be a particularly good move.
If the hon. member intends to keep referring to statistics, I remind him that we do not rely solely on one set of statistics. I indicated yesterday, I think, to the hon. member for St. John's East, that we use the labour force survey when it is to the advantage of the provinces, and we use unemployment insurance statistics when those are available. In so far as Newfoundland is concerned the use of such figures represented a
[Mr. Cullen.)
50 per cent increase, which meant that more money was being pumped into the area which sorely needs it. Really, I am interested in doing that, not in fiddling with statistics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASON LESS MONEY AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT JOB CREATION
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister suggested that he is interested in spending money. Can he explain to the House why it was possible for the government in its 1971-72 spending for direct job creation to spend $603 million on direct job creation programs when the unemployment rate was only 6.4 per cent, and why for this coming year, when unemployment is expected to average between 7.5 per cent and 8 per cent, the government can only scrape up $264 million for direct job creation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, here, again, we see a slight under-estimation on the part of the leader of the NDP. On actual job creation we are spending in excess of $350 million. I thank the hon. member for those statistics. It is just possible that when I go to Treasury Board that is the kind of argument I use. Given the fact that we are in a period of restraint, we do not want to increase inflation and thereby increase the government's deficit or increase the interest rates, which is the action the hon. member would have us take. I think it is appropriate that in direct job creation we spend an additional $358 million. However, the hon. member again chooses to ignore the fact that my department alone, one department of government, spends $1,000,300,000 on jobs in this country.

[ Translation)


HARBOURS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In the course of last week, the minister has had discussions with his provincial counterparts, including that of Quebec. Can the Minister tell the House whether he discussed with his Quebec contract the question of the transfer from the federal to the provincial-


An hon. Member:: Counterpart!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Listen, you never make mistakes! It is a bit early for you to be sporting haloes! Shut up at least!
Can the minister tell the House if they discussed the transfer from the federal to the provincial authorities of certain wharves, namely those of Montmagny and the lie aux Grues? If so, can he inform the House of the progress made in the
February 15, 1977

negotiations, so that the matter might be settled before the opening of the sailing season in the spring of 1977?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the meeting was, of course, motor carriage. Therefore, we did not deal with this matter on the main agenda. I have discussions beginning between our officials, looking toward a more complete meeting on the subject between myself and the minister of transport from Quebec. However, during the course of these meetings my parliamentary secretary has had an opportunity to raise the subject of wharves with the minister.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, following the minister's answer, can he tell the House whether his department is already willing to consider repairing these wharves before their transfer to the provincial authorities, or whether his department will agree to give funds to the province of Quebec to take over the maintenance of these wharves right now?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will appreciate that is one of the types of things that will be discussed in the negotiations.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, I will direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Recently the RCM Police applied to the Federal Court for 14 writs of assistance under the Excise Tax Act for selected officers and 15 applications under the Customs Act. In the judgment of the Federal Court judge, Mr. Justice Collier, he stated that he granted the application with substantial reluctance. He attached, and quoted with approval, a judgment from two years ago, stating that it was shocking and incredulous to have to give these orders to unknown officers, granting them unlimited powers with no date of expiry. Is the minister aware of these applications and is she planning on doing anything with regard to this kind of application under Acts which she administers?


Hon.   Monique@: I will look into the matter and report to the House as soon as possible.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: While the minister is looking into the matter I wonder whether she will consult with the Solicitor General as well, having regard to the Bill of Rights and the human rights legislation now before the House, in view of the
Oral Questions
fact that questionable activities of the RCMP, in some respects, have been brought to light, sometimes in the guise of national security, will the minister have a full review with the Solicitor General as to these applications and whether or not they can change this procedure with respect to applications under these two particular acts?


TOURISM
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. It concerns the alarming growth of the deficit in the tourist industry. The figures indicate that for the first three quarters of 1976 the deficit amounted to $960 million, an increase of 68 per cent over the travel deficit for the same period in 1975. Since important meetings took place in December with respect to this matter, and since all the ministers agreed that something had to be done about this increase in the tourist deficit, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware of any specific initiatives which have been placed before the provinces, or agreed to by them, in order that this deficit might be substantially reduced, one which certainly worsens our over-all trade pattern and cannot help the situation with respect to employment, particularly in provinces where tourism is a major factor?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did, of course, attend the meeting of all ministers in the country interested in this problem. It was acknowledged by all present that the industry was facing a problem of the kind the hon. member has mentioned. All the ministers, including the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, resolved that there would be further and better co-operation so that our resources might be directed not to dispersing the powers of the federal government and of the provinces but to bringing them together and putting forward our best effort, especially in parts of the world where we may be able to attract more visitors. And, of course, ask Canadians to do more travelling in Canada rather than in foreign countries.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the Prime Minister seems somewhat bashful, or uninformed, perhaps 1 could direct this question to him with respect to his upcoming visit to the United States. In view of the fact that new and proposed tax legislation in the United States limiting the deductibility from income for tax purposes of convention expenses incurred outside that country will severely restrict the flow of U.S. tourist dollars into Canada, further increasing the magnitude of the tourist deficit, has the Prime Minister placed this matter on the agenda for discussion with President Carter while he is in Washington next week? Specifically, are proposals being put

February 15, 1977
Oral Questions
together for presentation to the president in order that there might be a satisfactory resolution of this problem, at least?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The hon. member should not mistake for bashfulness my deference for the very knowledgeable parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am only bashful in the face of superior knowledge, Mr. Speaker. 1 might add that it does not often come from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question asked by the hon. member relates to the serious problem the Americans are encountering with their economy. They experienced a serious recession a couple of years ago and it is quite understandable that tourists in that country should have less money to spend and that the government should be adopting measures to preserve their position. However, with the expected upturn in the economy of the United States, we hope the influx of tourists from the U.S. will increase and that measures of the kind to which the hon. member alludes will be looked at in this light.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am relieved that the Prime Minister was able to answer the second question, but disquieted by his acceptance, or seeming acceptance, of this legislative change proposed in the United States. Does his answer mean that no representations will be made either at the Congressional or administrative level with respect to these proposals, given the substantial impact they would have on the expenditure of U.S. tourist dollars in Canada? Can he tell us whether or not instructions have already been sent to our officials in Washington so that some preparatory work can be done at the Congressional level, given the different nature of the systems of government in Canada and the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I intended my answer to indicate the contrary-that there would be more optimism in the United States under the new administration with regard to the economic future and that restrictions of the kind the hon. member was mentioning would not be necessary. As to the second part of the question as to whether representations have been made, I will inquire about that.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance who on Friday confirmed his commitment "to reduce the percentage of the gross national product which the government of Canada takes." We are now approaching the end of the fiscal year. Would the minister tell the House whether, in fact, government spending

for the current fiscal year will be less than the increase in the gross national product?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: My
colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, in the course of tabling the estimates tomorrow, will be making a statement on the situation in the current year and the coming year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Referring once again to the minister's remarks on Friday, I note he rejected the suggestion that there should be further spending cutbacks on the part of the federal government, arguing that they would increase unemployment. Would the hon. gentleman now clarify his position by explaining whether he believes that federal government spending cuts inevitably lead to increased unemployment and, conversely, whether federal spending increases are the only way to create jobs in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The converse doesn't follow, but I would point out to the hon. member, with reference to his suggestion in the past that there should be a substantial lay-off of federal public servants, that this is hardly a way to reduce unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: When did anybody say that?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the important statement made yesterday by the minister concerning the benefits paid to people of 65 and over, I should like additional information. Could the minister look into the situation of those who sought the advice of UIC officials and were told to apply to the Quebec Pension Plan, since they were not eligible for unemployment insurance since January 1st, 1976?
As all those people who were eligible before January 1st, 1976, applied to the Quebec Pension Plan on the advice of UIC officials or because of a misinterpretation of the act for which they cannot be held responsible, would the minister agree to pay them their unemployment benefits for the period during which they were eligible, while deducting as income the amounts they received under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, as the case may be.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We do not have authority to move in the area the hon. member has suggested. Technically, only those who launched their appeals and did not make claims for QPP and CPP would
February 15, 1977

qualify. However, in the interest of equity we are examining each of the cases-I think there are some 14,000 or 18,000- and we shall notify the individuals concerned that they may conceivably be eligible for a benefit. With respect to those who took this step of applying for CPP and QPP we will try to pay the difference from the date they were cut off until they actually began receiving their cheques under either of the programs. This appears to be as far as we can go under the authority of the Act as I read it.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On February 4, as reported at page 2715, my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories asked a question about a blowout from a well drilled by Dome Petroleum in the Beaufort Sea. The minister promised at that time to make a report to the House. If the answer given to the hon. member for Moose Jaw constitutes that report, I must say it is most inadequate. In view of the fact that we were assured in the House last year that drilling in the Beaufort Sea would be carried out under the strictest possible supervision, may I ask the minister whether he is now telling us that engineers on the ship were allowed to change the standards according to which the company was required to put in casing all the way down to the gas formation? What I am asking the minister definitely to tell the House is whether or not the chain of command is so lax in his department that engineers on the ground can make a change in regulations laid down by the department and the cabinet.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the earlier question I pointed out that the requirement for casing down to a certain depth was decided upon by the regional engineer who is an expert in these matters. It was the same regional engineer who agreed later, after reviewing the situation, that it was not necessary to go down to the originally designated depth. Whether or not the water blowout-it was a water blowout, not an oil blowout-was due to the depth of the casing is not yet clear and will only become known once the review process now under way is completed. By the way, that report will be made public in a few weeks' time once it is received by me.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Radio reports this morning indicated that a committee of the minister's department is making a report to the minister, which I understand is going to be made public. The report indicates that in the submission to him his departmental committee is going to recommend five-year permits for drilling in the Beaufort Sea. I want to ask the minister, under such a provision, what type of safeguards will
Oral Questions
be imposed; I hope that they will be more effective than the safeguards which were imposed last summer. Also, may I ask the minister whether, before deciding upon granting five-year permits, he is prepared to submit this matter to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think the report about five-year permits and other presumed reports of the committee are incorrect. The committee has not yet Finished its review of the process, nor has it completed its consultations with the communities involved. The committee will only write its report, I understand, in about a month's time, so it is not yet known what it will be recommending. If it does recommend more stringent conditions, then we will certainly give that our close attention.


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY BEFORE GRANTING FIVE-YEAR PERMIT TO DRILL IN BEAUFORT SEA
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not answer the last part of my question. In the event that the suggestion of a five-year permit is approved by the minister and his department, will he undertake that before such a decision is made and before drilling begins on a five-year permit basis, this matter will be submitted to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very speculative to suggest that there may be a five-year permit. As far as I know there has been no suggestion in that respect at the present time. My estimates will be before the committee in due course and I will be willing to answer any questions with respect to this whole program.


FINANCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and is a follow-up to a question I asked him a few days ago, I think last week, regarding the importation of Taiwanese tomatoes into Ontario. Does the minister have an answer to protect the farmers of Hastings and Prince Edward counties and other parts of Ontario?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I am glad to advise him that we have applied a surtax on canned tomato imports from Taiwan.
3048

February 15, 1977
Oral Questions MANPOWER


REASON FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE STATUS INDIANS IN UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in charge of unemployment insurance. In view of the fact there has been some question in recent days about the number of people who are unemployed, and in light of the fact that a Canadian human rights bill is being introduced into the House, does the minister still find it acceptable that status Indians are not included among the unemployment statistics in this country, or is this just a way of trying to show a low figure when in fact that is the group having the highest level of unemployment in Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker. The fact that they are not included in the labour force survey is something that my friend might take up with StatCan and with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Recognizing that status Indians on reserves are not included in the labour force survey, we have made an additional allocation and treated the unemployment figure as 75 per cent and have made quite a substantial amount of money available under our Canada Works program to cover the particular group to which the hon. member refers.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister going to make representation, in light of the upcoming human rights bill, that status Indians be included in the labour force; and secondly, would he give the House some indication what the unemployment rates are among the nonstatus Indians and Metis people of this country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Here again, Mr. Speaker, on the question of statistics, no, I do not intend to make that representation. So far as status Indians on reserves are concerned, that particular information is well known. Based on that information we are able to take the action that we needed to take at the job-creation end, which in fact is my responsibility. The others who are status or non-status Indians off the reserve are included in the labour force survey.


LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT AMONGST INDIANS IN NORTHWESTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question too deals with additional statistics and is in regard to reports from northwestern British Columbia, from the town of Smithers, where it is reported that 95 per cent of the Indian population is unemployed, as is 50 per cent of the rest of the population. Did the minister avail himself of the opportunity, when the premier of British Columbia was here, to discuss this matter with him, and did he exert his influence with his cabinet colleagues, particularly with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to see what the federal government can do to alleviate this most serious problem?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I share with the hon. member his concern at the high level of unemployment among Indians in that area. I have had first-class, excellent representations and information brought to me by the Minister of State responsible for sports in regard to this particular problem. It is because of representations such as hers that we did see fit to treat the figure as 75 per cent unemployment right across the country, so that so far as the job creation aspect at least is concerned we could relieve some of the concern to which the hon. member refers. No, I did not talk to the premier of British Columbia; I was not invited to the meeting.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, may I address my final supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who is expecting my question. Could he tell me whether he had the opportunity to discuss with the premier of British Columbia the most serious problems faced by industry and commerce and all people of central and northwestern British Columbia at the present time?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. When I met last week with Premier Bennett we touched on most of those questions. We have agreed to address ourselves to them and have instructed our officials to work hard to find a solution and a proposal that both governments will be able to support in the months ahead.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since there has been a good deal of concern by people in the agricultural industry that the federal government is looking into plans to move the Farm Products Marketing Council and its agencies, plus the Canadian Dairy Commission, to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as part of its move toward a national food policy, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would indicate if discussions have taken place in this particular area.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, certainly not with me or in cabinet. I will see whether there are any experts looking into the question; I doubt it very much.
February 15, 1977


BANK ACT
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister indicate to the Ffouse the plans of the government for dealing with the proposed Bank Act amendments, particularly in light of the fact that agreement was not reached with the official opposition respecting a reference of the white paper to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-


Walter David Baker: Nonsense.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -which would have facilitated public hearings on this very important issue?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it appears that it will not now be possible to have a fully drafted Bank Act in time for full consideration by parliament before the present Bank Act expires on June 30 next.


An hon. Member:: Is that the fault of the opposition?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It would therefore be the intention to introduce a short bill to extend the life of the current Bank Act for a further six months so that parliament may have adequate time to deal with the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from recent disclosures made by United States Senator William Proxmire that Pakistan embassy officials in Washington attempted to obtain information from John Phillips, a student at Princeton University, on how to build a nuclear device. Is the minister aware of this report, has he investigated it, and has he taken any action with the French government which is scheduled to build a nuclear reprocessing plant for Pakistan?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I had time to read the question I would understand the connection between the beginning and the end of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am aware of the story to which the hon. member referred because I saw it on the televised news, but I
Oral Questions
was not aware of any direct linkage between that and Pakistan. Since we have abandoned all nuclear assistance to Pakistan as of the present time, I am not sure what I might be able to do, but I will be glad to look into it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I will give it to the minister more slowly. In view of the fact that Pakistani officials confirmed that they approached Mr. Phillips to try to get information on how to build nuclear devices, is the minister prepared to make direct representations to the government of France to discourage France from building for Pakistan a reprocessing device which would use the nuclear waste from CANDU reactors?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, now I understand the connection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be glad to make representations to France again, as we have done repeatedly in the past, but I do not think that the French diplomats would be impressed if I said we wanted to stop it because of the incident to which the hon. member referred. We have been doing it on a much more broad and general basis and will continue to do so.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: My question is for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On October 18, 1976, the minister told the House that the Canadair LearStar 600 executive jet project does not require direct financial intervention by the government. Will the minister confirm that so far the government has paid $38 million to buy Canadair, guaranteed a loan for $50 million for start-up costs for the LearStar 600, and now is financing the federal Express Corporation's purchase of 25 planes, thus putting itself in the peculiar position of financing both the vendor and the customer from the start?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the hon. member is annoyed by the great success of that program, because we have already had over 65 orders, and in his intervention of October 18, he said the program was stupid. For a stupid program, I think we have been quite successful.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: My question is for the same minister. On February 10, as reported in Hansard at page 2934, the minister stated that:
I remember replying to some questions in this House. I stated that the prospects were not too bad and that I thought we had a good chance of selling 25, 26, or 27.
He concluded those remarks by wishing that the opposition would open their eyes once in a while.
3050

February 15, 1977
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Good idea.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: As one of his questioners on the Lear jet contract I have searched Hansard without success trying to find the comments the minister claims to have made in the House. Could he now inform me as to when he made the remarks he claims to have made? The alternative for me will be to assume that he was indulging in witless boasting last Thursday and has attempted to mislead the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, to be exact, it was on November 2 in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. But I did not say then that we had 25, 26, or 27. I was right when I said it was 53.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that visas are required for all visitors to Canada from Communist block countries, can the minister advise the House why recent visitors from Cuba have been exempted from this visa requirement?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that, it being one detail with which I am not familiar in the department.


Mr. Gillies:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it deals with the recent agreement signed by Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Capilano on a supplementary question.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I wonder if while the minister is checking into this important question, in light of the type of training programs being sponsored in Canada by the Cuban embassy, he will give serious consideration to the requirement for visas for visitors to Canada from Cuba?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: There is one mistake, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we will make our policy based on that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the recent agreement signed by Canada with Spain with respect to the export of nuclear devices and supplies. In the

release by the Department of External Affairs it is stated that Spain has agreed to abide by the safeguards of Canada as of 1974-1975. Given the fact that the government brought down new safeguards in the fall of 1976, 1 should like to ask the minister whether this means that exports to Spain are governed by an earlier set of guidelines than the ones that prevail now on new contracts being made by the Department of External Affairs for the government of Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Once again, Mr. Speaker, this is a highly technical question. I would like to take the details of it as notice, but my recollection is that both apply. In other words, Spain is not only subject to the earlier safeguard agreements which have been signed but also to those that were announced by me on December 22. But I will look into them in detail and let the hon. member know, or answer him in the House.


MANPOWER
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Because the Canada Works program as presently constituted would require some worthy would-be recipients of funding to layoff or fire existing personnel before qualifying for grants, thus defeating its job creation purpose, would the minister consider setting up a special fund for recycling operations, particularly under the Canada Works program, in much the way the special Indian fund has been separated from the general allocation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to create jobs for Canadians who are not working at present.


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SITUATION IN OKANAGAN-KOOTENAY CONSTITUENCY
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier by my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. In replying to that question, the minister referred to an article in the Ottawa Journal of February 5. I read that article since then and find the most plausible sentence in it to be the one saying that my figures were correct. While the minister is giving the review that he promised the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary regarding the unemployment statistics there and the possibility of the allocation being too low, would he consider at the same time the neighbouring constituency of Okanagan-Kootenay, because daily I receive letters in regard to the extraordinarily high rate of unemployment there at present?
February 15, 1977


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I think, with respect, that the hon. member is putting words into my mouth, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: A refreshing change.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether, as a result of the very disappointing results of the post-Olympic lottery (Loto Canada) he intends to reconsider the changes that were made which may originally have been the cause of the lottery's decline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am still unaware of the changes alluded to by the hon. member; perhaps, he could put a supplementary to me.


REASON FOR LOCATION OF OFFICES IN OTTAWA
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister enlighten us as to the circumstances which led to the resignation of the former president, Mr. Julien Cote, and the main reasons for deciding to move the head office from Montreal to Ottawa?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the board of directors of Loto Canada chose to be in the national capital seeing the lottery is national, and I think that decision is quite logical.


PRIVILEGE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I asked for the privilege of speaking to you and to the House at three o'clock as a result of the intervention of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) which I would be charitable in describing as an irresponsible intervention. In that intervention he seemed to imply that the failure of either a revision of the Bank Act or a reference of the white paper on banking to the committee was because of some difficulty which had occurred with regard to the official opposition. At least, I presume that that was the case, or perhaps it was the opposition in general.
I want to indicate to the hon. member that that is not so. As a matter of fact, when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) was the government House leader, I wrote to him on
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
August 26, 1976, asking for the reference of that white paper to the appropriate standing committee. I think it is important for the House to know that in my letter I said the following:
In recent months you and I have shared a common concern about the real relevance of the House of Commons to public policy decision-making. We both believe, I think, that the House is the ideal and proper point of contact between the people of Canada and their elected and appointed leaders. While this shared belief should lead over the next several months to worth-while reforms of our procedures, perhaps you might consider the following suggestion for a short-term experiment.
The next paragraph refers to Canadian banking legislation, and particularly the white paper. I go on to say this:
To this end I suggest that the white paper on Canadian banking legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs as soon as the House returns in October.
It is now February.
Hearings could be held before Bank Act amendments are drafted in their Final form and those institutions or individuals with an interest in the banking system could be heard. This seems to me to be preferable to a closed review of the report followed by the presentation to the House of a complex and essentially unchangeable draft bill.
This request was made of the then government House leader in August of 1976.
If the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs did hold hearings and issue a report, I assume that the committee stage of House deliberations on the actual amendments to the act would then be brief.
The summary to the white paper states on page 47: "The proposals in this white paper are based on the assumption that Canadians want a banking and Financial system which is national in scope, controlled by Canadians and as competitive as possible."
I conclude my letter by saying this:
I hope the House of Commons will be encouraged to find out what else Canadians expect from the banking system.
Subsequently I received a letter from the government House leader dated January 21, 1977. I believe I have referred to this already in the House. The letter is dated less than a month ago and there is a paragraph on page 2 which reads:
As you are aware, the Bank Act expires on June 30, 1977. We are making every effort to have a new bill ready for spring.
It has now become apparent from the answer that the new bill is merely to be a one-line bill extending the present banking system. The purpose of this intervention is to indicate that in the happy exchange of views which occurred-and which continues to occur-between the opposition and the government House leader there has been every hope, and every effort has been made by the official opposition, to have that white paper brought to the committee. I might say, without revealing any confidences at all, that this matter has been discussed between the present government House leader and myself. It was discussed on the basis that there was a willingness on the part of the present government House leader to have that paper come forward, but that I had to understand- which I did-that the discussion of that white paper might be interrupted by the presentation of a revision to the Bank Act.
I think we should be very clear that I have taken the view- and I know my predecessor took the same view-that the members of this House, not just on the opposition side but on the government side as well, have not had an opportunity to

February 15, 1977
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
engage in this aspect of policy-making in a very significant way. This would have been an important opportunity and we have pressed to have this kind of innovative approach take place. This approach is not unique by any means, but it is innovative in terms of the day-to-day unfolding of parliament. So I want to make it clear to the House and to the hon. member for Ontario that in what he has said he has misled the House. I am sure it was inadvertent.


An hon. Member:: I wouldn't say that.


Walter David Baker: At least I hope it was inadvertent. There has been an attempt by the official opposition to have this white paper brought forward and to have a reference made, and I am informed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) that if that had happened it would have been the intention of his committee, which would have charge of the debate, to make the debate on that reference very short indeed. So I think the hon. member for Ontario owes me, the opposition and the House, an apology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) began his remarks by alluding to my question and its contents as being charitably irresponsible. I do not know his definition of "charity", but it seems to me that it would at least imply an understanding of what gave rise to the comments I made. It is quite evident, from the point made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, that he has had communication with the government House leader, but there is another point which 1 think is abundantly clear, and that is that he ought to have had communication with his own colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The hon. member would then have realized the difficulty. When I was first elected chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-


An hon. Member:: That was a disaster.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -I called a subcommittee meeting precisely to deal with questions relating to the white paper on banking and the proposed Bank Act which would be forthcoming. At that time, as chairman of the committee and with the consent of all members, I entered into negotiations with the government House leader and with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in an attempt to achieve agreement whereby this committee of the House would be given the white paper to study. The purpose of that directive of the subcommittee to me was so that we could begin public hearings on that working paper and therefore cut down the length of time which would be needed to debate the bill when it was brought forward. I discussed this matter with the government House leader and the Minister of Finance and agreement was reached whereby the white paper would be referred to our committee.

The agreement was reached on these conditions: first, that there would be a limited debate on the reference itself. I pursued the matter further and it was agreed with the government House leader and the Minister of Finance that the debate would be limited to no more than one day's duration, and that was quite acceptable. Second, the agreement was that the standing committee would complete its public hearings by Easter of this year, and following that we would move to clause by clause consideration of the bill, if it was before us by that time, and conclude by the end of this session.
The whole agreement broke down when I raised this question with the steering committee and with members of the Conservative party because the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who I presume was speaking for the members of his party, would not agree to a limited debate on the reference of the white paper. He indicated that the debate would last more than one day and in all likelihood that it would be a very extended debate. With that information brought forward by a representative of that party, I went back to the House leader and indicated that this was what was happening. That meant an end to the agreement, much to the chagrin of members of the New Democratic Party who wanted that reference, to members of this party who wanted the reference, to members of the government who were prepared to give the reference, and to some members of the hon. member's party who wanted to see a reference.
Those are the hard facts from my vantage point and my involvement in this matter. Therefore, the question that I raised and the comment that I made in that question is perfectly valid as far as I am concerned. Until the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton brought forward his communication with the House leader, I was not aware of it. The simple fact is that there appears to me to be a very legitimate misunderstanding between the House leader for the Conservatives and myself on this question and I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members will realize the difficulty that is encountered when negotiations are described on the floor of the House or attempted to be carried out on the floor of the House. There has been exposure of the point that objections were taken, on the one hand, to the tone of the question by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) and the premise of the question. There has been a response. The further we get into the response, the more it is evident there is disagreement on the question of negotiation and understanding between members about arrangements to debate a reference or deal with a reference to committee and, in turn, debate a bill. All of this anticipates orders of the day and discussions that will take place on measures before the House or, alternatively, anticipates discussions related to matters that ought properly to be before a committee.
I did not want to cut that discussion short before allowing both sides ample time to state their positions. I think I have done so. It seems to me that the longer we let this go on, the more likely it is that other members will want to get involved

and state their understanding of agreements that have taken place and negotiations that have taken place outside the chamber that by their very nature are not binding on this House. They ought not to be referred to, I think, and probably ought not to be referred to in a definitive way. I wonder if I might invite the co-operation of all hon. members, having given equal time to both sides, to terminate that question now and get on with other matters.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), on a question of privilege.


MR. FAIRWEATHER-NEWSPAPER AND RADIO COMMENT ON NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF QUEBEC
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, you had notice that I intended to raise this matter of privilege which I suggest affects all of us. A Canadian Press story on the front page of today's Globe and Mail-which also was put out on the CBC radio news broadcasts-states that the Speaker of the National Assembly of Quebec "sits in gallery for foreigners". I suggest there are enough strains placed upon confederation these days without the need for pejorative and inaccurate headlines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: These headlines have already-I had in my notes that they are bound to jangle nerves already somewhat raw because of those who wish to dismantle this country. I do not mean to be preachy, but the gallery where Mr. Clement Richard sat yesterday is the Speaker's gallery where you, sir, extend your courtesy to a visitor whether it be the Speaker of the territorial government of the Northwest Territories, of Saskatchewan, of British Columbia, Venezuela or other countries outside Canada. It is my understanding that visitors of the Governor General, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or Your Honour sit in that gallery when they are here.
A similarly phrased headline would not have followed, I suggest with great respect, a visit of the Speaker of the legislative assembly of my province, New Brunswick. I ask, why we are subjected to this type of headline in these days?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am not attaching a motion to this intervention. What I plead for, as we pursue what I am sure is our joint resolution to preserve confederation, is that moderation be exercised. As my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) said, moderation in everything but our will to preserve Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has raised, by way of a question of privilege, an event that occurred yesterday which I am sure has baffled and concerned a number of hon. members. The hon. member's description of the event is absolutely correct.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
My colleague from the province of Quebec was seated in the area which is the most honoured position we can give to distinguished visitors. It is the same seat that is occupied by my counterpart in every province of this country, and it has never before drawn that kind of headline. I am grateful for the hon. member's intervention. There is no motion attached to it, and therefore no decision for the Chair to take.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise somewhat reluctantly on a point of order at this juncture. It deals with my question earlier in the question period. I know Your Honour has made an excellent interpretation of the questions and has discerned whether a representation has been made to any particular minister on any particular topic. I rise today because I feel very strongly about what I consider to be prima facie evidence of the infringement of the Bill of Rights of our country of the basic concepts and precepts of our common law principles of justice in Canada.
I want to bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that what I was attempting to do in the questions put to the Minister of National Revenue-and the Solicitor General, if he were here-was to bring the matter to their attention and request that they give an undertaking to stop this kind of activity with respect to legislation and acts under their particular jurisdiction. My purpose was to obtain, in the course of questioning, at least, an undertaking that they would review individually the applications to be made to the court with respect to this kind of application for writs of assistance in which there is no date of expiry, no specified officers or constables mentioned in the writ and which give unlimited powers to members of the national police.
It was not my intention to make a representation. I am sorry if I was not as clear as I might have been, but I feel so strongly about this question that I want to bring it to Your Honour's attention at this time so that I may pursue it at a subsequent time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar deserves an explanation of my decision not to permit him a second supplementary question, that is to say, a third question. It is unrelated to the fact that he was making a representation. The minister did indicate, in response the hon. member's first question, that the answer would be delivered at a later time and the minister was not prepared to answer at this time.
That always sets in motion a difficult chain of circumstances for the Chair in that obviously it will be the intention and desire of the member putting the question to pursue the matter with supplementaries when the minister comes back with information. It is, therefore, difficult to allow the hon. member supplementaries at this time and on the subsequent occasion. I think the hon. member ought to have the opportunity to add, by way of one supplementary, other aspects of the question

February 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
which the minister ought to be invited to include in the investigation for an answer at a later date.
I therefore allowed the hon. member a supplementary with the hope-and I am sure the hon. member will watch it closely-that the minister will come back at an early date. On that occasion the subject will be amplified by further supplementaries.
of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition pesented by the hon. member for York-Sundury and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-396, to amend the Canada Labour Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple bill and one which I hope the government will adopt as part of its own platform and policy. Therefore, it may get on a little earlier. I want to amend the Canada Labour Code which would control that part of commerce and trade which falls under federal jurisdiction so that people with controlled illnesses such as diabetes will not be discriminated against as we have seen happen in the not too distant past.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answerd today: 144, 292, 586, 626, 682, 902, 986, 996, 1,253, 1,301, 1,319, 1,357, 1,368, 1,516 and 1,606.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-76, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable Figures for the Fiscal year 1973-74?
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


PETITIONS
Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. (a) and (b) See following list.
2.	See following list.
3.	There were no contracts let, in the fiscal year 1973-74 for these types of studies.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the table the seventh report
Note: This reply excludes all information pertaining to the Canadian Government Office of Tourism. (See Question No. 292 answered this day.)
Name of Firm	Services Rendered	Amount of Contract1(a)	H. R. Doane & Co.	To perform audit and verification services from February 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975 during the period of the government's option to purchase shares and notes of capital stock and notes of Canadair Ltd.	$56,000Ka)	H. R. Doane and Co.	To assist IT&C in evaluating both Canadair Ltd. and the de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., prior to the sale of each company to private Canadian investors.	$30,000Ha)	Canadian Design Service	To provide drafting services on an as and when required basis to assist the Metric Commission in developing conversion plans of the sectors of the Canadian economy.	$40,900Ka)	Swan Wooster Eng. Co. Ltd.	To provide engineering and design services of a floating drydock and mooring site for the Port of Vancouver, B.C.	$254,600Ka)	Ms Verna Lamour	To advise the minister responsible and the co-ordinator of the Grains Group on matters dealing with the content, nature, scope and direction of the special prairie grain handling and transportation program.	$3,848

February 15, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Amount of
Name of Firm	Services Rendered	Contract1(a)	Mrs. Anne-Marie Turpin	To perform revisions and adaptations in the French language of minutes, letters, position papers, technical articles and similar materials pertaining to the Metric System.	$10,0001(a)	Peat, Marwick & Partners	To assess implications of proposals received from potential purchasers of the de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Canadair Ltd. and Douglas Aircraft of Canada Ltd. To place the Federal Government in a sound position to negotiate a viable rationalization of the aerospace industry and to assist in the negotiations.	$340,000Ha)	Mr. Claude Montmarquette	To develop the methods and procedures for evaluating the amount and creation of human capital in the Canadian aerospace industry.	$4,850Ha)	Mr. Claude Montmarquette	To assist in completing the development of a theoretical framework for the social opportunity cost of labour for the aircraft industry in Canada.	$10,6251(a)	Prof. D. G. McFetridge	To provide assistance to the Program Evaluation Group of IT&C in an informational and functional role in the evaluation of research and development support programs.	$5,0001(a) and (b)	Leonard & Partners	To develop a plan for long-term rationalization of the Metric Commission distribution system and to oversee the implementation of same.	$75,5181(a) and (b)	Leonard & Partners	To assist in the implementation of a material distribution system for the Metric Commission.	$5,0001(a) and (b)	Mr. Gordon R. Sherwood	To conduct a review of the Department's Incentive and Development Programmes to determine their relevance to various sectors of Canadian industry, their effectiveness and future usefulness and submit recommendations as appropriate, for modifications to improve the overall performance of the programs; also conduct a review of export assistance, of the Export Development Corporation activities in relation to the chartered banks and of private financing sources available for export credit.	$38,0001(a) and (b)	R. & A. MacLaren Associates Ltd.	To act as consultant to the department on the development of government industry relations.	$158,000


Mir. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the
examination of the administration or internal operation of the Canadian Government Office of Tourism?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1 (a) and 2. See following list.
Name of Firm	Services Rendered	1975-76 PriceLaurentian Institute for Social & Economic Development Inc.	To study the effects of and steps necessary to implement a CANTRAV Interim Organization under the direction of Management Consulting Services.	$5,000Laurentian Institute for Social & Economic Development Inc.	To develop an evaluation approach including success indicators and perform a complete evaluation of all marketing activities and expectations for fall marketing effort in a report form in connection with CANTRAV trial run.	$5,000P. S. Ross and Partners	To provide assistance as a member of a Canadian Government Office of Tourism Task Force to review of relationship between the Travel Industry Development Programme (TIDP) objectives and national objectives, anticipated impact of TIDP, and appraisal of specific TIDP element vs. programme objectives.	$3,850.
3056

February 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Name of Firm
Stevenson and Kellogg Ltd.
Stevenson and Kellogg Ltd.
Stevenson and Kellogg Ltd.
Ernst & Ernst
Waterloo Research Institute
Mr. Barry Malmsten
Services Rendered	1975-76
Price
Working with the CGOT in carrying out financial simulation or evaluation of revenue projections and other financial data on Gull Harbour Resort project submitted to the CGOT for Financial assistance.	$2,925
To evaluate tourism resort complex at Mount Matheson,
Sooke, B.C. to assist developer in obtaining private source financing to complete project in cooperation with B.C.
Travel Department, Victoria, B.C.	$4,820
To provide assistance as a member of a Canadian Government Office of Tourism Task Force to review of relationship between the Travel Industry Development Programme (TIDP) objectives and national objectives, anticipated impact of TIDP, and appraisal of specific TIDP element vs. programme objectives.	$6,175
Provide consulting services for purpose of preparing study of Potential Government Initiatives in Incentive Assistance for Tourism Operations and to focus on existing sources of Financing and assistance programme rather than
formulate new Financial assistance mechanisms.	$22,175
To produce a segmentation analysis of 1974 Canadian Vacation pattern study.	$1,500
To assist in creation of initial data base of a Tourism information handling system, classification of documents and data, and classification of selected literature in the CGOT according to a given classiFication structure.	$2,800
1.	(b) Nil.
3. There were no contracts let, in the fiscal year 1973/74 for these types of studies.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	How many former senior members (SX 1 and up) of the Department of National Revenue for (a) Taxation (b) Customs and Excise were put on contract by the government on their retirement from the Public Service in (i) 1972 (ii) 1973 (iii) 1974 (iv) 1975?
2.	In each case (a) what was his or her salary at the time of retirement (b) for how many years was he or she in the Public Service?
3.	For each such contract, what was (a) its purpose (b) its duration (c) its amount (d) to whom was it paid?
4.	How did the daily rate on contract compare with the daily rate on salary in each case?


Ralph Goodale: 1 am informed by the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. (a) (i) None; (ii) none; (iii) none; (iv) one. (b) None.
2.	(a) Salary range $33,000-$42,000. (b) 27 years, five months.
3.	(a) To prepare bulletins outlining the department's official interpretation of specific provisions of the Income Tax Act and Regulations, (b) Six months, (c) Contract maximum $14,625. Actually paid, $7,706.25. (d) C. N. Brennan.
4.	Daily rate on contract, $112.50. Daily rate on salary, $147.13. All other departments and agencies have submitted "nil" replies to this question.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many former senior members of the Post OfFice Department were put on contract by the government on their retirement from the Public Service in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 and, in each case (i) what was his or her salary at the time of retirement (ii) for how many years was he or she in the Public Service?
2.	For each such contract, what was (a) its purpose (b) its duration (c) its amount and to whom was it paid?
3.	How did the daily rate on contract compare with the daily rate on salary in each case?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Post Office Department as follows: 1. (a) None, (b) One. (i) Salary range $27,500-$37,000. (ii) 45 years, (c) One. (i) Salary range $26,400-$33,000. (ii) 12'/2 years, (d) None.
2. (a) Consultation with the director of the National Postal Museum to facilitate the development of the museum and arrangements for the opening on September 27, 1974. Attendance at any scheduled inter-branch committee for the postal museum meetings with a view to providing support and advice to the director of the postal museum in reviewing proposed plans for the opening in September. Responsibility for the coordination, preparation and finalization of inter-branch implementation schedules with regard to the opening, (b) For

February 15, 1977

a period not exceeding ten days, (c) W. H. Wilson. Financial arrangements for services rendered consisted of a per diem rate of $100 plus travel and living expenses.
2.	(a) To perform duties in the Olympic coin programme, (b) Three years, (c) A. J. Warwick. $27,000 per year.
3.	(i) Daily rate on contract, $100. Daily rate on salary, $141.83. (ii) Equivalent. All other departments and agencies have submitted "nil" replies to this question.


Mr. McKinley: 1.	How many former senior members of the Department of Public Works were put on contract by the government on their retirement from the Public Service in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 and, in each case (i) what was his or her salary at the time of retirement (ii) for how many years was he or she in the Public Service?
2.	For each such contract, what was (a) its purpose (b) its duration (c) its amount and to whom was it paid?
3.	How did the daily rate on contract compare with the daily rate on salary in each case?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. (a) and (b) One. (i) $22,000-$28,000 (salary range) (ii) 26 years, (c) Nil. (d) Nil.
2.	(a) Represented project manager, Come-by-Chance by inspecting materials purchased for that project through DSS from firms in England and Germany, (b) 16 months, (c) $14,124. (d) Mr. J. E. Bright.
3.	Daily rate on salary at time of retirement $108. Daily rate under contract $125. All other departments and agencies have submitted "nil" replies to this question.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the establishment of quotas for textile imports resulted in an effective control by foreign speculators of the type and price of garment available on the Canadian market?
2.	Has the establishment of these quotas increased the competition in the product lines of the Canadian manufacturer?
3.	Will future import restrictions by quota include reference to product type and price?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. Under the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles, Canada maintained voluntary restraint arrangements with a number of major supplying countries to restrain the level of imports of certain textile products. Under these agreements, Canadian importers were free to purchase these textile products regardless of type or price from countries with whom Canada had restraint arrangements. On November 29, 1976, previous measures on clothing were replaced by global import quotas under GATT Article XIX which limited the quantity of imports of certain garments into Canada in 1977 to the level prevailing in 1975. Under this measure the Canadian government allocates import quotas to Canadian importers on the basis of their past import
Order Paper Questions
performance which enables these importers to source the type of garments for which they have quota entitlements at any price from all sources.
2.	The introduction of import quotas is expected to stabilize the market in Canada and create an environment more conducive to the development of a competitive textile industry in Canada.
3.	The application for import quotas requires that importers state only the type of product to be imported.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FAMILY REUNIFICATION USSR
Mr. Howie: 1.	What efforts has the government made to reunite 300 families in Canada separated from family members in Russia?
2.	If no progress is made in the near future, what alternatives are available to Canada?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Since 1971, when Prime Minister Trudeau raised the question with Premier Kosygin of the Soviet Union, the Canadian Government has made a series of representations to the Soviet authorities in Ottawa and in Moscow on behalf of families in Canada separated from family members in the Soviet Union. Canada played a leading role in the preparation of the text on reunification of families which was incorporated in the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe signed at Helsinki in August, 1975. Since then, representations to the Soviet government have been made at increasingly frequent intervals. Approaches were made by the Canadian ambassador in September and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Soviet foreign minister, Mr. Gromyko, during his visit to Moscow in October. Since then the question has again been discussed with the Soviet foreign ministry and the Soviet ambassador.
2. During the past year, some progress has been made in reuniting families with close relatives from the Soviet Union. While the pace in resolving cases on which we have made representations is slow, the Soviet authorities have in fact increased this year the total number of exit permits issued to people emigrating to join families in Canada. It is to be hoped that this progress will continue at an accelerated rate. The question of family reunification will be discussed at the CSCE follow-up meeting in Belgrade in 1977 when progress in implementing the final act will be reviewed in detail.


AIR POLLUTION-NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1974, has any money been expended by the government to alleviate air pollution in New Brunswick and, if so (a) what amount (b) to whom (c) for what purpose?
2.	Since January 1, 1974, have any studies been undertaken of air pollution in New Brunswick and, if so, what are they?
3.	Have any outside consultants been engaged to conduct any studies and, if so (a) who are they (b) what was the purpose of each (c) at what cost (d) have any written reports been received and, if so, are they available to the public?
80008 -S6V2

February 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: I. The government has agreed to contribute $1 million through the Programme for the Development and Demonstration of Pollution Abatement Technology (DPAT) to St. Anne Nackawic Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., to reduce air pollution problems from their Nackawic Mill.
2.	Since January 1, 1974, many air pollution studies have been undertaken in New Brunswick. A list of these studies is appended.
3.	Acres Consulting Services Ltd., has been engaged to conduct an air pollution study of emissions from the heating plant at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick. Cost of the study was $25,000. Information collected is available to the public on request.
Air Pollution Studies Involving Environment Canada in New Brunswick since January 1, 1974; 1. Saint John Region Air Quality Study: This study was designed to follow up on the recommendations of the Lorneville Impact Study which assessed the effects upon air quality of the Coleson Cove Generating Station. It involves a monitoring network of six air quality stations and a program of computer modelling of atmospheric dispersion. It is hoped that the end result will be an aid to regional use planning and to the provincial air pollution control agencies. This study is being carried out in conjunction with Environment New Brunswick. 2. Air Pollution Assessment of Heating Plant at CFB Gagetown: Complaints have been received about emissions from this heading plant and a study is being carried out by a consultant under our supervision. 3. Air Pollution Study of Proposed Expanded N.B.E.P.C. Generating Station at Dalhousie, New Brunswick: This study was carried out at the request of the provincial department of the environment. Its purpose was to estimate ground level concentrations resulting from the proposed expansion of this generating station. The results were forwarded to the provincial department of the environment. The study involved computer modelling of dispersion from the stacks of the station. 4. Air Pollution Study in the Vicinity of the Lead Smelter at Belledune, N.B.: This study, also carried out at the request of the provincial government, involved computer modelling of dispersion of lead and particulates from the smelter. Much effort went into determining the emission rates at the smelter. At the present time the provincial government is carrying out an ambient air survey in the vicinity of Belledune, and the department is assisting them in the analysis of the samples that they are gathering. 5. Abatement Program, CIL Dalhousie Chlor-Alkali: This is not a study as such but is a program designed to ensure that the company is in compliance with the federal mercury emission limits to the air whose effect date is mid 1978. The department's activities there include inspections of the plant and meetings with plant personnel. 6. Lead-Free Gasoline Sampling: The department has an on-going program of sampling of lead-free gasoline in the Province of New Brunswick to ensure that federal regulations are met. The purpose of the regulation is to reduce emissions of lead from automobiles. 7. Leaded Gasoline Regulations:

The department takes quarterly samples from all refineries in New Brunswick to ensure that the leaded gasoline also meets the federal standards for leaded gasoline. Quarterly reports of lead usage are also compiled from the refineries. This is also intended to reduce emissions of lead to the atmosphere. 8. Evaluation, Inspection and Approval of DREE Funded Projects: This is an on-going activity whereby our department in co-operation with the New Brunswick Department of the Environment assesses the pollution aspects of DREE funded projects to ensure that they are not a cause of pollution. Funds are withheld until both federal and provincial agencies are satisfied. This aspect of the work involves much travel, inspection of installations, assessment of plans, etc. This activity is intended to prevent pollution from new sources. 9. EPS/AES Sulphate Monitoring Study-Eastern Canada: The purpose of this study which is just getting underway is to assess the importance of pollutants, primarily sulphates, heavy metals and nutrients, that may be transported over long distances, say from the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, and deposited here in the Maritimes. Some intensive monitoring was undertaken in August 1976 and it will be resumed by Environment Canada for a two year period beginning April 1, 1977.
There are other programs within DOE that are not specific to New Brunswick but which nevertheless are intended to alleviate air pollution there. These are as follows: 1. Development of Federal Air Emission Air Guidelines: Guidelines have been developped for the cement, asphalt and coke oven industries and others are being developed for the petroleum refining, pulp and paper ferrous foundries, non-ferrous foundries and iron and steel industries. These guidelines are available to the provincial air pollution agencies, including N.B. which they may adopt as regulations as they see fit. 2. Training of Provincial Personnel: DOE holds several courses a year in which provincial air pollution personnel are trained in the technology. 3. Training Operators of Federal Boilers and Incinerators with Respect to Air Pollution Control: The department intends to start this program this year in order to reduce air pollution from these installations. Training of operators in New Brunswick will be included.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-STUDY OF &quot;GIARDIASIS&quot;
Mr. Jones: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare studying the disease "giardiasis" in Canada and (a) if so, what are the names of those engaged in combatting the problem (b) if not, is any group or organization in Canada studying the disease?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) Yes. Investigations have been carried out in rural and urban areas, in Indian and Inuit communities and on Canadians returning from certain countries where giardiasis is known to be endemic. The following is a list of recent reports published by the Department of National Health and Welfare on giardiasis: 1. Canada Diseases Weekly Report Vol 2-34, 1976; 2. Canada Diseases Weekly Report Vol 2-32, 1976; 3. Canada Diseases Weekly Report Vol 2-25, 1976; 4. Epidemiological Bulletin No. 19(5), 1975; 5. Epidemiological Bulletin
February 15, 1977

No. 13(10), 1974. Departmental employees involved in these studies include: R. D. P. Eaton-Medical Services Branch, F. M. M. White-Health Protection Branch, (b) Other organizations studying the disease include:-1. National Reference Centre for Parasitology, Institute of Parasitology, McGill University, supported by a grant from Health and Welfare Canada. 2. University Clinic for Tropical and Parasitic Diseases, Toronto General Hospital.


POST OFFICE-STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Did the Postmaster General state in his remarks to the Third Postal Users' Conference on November 2, 1976 that some fifteen studies were made by management consultants and, if so, in the case of each such study (a) what was its (i) title (ii) date (iii) purpose (iv) estimated cost (v) actual cost (vi) security classification, if any (b) by whom was it made (c) who were the recipients (d) are copies available (e) on what date were the answers to the questions prepared?
2.	Are other studies by management consultants contemplated during the next two years and, if so (a) on what aspects of the Post Office operations (b) what will be the purpose of each study?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Yes. (a-i) See following statement (a-ii) November, 1968 to July, 1969 (a-iii) To examine and report on the effectiveness of virtually all aspects of postal operations, (a-iv) Unknown (a-v) See following statement (a-vi) With the exception of the three studies which have been tabled (Environmental Forecast Study, Blueprint for change, and a Canadian Public Address Postal Coding System) these studies are considered as internal working documents and therefore of a confidential nature, (b) See following statement (c) As stated in (a-vi) (d) Copies are available of those studies which were tabled, as they were distributed to a number of libraries, (e) The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.
2. At this time the department is not planning any studies of postal operations by management consultants.
Management Consultant	Actual	[DOT] ConsultingStudies	Cost	Firm1	Organization	2	Environmental Forecast	3	Management Practices	4	Management Inventory	$258,627	Kates, Peat, Marwick& Co.5	Management Information	System	6	Summary Report	(Blueprint for Change)	7	Marketing	43,938	Dr. Stanley J. Shapiro
Order Paper Questions
Manpower, Planning, Development and Staffing Staff Relations Classification,
Compensation and Benefits
Other Studies
81,765
Hickling Johnston Ltd.
9	Transportation	$101,480	Samson, Belair, Riddell, Stead, Inc.10	Facilities Planning	25.000	Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co.11	Productivity	50,498	Price Waterhouse Associates12	Facilities Design Facilities Forecasting Economic Utilization of Facilities Space and Equipment Optimization	35,051	Price Waterhouse Associates13	Presorting Mail Sortation and Distribution	Price Waterhouse Associates14	E.D.P. Facilities	23,096	D.C.F. Systems Ltd.15	Public Address Postal Coding Study	63,432	Samson, Belair, Riddell, Stead, Inc.


REFUGEES IN THAILAND
Mr. Epp: 1.	What is the estimated number of refugees from (a) Laos (b) Cambodia (c) Vietnam, presently in refugee camps in Thailand?
2.	Have these people been declared refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugee Matters and, if not (a) for what reason (b) what is their present status?
3.	What steps has the international community taken to relocate such persons?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. (a) 63,766; (b) 10,699; (c) 2,688.
2.	No. (a) The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees considers most of them displaced persons rather than refugees, (b) They have no status.
3.	The first priority of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been to secure the voluntary repatriation of these "displaced and uprooted" persons. When that has not been possible, local resettlement has been preferred over migration to a nation where living conditions are not similar to those in their country of origin. Nevertheless both France and the United States have been accepting significant numbers of displaced persons from Thailand.


PURCHASE OF LEARSTAR JET
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What are the names and addresses of firms that made deposits with Canadair for the purchase of a LearStar jet and what was the deposit?
2.	What are the names of the Canadian chartered banks that loaned money to Canadair for the LearStar 600 Programme?
3.	On what date will the first LearStar be completed for testing?
4.	What are the terms of purchase for the LearStar and, if it is not airworthy, will Canadair refund the deposits?

February 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
5.	How many LearStar jets is the Federal Express Company of New York purchasing and what is the amount of their deposit?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. As at December 14, 1976 58 orders with deposits had been received from 31 firms by Canadair for the purchase of LearStar jets. The amount of the standard initial deposit was 5 per cent of the value of the order, payable when the contract was signed. In the interest of commercial confidentiality the names of the purchasers are not being disclosed.
2.	No bank has yet advanced funds for the LearStar project. Negotiations are taking place with two chartered banks.
3.	The first LearStar flight is scheduled for February, 1978. Certification is scheduled for April 1979.
4.	Business purchasers have paid a 5 per cent deposit on contract signing. They will pay a further 20 per cent 12 months before scheduled delivery and the balance of 75 per cent on delivery of the aircraft. Contracts may be terminated if Canadair fails to deliver the aircraft within 12 months of the scheduled delivery date. In this event Canadair is obliged to return the buyer's deposit.
5.	Federal Express has ordered 25 LearStar aircraft and has signed an option for a further 25. The amount of deposit paid by Federal Express is commercial confidential.


RELOCATION OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES DIVISION
Mr. Jones: 1.	Was there an announcement made in the spring of 1976 stating that the Surveys and Mapping Division of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources would be moving to Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so (a) for what reason is there still a degree of confusion as to whether or not this section will actually relocate (b) for what reason does the Minister's office maintain that the matter of relocation is still undecided?
2.	Is the Division now scheduled to move to Moncton?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: 1.
No.
2. No.


RAPESEED PRODUCTS
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Is Canada a net (a) importer of rapeseed products (b) exporter of raw rapeseed?
2.	Does domestic crushing and refining add approximately three dollars per bushel to the value of raw rapeseed?
3.	What steps is the government prepared to take to make Canada a net exporter of rapeseed products?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. (a) Canada is a net exporter of rapeseed products. From January 1 to November 30, 1976 Canada has exported 41,387 metric tons of rapeseed oil and 33,325 metric tons of rapeseed meal. There have been no imports of either product, (b) Exports of raw rapeseed from

January 1, to November 30, 1976 were 668,404 metric tons, imports were "nil".
2.	The domestic crushing and refining of rapeseed adds approximately $3 to the value of a bushel of rapeseed.
3.	Even though Canada is a net exporter of rapeseed and products, the government encourages the industry to seek new markets and expand existing markets by means of both incoming and outgoing technical and trade missions, technical seminars, research programmes, meal and oil trials, and works in close conjunction with the rapeseed Association of Canada on these projects.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING RELOCATION TO CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Herbert: What is the estimated employment in the Veterans Affairs Headquarters in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island as at 1980-81, by groups, and how many of the positions are to be designated (a) unilingual English (b) bilingual (c) unilingual French?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Since the analysis of the implications of the relocation on departmental personnel is not completed, we are not in a position to answer this question at this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: That this House notes with distress the prodigious increase in the federal, provincial and municipal debt, which will result in the shattering of our country; and
That this House further regrets the fact that the Government has failed to advance any new formula for the financing of the public sector to correct this situation, for instance an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act allowing it to use the credit of the nation as currency in order to make long-term loans to the federal and provincial governments at an interest rate equivalent to administrative costs rather than the present six-month limit and to relieve the burden imposed on Canadians to repay up to five times the amount of the loans made to the various levels of government by banking institutions under the present system.
Mr. Speaker, it may be by a combination of circumstances that I can hardly understand, but very often on an opposition day allotted to the Social Credit Party of Canada, it is felt
February 15, 1977

necessary to rise on all kinds of questions of privilege, each more important than the other. I hope this is not done on purpose in order to shorten the time allotted to the motion before us today, but if it was deemed important to rise on the first question of privilege relating to the failure of the government to introduce a piece of legislation on banking, a review of or amendments to bank charters, I cannot but think that suddenly it is realized that some problems are really important and come to mind after someone else has laid them on paper.
Mr. Speaker, as years go by, problems seem to recur from generation to generation. After some years spent in parliament, our legislative responsibilities towards the Canadian people seem heavier and this has prompted me to consider in my remarks the merits of the so-called allotted days provided in the Standing Orders, days which may seem at times to be of minor interest. Still the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada believe that those days are quite important in the development of a democratic parliamentary system in Canada.
This is why each time we move a motion on an allotted day we always endeavour to tackle an issue of prime importance for the country, to draw the attention of the government on oversights or still to make constructive suggestions and exhort it to draft legislation aimed at improving our present systems in the financial, economic or social fields.
All those are problems that affect the whole population, and that is why we consider that those opposition days are very precious and ought to be used in such a way that they be profitable to the whole population, and that by the end of the day we could at least have made the cabinet aware of those problems. And then they could in turn during the next few months bring remedies to the problems we have detailed before parliament, to improve our fellow citizens' economic circumstances and thus make it possible for various federal, provincial and municipal administrations to better meet the needs of people under their jurisdiction. Therefore it is the exclusive privilege of the various opposition parties to choose the subject matter which will be debated in the House on those allotted days.
For many years, parliament was made up solely of members of the party in power and members of the opposition party: the old parties. Therefore it was then relatively easy for the opposition to have an understanding with the government on the distribution of allotted days for the Business of Supply as well as on the subject matter to be considered on such days. It was more or less a time for relaxation, for temporarily putting aside consideration of bills and for voicing some criticisms that the opposition deemed advisable to make. However, as time went on and in view of the behaviour of the old parties, Liberal and Progressive Conservative, who were as thick as thieves, some people lost confidence in them; this is how third parties were born.
That is why the people decided to elect officers who could convey ideas to parliament which in their view had value. As the result of the presence of third parties in the House
Governmental Debt
traditions as well as the old party behaviour did change somewhat. Parliament had to amend the allotted days, which are called opposition days. Needless to say, there has been a drastic change in allotted days since third parties came into being. One only has to refer to past years to realize that the allegation I just made is true and that the so-called official opposition must necessarily agree with the third parties by allocating the opposition days according to the number of seats held by the opposition parties in the parliament.
It is because of the events and circumstances I just enumerated that the Social Credit Party of Canada had the privilege of choosing the subject matter of today's motion which reads very clearly as follows:
-That this House notes with distress the prodigious increase in the federal, provincial and municipal debt, which will result in the shattering of our country;
What does that mean? Why do we say it will result in the shattering of our country? Because, Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial governments hold conferences. To my knowledge, there have been 32 federal-provincial conferences in which I am interested as a Canadian, where they have discussed to know whether Ottawa will abandon some revenue sources to the benefit of the provinces and where the provinces have expressed their needs to Ottawa to get the required funds to meet their obligations. And the motion goes on:
That this House further regrets the fact that the Government has failed to advance any new formula for the financing of the public sector to correct this situation, for instance an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act allowing it to use the credit of the nation as currency in order to make long-term loans to the federal and provincial governments at an interest rate equivalent to administrative costs rather than the present six-month limit and to relieve the burden imposed on Canadians to repay up to five times-
-in interest-
-the amount of the loans made to the various levels of government by banking institutions under the present system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to being constructive criticism, the motion I am now sponsoring does make some practical suggestions and urges the government to bring forward amendments to an act which has been in force for almost 42 years, i.e. since March 11, 1935. Obviously, I will not have time to go over the whole debate that took place in the House of Commons when that act was passed. The debate started with a resolution presented on February 22, 1934, by the then minister of finance, Mr. Rose, who at that time told parliament that he would have to follow up with a bill to create a central bank in Canada. The then leader of the opposition, Mr. Mackenzie King-everybody knows at least his name-stated on February 22, 1934, as reported at pages 830 and 831 of Hansard, and I quote:	*
Liberalism believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to the average citizen. It stands for the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank, to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need.
I repeat: .. . "considered in terms of public needs".
... A central bank is necessary to determine the supply of currency in relation to the domestic, social and industrial requirements of the Canadian people; and also to deal with the problems of international commerce and exchange.

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
That is precisely what we have been saying for years, but after 42 years, as intelligent people should be able to, it is time to make changes. The Bank of Canada fulfilled a tremendous task; the legislators of that time made no mistake when they decided to have that act passed by Parliament, but time has come to adapt its possibilities, its functions to modern needs, to the needs of today, because the act, as passed in 1934 under a Progressive Conservative government, says many things.
We say the same today, it is still true. The preamble of the act reads as follows:
Whereas it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of the Dominion.
In those days, this country was still known as a dominion; but today, it is possible-I feel we would be justified in doing so-to write: to promote the economic and financial welfare of our country, Canada. That is what the motion requests: that the government go further, that it complete what the legislators of times gone envisaged; that is why we suggest that section 18(l)(i) be changed as suggested in the motion, because that section now reads as follows:
The Bank of Canada may
(i)	make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of any province on the pledge or hypothecation of readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;
(j)	make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of such government for its fiscal year, and shall not in the case of any provincial government exceed one-fourth of such government's estimated revenue for its fiscal year; and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of such government;
Mr. Speaker, this might have made sense at that time but in 1977 can you imagine a government which has to borrow let us say $150 million in order to close its financial year on March 31, being obliged to repay those $150 million sometime in June? How is it going to help? Well it will help temporarily but it will not solve the problem. For this reason we are suggesting that long term loans be granted by the Central Bank for the financing of the public sector in an orderly, intelligent way. Thus, people would have time to breathe before having to pay back, they could achieve something but at an interest rate just to cover operating, administrative and personnel expenses, in short all that is required in a well organized office, whereas today the government has only two ways of raising revenues to administer the country, like any provincial government: taxes and borrowings.
Some taxpayers are lending money to the government through savings, but the bulk of the loans are made to the federal government or the provinces by banking institutions under the present system, at very high interest rates, and those high interest rates paid by the government have some impact

on the private sector which must necessarily compete with the Federal government. In the end it creates inflation and the national debt is increasing at an alarming rate.
The same is true of provincial governments. Just to mention a few examples in support of my arguments, I shall draw your attention to the fact that our national debt which amounted to $30 billion in 1967 has increased to $57 billion in 1974. Over a seven year period, the national debt has increased by more than $25 billion. Was the federal government the only one faced with such an increase? No, according to the answer given by the then minister of finance (Mr. Turner) in the House, as recorded in Hansard on May 13, 1975, page 5737, where it is said that generally speaking the provincial debt has almost doubled.
For example, it is the case of Newfoundland where the debt has more than doubled, within six years, going from $584,000,000 in 1967 to $1,222,000,000 in 1973.
The province of Ontario, for example, which is considered a rich province, with the best administration in Canada, had in 1967, a gross debt of $5,561,000,000. Six years later it went up to $10,817,000,000 and is still rising. This debt pyramid within the present system inevitably brings about increased taxation, and taxes. This in turn fans inflation, which results in unemployment and unemployment, as an hon. member put it today to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) spells poverty. But at any rate, those were his words, not mine but I think that the way he put it was not that stupid.
What happens, Mr. Speaker, is this: the government is under an obligation to provide financial aid to the private sector which is crushed under a burden of interest to pay. One only has to look in the newspapers to see why there has been such a number of bankruptcies this year and yet in certain cases, the governments had given the industries substantial subsidies to help them set up businesses which would create jobs for workers.
I have only to quote as an example, Mr. Speaker, the case of Thetford Mines, in Quebec a riding which is represented by a member from the party of the majority, but not the party in power, because they have not got the power, as the power lays outside the House in the hands of money men who do not waste their time standing for parliament, as there is not much money to be made there. They look after their own interests but they they have servants inside the House, within Parliament. We have evidence of that. In any case, Mr. Speaker, in Thetford Mines the province of Quebec is buying back Bellevue products, a firm which went bankrupt.


Mr. Fortin:: This was financed by Ottawa.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: That company had received millions of dollars in subsidies from the federal government but then suddenly business went shaky.
And, in order to protect the livelihood of the 500 workers employed by this company, the government of Quebec decided that it would also subsidize this business, in order to keep it going.
February 15, 1977

In March 1975, the government took action to save this company from bankruptcy, by allowing the Industrial Development Corporation to guarantee the reimbursement of the operating deficit, to the tune of $2.5 million, up to August 31, 1975.
But that is not all! Far from it. I quote further:
This guarantee was to be extended later on to August 1976, but it has not been renewed since because the Industrial Development Corporation considered that its mediation in this case amounted to unfair competition towards the other trailer manufacturers.
This government decision to save the Bellevue plant from bankruptcy could be taken amiss by the other trailer manufacturers.
Mr. Speaker, I did not quote that to criticize a government for trying to save a business in Quebec, far from it. I only meant to show that our financial system in the public sector is destroying our small businesses. In spite of all our good intentions, it is impossible. We cannot make it. Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to quote something else which is extremely important. It concerns a recent loan from the government of Canada to the province of Quebec.
The federal government, through one of our Crown corporations, has just lent the government of Quebec, for the construction of 40 housing units, the sum of $966,960 at a compound interest of 10 per cent to be computed semi-annually. This represents 90 per cent of the value of the building, but not the furniture and future maintenance costs of the building. And the government of Quebec, the new one that talks about independence, has agreed to sign an agreement forcing Quebec taxpayers to pay back to the federal government $95,467 a year over a period of 50 years, which comes out to 4.93 times the amount of the loan. Are you going to tell me that this is reasonable, that this system should not be changed drastically so that governments can work together rather than against each other?


An hon. Member:: This is bad federalism.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I consider that when the federal government grants a loan to a provincial government, it is to enable that provincial government to provide services to the people, and neither the federal government, nor a provincial government with regard to a municipality, has any right to grant loans to make a profit. Responsible governments should not exist to make a profit, but to provide services to the people.
We should let private enterprise make loans to the same type of businesses for a profit; which is quite normal since there is room for competition in the private sector. But none of this should exist in the public sector, where it would damage the good relationship which must prevail in a federated Canada as we know it now. I believe that it is the duty of legislators to make the public aware of such transactions or loans, because they could create a debt for future generations who are not at all responsible for today's situation. Mr. Speaker, our remarks are more than just negative criticism. We have said so time and time again in the House, and we repeat it in the motion.
Governmental Debt
I am trying to explain it with my modest means to urge the government to set up a special committee of the House to make an in-depth study of that whole policy now in use in order that we may together bring in amendments to that Bank of Canada Act so it will be in a better position to serve not only the federal government but the provinces and, through the provinces, the municipalities.
How many members are now witnessing that certain municipalities incur expenditures for the construction of water and sewer facilities which are beyond the capacity to pay of local ratepayers, and those people have to bleed themselves white. The value of their property goes down because they have to pay nearly five times in interest the value of those facilities. That is what is bad. That is what Parliament must react against. And Parliament is the only authority in this country capable of setting things straight, ensuring justice in order to have a more just society, and it must act rapidly, efficiently and in a very orderly fashion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that in the course of this day hon. members who will participate in this debate will follow my advice-you do not have to share my opinions but you have the duty to examine them, you have the duty to suggest better ones, if possible, and we will support them wholeheartedly. But what are we looking for? We are trying to improve the situation, and today's problem is one of dollars for the government of Ontario, the federal government, Quebec as well as all other provinces. It is a problem of revenue to meet our obligations.
Considering all the facts 1 just set forth with the best intentions in the world I do hope I will receive the very generous support of hon. members so we may all together convince the government to introduce the legislation we want to ensure proper Finance in this country. We must see that the authority of this Parliament is the real authority and that high finance just like our children in school complies with the legislation of this country whereas today it is governments that are submitted to the whims of high finance.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, many times has the Social Credit Party of Canada proposed similar amendments to our banking legislation. Indeed the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) will remember that he introduced a private bill on November 5, 1976 which was almost along the same lines as the motion he proposed to the House today. He also made similar proposals on October 22, 1974, on March 18, 1969 and on March 15, 1967.
Of course the government has considered the Social Credit proposals because at first glance they do seem to offer valid arguments likely to convince people they should readily and easily endorse that philosophy without seeing the consequences. That is why many times the government gave a clear and precise answer to arguments by raising counterproposals which must be weighed when they propose such sudden change in our monetary policies.

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
My first argument is of course that if the proposition were accepted, it would automatically fuel inflation, not only by the federal government but more particularly by the provincial and municipal governments. Why? Of course, when you can borrow money without interest, you are inclined to borrow more often, and fairly easily, without taking the consequences into account. Thus this could lead to a rapid increase in spending in the public sector. At the present time many Canadians have adopted the opposite thesis. They say that the public sector, either federal, provincial or local, accounts for a vast amount of Canadian outlays and that government expenditures should be limited. When you propose loans with nearly no interest, you invite the governments to make almost unlimited spending for a certain number of years at least.
Of course, the law allows the Bank of Canada to meet some of my hon. colleague's aspirations. Pursuant to sub-paragraphs 18(1 )i) and 18(l)j), it does not allow to lend funds to the provinces or to the federal government. But, pursuant to sub-paragraph 18(1 )c), the law allows the Bank of Canada to buy federal and provincial government bonds. Up to now, the Bank of Canada has bought only Canada saving bonds. Why? First because it has always felt, and rightly so, and the government has always adopted the same views, that it would amount to interfering in the finances of the provinces and, in some ways, it would have conflicts of interest in applying a responsible monetary policy.
In fact, if it were so allowed, the Bank of Canada would automatically be compelled to buy provincial governments bonds, it would be compelled to choose and, thus, to discriminate. The bank should have to study the financial situation of each province and territory to check whether the bonds were regularly issued, whether the interest rate is valid and if it should consider buying such bonds. The rates vary necessarily according to the provinces.
The provincial capacity for payments and redemptions varies too. In order to manage its portfolio in a responsible way, the bank should definitely not act according to the established percentages but should be very freely on the market, according to the economic situation. But this would be putting the bank in a particularly delicate situation on the political Field, I should say, because I suggest that the Bank of Canada should keep a certain leeway and a certain kind of freedom as far as the monetary policy of Canada is concerned.
A second point about the conflict of interest that would face the Bank of Canada. When we went through a period of monetary restraint and were faced with economic problems, the Bank of Canada might decide to sell some provincial or municipal bonds it was holding. The Bank of Canada would once again be in a conflict of interest situation because it would be in the position of having to take a decision of a generally political nature, namely which bonds should be put back on the market to restore some balance in the sound management of the monetary policy.

Well, what about federal bonds? The Bank of Canada buys Canada savings bonds. Is that not a conflict of interest situation? Is it not faced with a decision of an almost political nature in its policy of buying Canada savings bonds? In my view, that point cannot be made as far as the federal government is concerned. Anyway, the circumstances are not the same as in the case of provincial and municipal bonds. Because it is generally recognized that the federal government is responsible for Canada's monetary policy. Then government must cooperate with the Bank of Canada and ensure that the economy is managed in a responsible way.
Moreover, the provinces and the municipalities keep saying right and left that the federal government is responsible for Canada's economic stability. If this is true, and I believe it is, it means that the government must have the means to develop policies with the Bank of Canada and, of course, the monetary policy must go hand in hand with the fiscal policy drawn up by the government. This means that although the Bank of Canada may be in somewhat of a conflict of interest situation, although it would be facing choices of a very political nature as far as the provinces are concerned, that point cannot be made in relation to the Canadian government.
Mr. Speaker, there is a third point I should like to make to my collleagues in order to disprove their argument. To allow the Bank of Canada to make loans to the provinces without interest or with an interest that only covers the administration costs would be an indirect transfer of funds from the federal government to the provincial government, since the Bank of Canada is an instrument of the central government. Over the years, we have already accepted many fiscal and payment transfers to the provinces. We have already responded in a responsible way to the legitimate aspirations of the provinces which were asking for more funds to meet some of their obligations.
The great majority of payment transfers by the federal government to provincial governments have no string attached, which means the provinces are free to spend those moneys as they choose, without any obligation. However, it is true that some of the payments are made in keeping with federal-provincial agreements, so that the money must be used for very specific purposes but on the whole the money is transferred to the provinces without lien.
And what does the transfer of payments from the federal government to the provinces amount to? More than a fifth of the federal budget, more than a fifth of the taxes which are levied by the federal government is transferred automatically each year to the provinces. This needs to be emphasized, Mr. Speaker. The provinces do not have to levy taxes, they do not have to assume the often odious role of explaining to the people that they must levy taxes in order to get the money they need for their budgets. A fifth of the federal government's funds, a fifth of last year's $42 billion budget was transferred to the provinces, and even more, since some federal expenses go directly to aid the provincial and municipal governments.

Well, 1 think that the federal government is being very generous when it levies taxes on Canadians and transfers one fifth of the funds so generated to the provinces and, the same thing may be said about the provinces, when they give money to municipal governments to meet their needs. I think that all of us in this House, whether we are members of the opposition or of the majority parties, when we account for our budget and try to justify our expenses to the people, when we speak as members of the federal Parliament, we should stress the fact that a fifth of the taxes is actually levied on behalf of the provincial governments who do not have to assume the unpopular role of "saddling people with taxes."
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) referred to the federal public debt. He mentioned figures which look astonishing at first sight when we consider the growth of the Canadian public debt but I think such figures need explanations and should be placed in a general context. It is evident that the debt and the revenues are increasing, that government assets are growing and that the national gross product which represents goods and services produced in Canada is also expanding from year to years. But what does this growth mean, Mr. Speaker? I notice that I have caught the attention of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I believe it is important since he is the one who introduced the motion. But there are others who would like to rise and I presume they will have the opportunity to do so later on.
The gross national debt-the public debt as we call it- which is made up of the remaining non expired debt, that is outstanding federal bonds plus other debts which appear in the public accounts of Canada to pay employee pension funds for instance, is paid through the consolidated revenue fund. What was this debt in 1952? In 1952 it stood at $17 billion $17,257 billion to be exact-and in 1976 it amounted to $71,750 billion.
Mr. Speaker, what were the registered net assets of the federal government in 1952? They stood at $6,072 millions, and in 1976 at $48,454 millions. What does it mean? This means that the net debt was $11,185 millions in 1952, and $23,296 millions in 1976. What does it represent?
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the net debt as a percentage of the gross national product, that is the growth in Canada in terms of production of goods and services in our country.
In 1952, the net debt in regard to the gross national product amounted to 51 per cent. In 1976, this proportion has dropped to 14.5 per cent. This means that when we compare the gross national product, that is everything produced in Canada over a year, to the federal government's debt, we find that the figure reached 50 per cent in 1952 and has been now sharply reduced to 14 per cent. That is an important point to remember. This must necessarily be considered in the general context of Canadian economy; we should not be afraid of those figures, but rather consider the percentages they stand for.
Governmental Debt
From 1965 to 1976, the debt increased at a compound rate of 7 per cent where as within the same period, from 1965 to 1976, the NGP jumped from $61 billion to $190 billion, namely at a compound rate of 12 per cent. This means that our wealth increased faster than our debt, that we now have more assets than debts in Canada, and therefore that we are in a better financial position.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that whenever the federal government borrows money, it borrows it on the Canadian market not on the American or foreign markets. We borrow through Canada Savings Bonds which are issued here, which means all our loans are Canadian loans and the majority of the payments on our loans, namely the interests, find their way back to the Canadian people. Historically, Canadians have always considered it a good thing to have Canada Savings Bonds in their wallets, in their safety boxes, because they are safe investments. And the hon. member for Bellechasse is perfectly aware of this, because he comes from the province of Quebec. Does anyone get nervous about Canada Savings Bonds? Not at all. Are there people who get nervous about the savings bonds issued by provincial governments? Yes, there are.
I could also take this opportunity to say something about the management of our monetary policy and the guidelines upon which are based the decisions and action of the Bank of Canada. Some 15 months ago, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, publicly stated for the first time the approximate limits within which the federal bank was trying to maintain the growth rate of monetary supply. Mr. Bouey had then added that the bracket aimed at should be progressively lowered during the years to come, so that our monetary policy could remain consistent with the national aim of a gradual reduction of the inflation rate, which is still a government priority, because as the hon. member knows, small wage-earners and small depositors as well as those who are defenceless when it comes to big unions or big companies are affected by those things.
Mr. Bouey indicated that the bank then wanted to maintain the annual growth of money and deposits computed at the medium rate of that aggregate for the three-month period ending on June 1975 or at a 10 per cent rate. Last fall, the bank announced that the minimum targets for the growth rate of money supply had been set at 8 and 12 per cent annually, such a rate to be calculated on the average level of a three-month period centered on March 1976. This announcement by the Bank of Canada about the reduction in the growth rate trend of the money supply was met with positive reactions. It was favourably received. Last summer, the growth rate trend of the money supply and demand deposits remained close to the lower level of the 8 to 12 per cent annual range aimed at by the Bank of Canada.
Accordingly, the Governor of the Bank of Canada announced on November 19, 1976, a reduction in the prime rate from 9'/i to 9 per cent. Mr. Bouey stated, and I quote:

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
This reduction in the prime rate is justified by the fact that Canada has been able in the last few months to control inflation better and to slow down the rate of monetary expansion.
Similar considerations led to the further reduction in the bank rate from 9 per cent to 8V2 per cent effective December 22, 1976, and to the most recent reduction from 8V2 per cent to 8 per cent effective February 1, 1977. These rate changes have led to a general easing of interest rates to businesses and consumers in Canada which will be an important support to steady economic growth in this country. These improvements in the financial environment are strong evidence to all Canadians of the benefits of a national program of restraint.
What these developments indicate is that the concerted action of the government in the fight against inflation continues to bear fruit. The actions of the Bank of Canada carry the full support of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining in debate on the motion before us today, I think it is important to deal with it section by section. Hon. members will note that the motion starts out as follows:
That this House notes with distress the prodigious increase in the federal, provincial and municipal debt, which will result in the shattering of our country-
When we speak about "prodigious", I think we should refer to the Oxford dictionary, which says that the word means "marvellous, amazing, enormous, abnormal". If the mover of this motion is suggesting that the increase of our total debt in this country is "marvellous", I would not agree with him. If he says it is "amazing", I would agree in part. If he says it is "enormous", surely nobody in this House would disagree. If he says it is "abnormal", I would agree with him most heartily.
Before dealing more specifically with the first part of the motion, I should like to say that I find it most remarkable that in an age, in a month, in a year when we are faced with perhaps some of the most serious problems that have faced this nation since confederation, we should be confronted with a motion that when you read it in its entirety is simply harkening back to the tired, worn-out theories of social creditism. I say that because the Social Credit party that we have known in this country has from time to time espoused what is called the "funny money" theory. But basically I think it has been a Social Credit party of compassion. It was certainly a party that under its former leader, Mr. Caouette, at any given time showed great concern for unemployment and the well-being of the average Canadian. I would suggest that the Social Credit party, through the mover of this motion, could have given us a more challenging motion to consider in view of the tears that are taking place in the fabric of this fine country.
Perhaps it would be helpful to read into the record what some in the international economic world are saying about Canada today. For example, in a well respected publication,

the "Bank Credit Analyst", which puts out a special supplement called "Outlook, 1977", the economic conditions of various countries are dealt with. At page 41 it has the following to say about Canada:
So you can see the basic ingredients of financial disaster in Canada-an overvalued currency sustained only by continuous recourse on a vast scale to foreign credit, huge budget deficits and balance of payments deficits, an uncontrollable public sector, sharply declining competitive position of manufacturing and a persistent shift of employment to unproductive "overhead" areas and away from the producing sectors. Corporate profits and the rate of return on capital have been sharply eroded as a result of this process and, more recently, by the controls program. Investment in goods-producing industries is falling at a rate which, if continued, will threaten the long-term viability of the economy. Private capital inflows for investment have slowed dramatically, partly due to the hostile political climate, controls on foreign investment and punitive taxation, and the outflow of private capital is on an accelerating trend.
It doesn't take much imagination to see where things are heading. As you would expect, the economic recovery of the past 18 months has been of very poor quality, supported primarily by government spending and deficits, subsidies to the housing industry, wage inflation and a temporary lift in exports due to some inventory restocking in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Unemployment is very high and could go much higher on existing policies.
Mr. Speaker, in total, 12 separate points of concern are spelled out in those two paragraphs. In short, this country is in trouble economically. I think it is time the government and all members of the House addressed themselves to the simple question: Why, with the potential we have in Canada, are we getting into the type of trouble we are now living with?
I listened with some interest to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) because I hoped he would tell us that they planned to change their ways. I notice that he dwelt very gently on the question of credit. He pointed out that he felt if we became party to the Social Credit type of philosophy, somehow it would be inflationary. He pointed out, too, why he felt it would be inflationary. He dealt with the municipal level and the provincial level. Strangely enough, when he came to the federal level he said, "These rules do not apply. The relationship we have to the Bank of Canada is, somehow or other, unique. The relationship is one where, if we wish to bring monetary stances into line with fiscal stances, that is our prerogative."
That, perhaps, is the apex of the main problem in Canada today-the attitude on the part of the ministry that has been running this country since 1968. In short, they have chosen to use our monetary and fiscal position in Canada to suit their own political expediency instead of meeting the economic realities of the day. When I say that, I say it very advisedly. Let us not forget the simple fact that there is absolutely no mystery about where inflation comes from in any country. In Canada, inflation is manufactured in Ottawa: inflation is manufactured by the government of the day, namely, the Trudeau government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Over the last 24 or 25 years it is interesting to review, on one hand, what has been the inflationary stance in Canada and, on the other hand, what has been the real growth and the growth in our monetary system through those four six-year periods. One need not be a scholar of economics to
February 15, 1977

know exactly what has happened. Incidentally, I am relying on government figures tabled in this House in response to a question I placed on the order paper on October 21 last. In the six years ending October, 1958, the rate of inflation in Canada was 8.6 per cent. I emphasize those figures-in those six years our inflation rate was 8.6 per cent. For the next six years ending in October, 1964, our inflation rate went down to 7.6 per cent. But in the next six years it rose to 24.1 per cent, and in the last six years ending October, 1976, the inflation rate in this country was 55.3 per cent. In short, our inflation rate escalated from 8.6 per cent and 7.6 per cent in the first two six-year periods to which I referred, to a rate of 55.3 per cent in the last six years.
Consider the increased money supply which has been generated in our economy. We find that in the first six years referred to our money supply rose by 25.9 per cent compared with real growth of 22.8 per cent. In short, we then witnessed better management of our fiscal and monetary matters. The money supply increased at approximately the same rate as the real growth in the economy. I point out that those low inflation years were basically Conservative government years. In those years the money supply went up 19.9 per cent, but the real growth of the economy was 31.6 per cent. Clearly, one could not call the increase in the money supply in those years an inflationary increase.
However, in the next six-year period we note a shift in conformity with Liberal philosophy. For the first time, the increase in the money supply started to overtake the real growth in the economy. We find that in that six-year period the money supply rose by 43.2 per cent while in real terms the economy grew by only 34.7 per cent. It is also interesting to note what happened to our money supply in the period October, 1970, to October, 1976. Mr. Speaker, it grew by 100.2 per cent while in real terms the economy grew by 31.7 per cent. Is it any wonder that this nation has experienced a 55.3 per cent rate of inflation when you consider that in the period when the real growth in the economy was 31.7 per cent the government expanded the money supply by 100.2 per cent?
Let us look at the matter in another way to see to what extent the government has overinflated the money system. We find that whereas the growth of the money supply approximately equalled the real growth of the economy in the six years ending in 1964, the period when inflation had been running at only 7.6 per cent, the growth of the money supply in the next period alluded to, because the government overcreated money, or printed it as some might say, rose five-fold as compared with the real growth of the economy. Those are the facts.
The minister generalized about the inflationary impact of the Social Credit philosophy and proposal. I can only say that the minister should have done some homework. Essentially, his government has adopted many of the principles advocated by the Social Credit party, nameiy, the monetization of the tremendous debt this government has incurred since assuming
Governmental Debt
power in 1968. Let me be specific. The government likes to waffle, to obscure the real size of this debt. We heard certain figures mentioned today. According to the answer to my question on the order paper, the gross national debt in Canada as of March 31, 1975, including contingent liabilities-I emphasize these contingency liabilities because the government loves to minimize its debt by not including them-was $78,326 billion. That was two years ago. By this time it is more than likely that that debt exceeds $80 billion-probably $90 billion if all contingencies are taken into accounts. I point out that when the government took power in March, 1968, the gross debt in Canada was only $42 billion. Clearly, since gaining power the government has more than doubled this debt.
The point I wish to make is that when a government spends and overspends to the extent this government has been doing, it can cover its spending only in three ways. It can do the honourable thing and tax in order to cover its outgoing expenditures or it can borrow funds from the private sector. If it borrows too much from the private sector, it will drive up interest rates in that sector. Third, the government can do the most dishonourable thing and monetize its debt by falling back on the Bank of Canada. To a large extent, the government has followed the last of these courses in financing the debts to which I have referred.
Check my figures, Mr. Speaker. Everyone in the Bank of Canada brings out a statement on the fiscal position of Canada. Included in that statement is a breakdown of the total financial needs of Canada. The bank shows where the government has raised money. I have referred to the six-year period ending in 1970. It is interesting to note that while our inflation rate was rising somewhat, the government was still borrowing moderate amounts from the Bank of Canada to finance the ongoing operations of government. In that six-year period total government borrowings from the Bank of Canada amounted to $1,163 billion.
Then we saw a change of heart on the government benches. Perhaps that change of heart became most obvious when John Turner took over as minister of finance. Of all the finance ministers who have reigned in Canada since confederation, there was never a spender to equal John Turner when he was minister of finance.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You hoped he would join your party.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I certainly did not hope he would join our party; let there be no doubt about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you did at one
time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And where did the government, with Mr. Turner, raise a lot of the debt which it inflicted on the Canadian public? It raised it from the Bank of Canada to the tune of $4,159 billion. That was the figure up to December of last year. In short, in the six-year period up to 1970 the total debt this government monetized amounted to $1,163 billion. In

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
the last six years this government has monetized $4,159 million of debt alone. Why is all this significant? It is significant because that debt is one of the main instruments for increasing the M-1 supply, the basic money supply in this country, and if the money supply is increased at a rate faster than the real growth in the economy, the result is inflation; there can be no doubt about it.
The government may pretend it does not know how to control inflation. It can state, as it did, that we needed wage and price controls to control inflation. It can state that the labour unions are the bad boys, or that businessmen are causing inflation. The truth is that the government itself has caused inflation-and the Canadian public must never be allowed to forget it. The creation of extra money supplies, together with an overly expanding fiscal stance, has led to the inflation now afflicting this country. The Minister of Supply and Services gave a nodding acceptance to this in his speech.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I gave facts.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He tried cleverly to pass the blame to the provinces and municipalities. But we find that the provinces are controlling their spending. They are controlling their spending increases more effectively than the federal government. That is exactly the reverse of what should be happening. If we want to get a handle on inflation, it is absolutely essential that we first accept the proposition that we must lower the federal government's take of the gross national product at a faster rate than has been taking place. When I speak about growth in federal government spending, I emphasize that between 1967 and 1977 Ottawa will increase their spending by 289.3 per cent, or an average of 14.7 per cent per year. In 1967, the total budget was $9,867 million. In 1977, it is $38,417 million. If we exclude defence, which has been growing much slower than other expenditures at the federal level, we find that federal spending has gone up 362.8 per cent, or an average of 15.8 per cent per year over the past ten years.
The motion is relevant in this sense. If it is used as a focal point to highlight why we have inflation in this country, to highlight that this government has thrust us into more debt per capita than ever before-and unfortunately they not only thrust us into debt but they have monetized the high proportion of that debt with the Bank of Canada, which in turn has given us inflation-it will be useful.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, looking at this motion I have come to the conclusion that I am glad it will not come to a vote. I would be hard put to know what to do with it. Nevertheless, I want to say this: there has always been a strong bond of sympathy between my views and some of the views put forward by the Social Credit party, even though I do not agree with them on particulars or techniques. The more I listen to the views of the Liberal party and the Conservative party, the more persuaded I am that that bond of sympathy should be reinforced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about last night?


Max Saltsman: Last night was a very interesting thing to observe. When the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was speaking, a number of members of the Social Credit party were in the chamber. I could see they were listening. They did not agree with everything the hon. member for Nickel Belt was saying. However, their instincts, their feelings for the little man and their sense that our tax system is oppressive and weighs heavily on the little man, favouring the big man, are the same as ours. That is quite clear, and I respect that.
Whatever the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) had to say about the theories put forward by the Social Credit party-and the same holds true for the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-what they have is for more important than the facile sophistication of the two spokesmen for the respective parties. They have an instinct for the truth. The great geniuses of the Liberal and Conservative parties have had the opportunity to govern, or misgovern, this country at one time or another. They think they know what they are doing. They say to the Social Credit party that they have a very unsophisticated theory, that they do not understand how the whole system works, and then gently try to explain how it does work.
They know something that the people in my party know. We have a society where people have needs. We have productive resources that are sitting idle. We have people who need houses, people who need jobs, all the capital you could want, and all the resources one could possibly hope for. We have so much food that we do not know what to do with it. In fact, the farmers are encouraged not to grow more crops. How can you have all these things and say you cannot put them together?
The hon. member for York-Simcoe says that the villain is the money supply, that the Liberals are in fact Social Credit-ers and that they have been responsible for increasing the money supply. That accusation has some truth. In 1963 the Liberals, under Walter Gordon who went on to be minister of finance, supported in a very strong way a Social Credit motion to change the whole economy. The Liberals supported it. That is the way they are. They woo you one day, and leave you the next. They are very unfaithful lovers. "Kiss them and leave them"-that is their attitude.
The germ of what is being said in Social Credit theory is true. It is the same germ that is contained in Keynesian economics. The problem with our society today is that we do not have purchasing power where it is needed. In other words, those who need houses and have other needs do not have the money with which to buy them. Something is wrong with the system. I am not going to say that the A plus B theory of Major Douglas explains it in an adequate way, because I would not presume to understand it. I was a little confused, especially when it was translated from the French.
We have to find some way of increasing purchasing power in our society. There are one million people unemployed. What went wrong with our geniuses? What went wrong with our
February 15, 1977

sophisticated people who hold degrees from every university in the universe? We have inflation at the same time as we have one million people unemployed. That is something to which these people must address themselves.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe pointed the finger at the Liberal party. He said it is their fault. His party did not behave any differently when they were in office. I am sorry 1 do not have the figures on the money supply when the Conservatives held office. However, they had to throw out the governor of the Bank of Canada because he would not increase the money supply fast enough. How can you hold the money supply responsible for everything that goes on? It is as though the price of oil did not increase 400 per cent and the prices of commodities did not rise. Most causes of inflation of the past few years can be attributed to everything but the money supply. The money supply had to be generated in order to pay the higher costs involved. The government and the official opposition continually harp that the money supply is always the villain; that if you increase purchasing power, you wreck society. That is just not so. They have not increased purchasing power or the money supply during the last year. Have they really helped the employment situation? Are people going back to work because the money supply has not been increased? The situation is worse than ever. The hon. member for York-Simcoe often argues that we have to increase investment. We have increased investment over and over again, with no effect. Very often when you increase investment you throw more people out of work. Therefore, the problem cannot be resolved by increasing investment. We have idle plant capacity, with less than 82 per cent employed. For what purpose do you increase investment?
Through the tax bill the government increased the ability of high-income people to save. There are some reasons for objecting to that. The effect of allowing people in higher income tax brackets to get this kind of benefit is that the very people who need the purchasing power and would use it to get the economy in action have to pay higher taxes. There is no such thing as tax avoidance to the extent that one group of people can shelter their tax and another group has to make it up. If you provide benefits which are essentially of greatest benefit to those in higher income brackets, it means that people in lower income brackets have to make it up in one way or another. They will do it through sales taxes; they will do it through income taxes; they will do it through taxes which might have been reduced but were not reduced. But the point is that it has to be made up at some point.
There is no way out of the morass we are in at the present time except to increase purchasing power for those at the lower end of the income scale. We have reached a kind of plateau, Mr. Speaker, in our society. Not only our society, but western society in general, I think, is in serious trouble. If you take a look around you will find that people in the middle and upper income brackets are accumulating savings at the greatest rate in history. There is no shortage of savings. We may, in fact, be reaching a point where the saturation of goods is such that
Governmental Debt
people in upper and middle income brackets really do not need to buy anything any more; they already possess most of the things they want. If you are going to increase purchases, if you are to keep the wheels rolling-aside from the moral aspect of income distribution, and aside from the justice aspect of income redistribution-you have to find a way to increase the purchasing power of those at the lowest end of the economic scale, or you will never get people back to work.
You can see a phenomenal amount of savings being made available to people in the middle and upper income tax brackets, and how they are rushing to put it away. Normally, one could say that savings are a good thing, and I think that generally savings are a good thing. But it is also possible for what might be a virtue in terms of individual savings to be a collective disaster if a whole nation does it instead of redistributing that income in some way so as to provide full employment for the nation. That is really what is being talked about in a motion of the kind before us. We might argue about techniques, about whether you are going to have interest-free money or not, but the germ of an idea is there and it has never been answered.
People have laughed at the Social Credit movement for a long time, particularly those sophisticates in the Liberal and Conservative parties. When I listened to the minister and to the official spokesman for the Conservative party, I thought they were getting ready for the next Quebec election. They sounded as if they were going into the Creditiste strongholds and those were the arguments they were going to use against the Creditistes. In other words, "Don't vote for these guys; they don't know what they are talking about. Vote for us; we know how to run the economy; we know how to give you one million unemployed. Don't listen to those guys." They are already sharpening up for the next federal election. But that idea stays alive.
I think there is a lot wrong with the Social Credit theory, but I do not have time to go into the negative aspects of it today. There is a lot wrong with it, or obviously I would be a Social Crediter. I think there are problems with it. But one thing nobody has been able to answer is why this idea stays alive. If it were patently false, if it were indefensible, surely the people who voted Social Credit or for the Creditistes in Quebec would have rejected them. They are not foolish people. But I think that despite the fact they do not have degrees in economics, either the people who run for the Social Credit party or who vote for them, their instincts tell them there is something wrong with the sophisticated theories put out by the old-line parties. So nobody has been able to answer that great paradox: Poverty in the midst of plenty, and unemployment when there is so much to be done. It is to that paradox that the motion addresses itself, and in that respect the viewpoints put forward in this motion deserve respect and attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, after the very clear statement made by my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
Lambert), I do not intend to dwell on the means which the government should now be taking to control the staggering rise of our national debt which will lead this country directly to disaster.
I would like to discuss for a brief moment our public financing system, mainly since Confederation and thus note its disastrous effects on our Canadian community.
When we examine the public financing system in Canada and try to detect its shortcomings and bring about improvements in accordance with the wishes of all the provinces of Canada, we are aware of the faulty distribution of taxation powers which has been the source of our worst struggles since Confederation in 1867.
This little historical review will enable us to pinpoint the primary cause, I was going to say, the main cause of all our internal wranglings. Our problem is nothing else but a money problem, a dollars and cents problem. Matters of language, religion and even races are futile compared to our financial problems which result in the deepest indebtedness, as it becomes financially impossible to reimburse the capital because the interests must be paid five times before a dollar of capital can be reimbursed. Mr. Speaker, there are several ways of subduing a nation: militarily, politically or otherwise, but the most hateful is to subdue it financially. God knows to what extent the central government has taken advantage of this in the last hundred years to restrain financially the influence of the provinces in fields coming under their exclusive jurisdiction.
I wonder, after reviewing the events of the last hundred years, if that diabolical bond was not dreamed up by the British government which had absolute control over that North American colony known as Canada, because the British were well aware of the motto: divide and rule. The primary concern was to safeguard the interests of the Crown in the face of British subjects, although by means that were not always civilized. For that reason, I am of those who believe that the British North America Act was first and foremost a political gesture on the part of the government in London which, through a simple private bill sponsored by the Ministry of Colonization, foisted upon its subjects of the northern colony a sham responsible government which it called the new Confederation of British North America.
We find here that the British Crown acted very diplomatically, since it was essential to prevent an armed conflict between the English and the French who were then in greater numbers. The Crown knew full well that while the federal government and the provinces would be fighting over the biggest slice of the cake, its interests, which were to collect as much as it could in taxes from Canada, would be served. It is somewhat like the manager of two big boxers. He will have them fight together better to exploit them. I think that is what the Canadians destined to live together in Canada on that American soil, Anglophones and Francophones alike, never did understand very well. Still, we seem to be sensible people, on

both sides. Why not sit down once and for all around a table and discuss sensibly the whole matter of money and indebtedness. That, in short, is the main sidelight of our financial history and the cause of our perpetual conflicts.
What does the federal government do? What does it want? More money and more ways of getting the provinces into debt. What about the provinces? What do they want? More money and more borrowing powers to meet the needs of the municipalities. Look at our cities municipalities, and school boards: they also need money. The problem cannot be solved at the bottom of the pyramid, that is, by the Canadian people, the powerless victims of that financial drama. Our society is sick. The central government is power hungry. It wants to be the unchallenged master of Canada and to achieve that status it will resort to every means at its disposal. On the one hand, it proclaims ministerial decrees from the heights of its authority, foisting this or that law or guideline upon the provinces. On the other hand, like a snake, it worms its way into exclusively provincial jurisdiction, under the pretext of helping, like the thief who distributes his spoils provided he reaps some popularity.
The federal government acts as if the provinces did not have enough intelligent men to manage its affairs and reach agreements among themselves. Just a few years ago, the government even set up a department to return to the provinces some of the funds collected in those same provinces without going through their governments. In years past, it invented the infamous shared-cost programs, of which there were 49 in 1964 and perhaps even more today.
Since the very beginning, Quebec has always asked to opt out of programs within its jurisdiction and to get tax points in return, because all the central government does it to collect taxes on behalf of the provinces and to give them back some of this money. I say some of this money because once, when I asked in the House what percentage was given back to the provinces, I was told that $2 out of every $5 collected was returned to the provinces. We heard quite a different story this afternoon, and I shall return to it later.
Ever since then, I have given my full support to the province of Quebec in the matter of tax patriation because it is really too costly to have the taxes collected by the federal government. More recently, the government created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, supposedly to fight against regional disparity. This objective is good in itself, but what it hides is not so good. I still remember a meeting of the Committee on Regional Economic Expansion when we were asked to vote $500 million just before a general election. The then minister, the hon. Jean Marchand, hurried through the regions handing out millions of dollars, especially to industries with Liberal tendencies, which later went bankrupt or sold out after having pocketed millions of DREE dollars. Most industries that went bankrupt had probably forgotten that the subsidies they were given did not even cover the interest on the loans they required.
However, this was not the important thing for the Liberal party since the political objectives of the election campaign
February 15, 1977

had been attained. It is the same today: You only have to watch the forthcoming by-elections. Just watch the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) at work; he has already proven himself. He will be called upon to visit various constitutencies where he will distribute his generous gifts as in past years and past elections in an attempt to sweeten up the people. Just watch him. The other ministers and not only the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will do this; in the last election, 12 ministers came to my constituency. Just watch them and tell me after the by-elections.
1 hope that the people in Quebec will continue to keep their eyes and ears open. All these subsidies only increase the debt of the public sector, that is the provinces, the cities and the municipalities. When a subsidy is promised, it generally covers only the interests on the loan needed by the parish or the city. We have the proof of this today in our region, in my riding, where the interests-I looked at the budget myself-on the debts resulting from these grants or loan promises, the interests alone represent 50 per cent of the total budget of the cities or municipalities. Is it not hypocrisy to get a municipality into debt and then use it to play politics? How can you hope to pay off the capital at those interest rates? And all this is an attempt to win an impossible political victory, since the more they put into my riding, the more they lost! The only purpose is probably to distract the provinces' attention or take their minds off their problems.
The federal government convenes federal-provincial conferences to impose its will on the provinces. From the early days of the Confederation pact, I always call it "confederative package", we have always found the same themes, the same wrangling over the separation of powers, for ever increasing taxes, more indebtness. Such reports make very tedious and irritating reading because several provinces, and Quebec in particular, are getting fed up with federal dictatorship and with the Trudeau administration and his strong central government.
We are convinced that the only way to restore some hope for unity in Canada is to start giving back the provinces their own jurisdictions and taxation powers commensurate with their obligations prior to all bargaining, full authority on taxation matters should be returned to the provinces. Even though the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) keeps telling the Quebec people to hold the referendum as soon as possible and that he, the Prime Minister, would start writing a new constitution if necessary, whereas the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) threatens to send the army in should Quebec proclaim its independence, preferring such threats and utterances will be to no avail because the Quebec people are no longer nervous. There is only one thing, which can serve any purpose and which incidentally, may be instrumental in bringing Quebec back to the bargaining table that is if the federal government gives back to Quebec the whole balance of taxation rights which it has claiming for a 100 years; let the federal government get out of areas which are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, such as health, education, culture, language
Governmental Debt
and so on; let the central government stop granting loans carrying an 11 per cent interest rate to provinces, which have to pay back fivefold the small amounts which were lent to them.
The Liberals will contend they are doing what they do to help the province of Quebec! The best way to help the people of Quebec at this stage is to be honest for once in a hundred years, and give them back what is rightfully theirs and restore the rights of the provincial government so that it can carry out its responsibilities. In other words, let the thief out of the Quebec family home, and peace will return. The things we are asking for today are not new, Mr. Speaker. Others long before us have done so for the provinces to reduce their debt. Besides, we find that the first province which used direct taxation was British Columbia when they taxed individual income.
Later, the province of Quebec began to tax corporate income. I think the government was not interested then in direct taxation, because it produced almost nothing. They kept for themselves customs fees and other more profitable indirect levies. But as soon as the federal government realized that they could get large sums of money from direct taxation, they decided to get into this field, and for this they always took the opportunity of a war, since they had to find an excuse to invade this area of taxation.
The first time, it was during the war of 1914, when they took hold of a large part of direct taxation, and with the war of 1939, more precisely in 1942, the King administration hypocritically urged the provinces to relinquish all provincial direct taxation fields. The opportunity was excellent, too good to miss, and so Ottawa took over for five years.
Ever since 1867, the provinces keep claiming from the central government either the abandonment of joint programs or the recovery of their rights.
And we have handfuls of newspapers. For example, I have here a newspaper dated January 13, 1964 in which the hon. member Maurice Lamontagne is reported as saying:
Possible abandonment by Ottawa of joint programs.
And a Social Crediter he was not.
Then I quote from a newspaper of 1964:
Quebec plans to withdraw from 7 of the 49 joint programs.
And so it goes. From another Quebec newspaper of 1964, I quote:
Quebec must at any cost recover its fiscal rights.
At next week's federal-provincial conference, the Quebec government will reiterate its request for 100 per cent of the direct taxes collected by Ottawa in this province.
Mr. Speaker, those are the arguments we hear not only from Quebec but from the other provinces wishing to recover their rights. As you can see, all prime ministers, one after the other, pressed for those rights. Is it any wonder then that the new Quebec government does not trust this government any longer? First of all, we have to comply with joint agreements, and bring this government to its senses if we want Canada to survive. We are faced with the worst bureaucratic and financial dictatorship this country has ever known since Confedera-
February 15, 1977

Governmental Debt
tion. We have to restore democracy and ensure absolute self-reliance and respect for provincial jurisdictions, if we want Quebec to resume discussions with federal authorities.
As far as the Bank of Canada is concerned, the minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) surprised everyone of us today by saying he could not monetize the nation's credit because it would be inflationary. But, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine how surprised I was, since I have always thought inflation was due to too high a rate of interest. The cause of inflation is excessive bank interest and discount rates by the Bank of Canada.
And then, the minister tells us that: The Bank cannot make representations to ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time alloted to him is over. He could pursue his speech with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: I thank you very much. I shall take only two or three minutes. I was saying that the Minister of Supply and Services told us that the Bank of Canada cannot make representations to the provinces because it does not want to interfere with their affairs. Here is a reasoning which again took several hon. members by surprise and we wonder why. If we maintain the same reasoning, why does the government of Canada not hold the same position as the Bank of Canada in the best interest of the provinces? In any case the minister's line of thought is simply ridiculous since the provinces are an integral part of the great Canadian economy and the Bank of Canada is precisely supposed to control the money supply in Canada.
Finally the minister tells us that the provinces must be satisfied because the federal government gives them one-fifth of the amounts received. I thought it was two-fifths but it is not; the minister has just told us-and I am pleased about it- that when the federal government receives $5 from the provinces, it gives them back $1.1 expect the provinces will be happy to hear this and Quebecers will keep that in mind in the future.
To those who ask what proportion of federal taxes raised in the province of Quebec goes back to them, the minister himself has just given an answer: one-fifth of taxes raised goes back to the provinces. Don't you think that this government is being overpaid for the job? And the minister has the audacity to say that the provinces should be glad not to have the dirty job of collecting these taxes. Do you realise that the minister is convinced of doing a favour to the people of Quebec when he takes $5 from them and gives them $1 back? And then the federal government does not understand why the province of Quebec is claiming the right to raise its own taxes. No doubt

that with people like the Minister of Supply and Services, Quebec has no chance to enter into negotiations.
Therefore, again before concluding I appeal to all hon. members who are still able to think with some logic in this House so that the provinces stop suffering from the disastrous performance of this centralizing government which has been ruling this country for too long.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-External Affairs-Garrison diversion- Proposed trust fund to pay for alterations-Alternate source of water for Portage la Prairie; the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-National Defence-Request that minister visit Edmonton to explain relocation of airborne regiment; the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger)- Indian Affairs-Possibility of return of money collected from natives through export tax.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That this House notes with distress the prodigious increase in the federal, provincial and municipal debt, which will result in the shattering of our country; and
That this House further regrets the fact that the government has failed to advance any new formula for the financing of the public sector to correct this situation, for instance, an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act allowing it to use the credit of the nation as currency in order to make long-term loans to the federal and provincial governments at an interest rate equivalent to administrative costs rather than the present six-month limit and to relieve the burden imposed on Canadians to repay up to five times the amount of the loans made to the various levels of government by banking institutions under the present system.
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate since it provides one with an opportunity to place on the record some
February 15, 1977

of the gross failures of this government in dealing with the economic concerns and realities of this country, and also to place on the record some of the gross inadequacies in its management of public funds. I think the hon. member who preceded me outlined the philosophy which governs this government. It is guided more by politics than by anything which would resemble sound business principles. Some of the things which have been going on in the province of Quebec in the government's quest to win a few by-elections is probably indicative of the fact that it would do anything for political partisan gain. In many respects this attributes in large part to the problem alluded to in this motion, namely, the abnormal increase in the size of the debt of all levels of government.
I must say at the outset that my first observation is that in terms of size and power, the federal government has to accept the major portion of the blame for the massive debt which has accumulated in this country. There can be no doubt about that. My friends the members of the Social Credit party have proposed a solution and a philosophy which they feel would work toward ameliorating and dealing with that particular problem. I am not going to comment too much on that particular aspect, but I want to talk about the accrual of this significant debt which costs Canadian taxpayers millions and millions of dollars to service year in and year out.
Last year Canada was the top borrower in the international marketplace; it borrowed $9.2 billion. In all, Canada absorbed about 16 per cent of the total funds borrowed on world capital markets. The next largest borrowing nation was Brazil, which borrowed $3.4 billion. The great majority of this increased borrowing abroad represents new issues by Canadian governments and their agencies. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) pointed out, the federal government, in effect, forces the provinces and corporations to enter the foreign market because it literally dries up any loose cash floating around in meeting its operating deficit.
We have to ask ourselves, what causes this need to borrow? Surely, it is not normal spending. Surely, if all governments had embarked upon normal spending practices we certainly would not have accumulated such a deficit. We, as Canadians, are among the highest taxed in the world, and yet our tax dollars are not enough. 1 suppose something could be said about the fact that Canadians are perhaps the most overgoverned people in the world. Because of that, governments have embarked upon poorly planned, extravagant and ineffective spending programs and money has been committed by governments without proper cost-benefit analyses and without having any idea as to the long-term implications with respect to cost or the efficacy of those particular programs.
In this country we have a growing penchant for direct government intervention. Every day we rely more and more upon the government to solve our problems, economic, social or otherwise, and in many respects this is a sad situation for Canadians because there is a tremendous amount of competence and expertise within the private sector and among individuals for dealing with day-to-day needs. For example, in the area of job creation much more could be done within the
Governmental Debt
private sector, given the proper incentives and proper tax policies, to encourage productivity and employment; but this government seems consistently to embark upon direct job creation programs by government means.
We have a situation where industry is over-regulated. We spend money on silly things like metric conversion and televising the proceedings of the House. These are items at which we could take a second look and could cut back our total commitment to the expenditure of funds. In that connection I want to place on the record an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. It was written by a gentleman, Douglas Fullerton, who in the past has been notably sympathetic to the Liberal party. The article is entitled "Dear Pierre", and reads as follows:
Most of your new or expanded programs were concocted by a group of your colleagues, the "liberal" or spending wing, perhaps more appropriately designated as the "drunken sailors". With your support, their schemes were powered through cabinet and caucus, despite the doubts of more cautious ministers and members.
He goes on to say:
Of course, your open-handedness has not been all your fault-you have been egged on by some of the big-time spenders across the parliamentary floor, led by the NDP.
I think that, in a couple of short phrases, really summarizes the mentality of this administration. We do not see any end to this. For example, when we look at the new transportation act we find that here, again, we are going to see a tremendous shift in power to the hands of the Minister of Transport. This might be all right if there were any degree of stability on the government benches, but the game of musical chairs which is being played by the ministers and by the bureaucrats will create a great deal of uncertainty in the transportation field. If it is going to be operated by the whims of politicians and bureaucrats, I do not hold out a great deal of hope for providing good transportation service in this country, nor if there are going to be any more fiascos like the Pickering issue or the $46.5 million loss at Mirabel which we will have to pick up this year, nor if we are going to have the "user pay" concept as it applies for example in the case of the Calgary airport. These expensive concoctions will be billed to the users, namely, passengers on various airlines.
The government has not been a worthy partner in dealing with the problems of inflation and government spending. The problem we have is that when these programs are put into effect they generate bureaucracies. The bureaucracies become irreversible, they grow constantly, and new ways and new schemes for spending money are constantly being devised. As time goes by, in many cases the original purposes of these programs are totally forgotten. The money keeps pouring in. The tilt of our progressive system of taxation is such that the government always manages to pick up tax dollars as a result of increases in salaries and the progression of inflation. We all know how politically difficult it is to abandon programs. Information Canada and the CYC are just two recent examples. Programs are very difficult to withdraw, so I think it is imperative that this House be very reluctant to pass legislation at random and to develop programs readily on an ad hoc basis.

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
I think we should provide a more favourable climate for individuals in the private sector to deal with the day to day issues and problems thrust upon them throughout their lives. Governments are certainly needed, but they should not be the end-all in dealing with the problems we have to face.
It could be summed up in the words of the Auditor General in his last report to parliament-the kind of mentality there is within the bureaucracy-the mentality for creating a greater penetration by the government bureaucracy. At page 6 of the Conspectus the Auditor General said:
A senior official told me recently that, for many years, recognition and rewards have gone to those who devise ingenious new programs, rather than to those charged with the responsibility of restraining and controlling expenditures and ensuring that value is obtained for money spent.
What possible result could have occurred from such a practice other than the wild spending spree we have been on for the past ten years? That statement indicates to me that for public servants there are no rewards for efficiency or economy, but rather for empire building. We know also from the reports of the Auditor General that parliamentary control is being and has been circumvented in the never-ending squeeze for money. This has reached crisis level.
That brings me to the next statement of the Auditor General, who said:
I am deeply concerned that, on the evidence of the two-year examination carried out by the audit office, parliament and, indeed, the government, has lost or is close to losing effective control of the public purse.
This brings into focus parliament's inability to examine, to scrutinize, to challenge government spending in an effective way. I think that is the core of the problem. It is a damning indictment by a qualified man, backed by some 75 professional auditors across the country. The Auditor General pointed out that he chose his words very, very carefully when he made that statement. It is a very serious statement, and I think it is endorsed by R. S. Malone of the Globe and Mail who, on February 24, 1976, had this to say:
For ten years it has been abundantly clear where the government was taking our country. Our politicians during all these years, unfortunately, were more occupied in trying to buy popularity with over-spending-and manufacturing money to pay for it all...
In a ten year period, Ottawa increased its spending by 600 per cent. It could only be paid for with devalued dollars, or legal counterfeiting, and Ottawa has known this all the time.
In summary, that means we are simply financing today's luxuries against the labours of tomorrow.
For the past two or three months there has been a great deal of interest in Crown corporations and their management. These corporations are recipients of vast sums of public money. For example, a question placed on the order paper on October 20 by the hon. member for York-Simcoe shows that in terms of government of Canada advances, loans and investments in Crown corporations, the total is $21 billion. That is taxpayers' money. The problem with Crown corporations is insufficient accountability. In many cases there is essentially no accountability to parliament and the shareholders, that is,

the people of Canada. On that subject the Auditor General has this to say:
In the majority of the Crown corporations, audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control is weak and ineffective. Moreover, co-ordination and guidance by central government agencies of financial management and control practices in these Crown corporations are virtually non-existent.
He went on to say that whatever mechanisms were in place were grossly inadequate. While this is a very, very serious statement, what causes one to chuckle is the fact that the government is unable to provide a committee of this House with a list of the Crown corporations. It sounds unbelievable, but it is true. In testimony before the Public Accounts Committee on February 10, 1977, at pages 14:10 and 14:11, Mr. D. L. Meyers of the Auditor General's office revealed that no one in the government had a list of all Crown corporations. The Auditor General's officer prepared one and found over 30 not listed and apparently not subject to the rules of financial management provided by the Financial Administration Act. That is incredible, yet we have a continuing proliferation of Crown corporations and appendages in this country.


An hon. Member:: Are you surprised?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, I am not surprised, but I am shocked and angry. When we have witnessed the revelations regarding AECF and Polysar we can understand how such problems occur and why we do not even know how many Crown corporations we have. Surely we have to question the competence of the directors and management of Polysar and AECL. Surely the responsibilities charged to them have largely been ignored. Enormous payments have been made to unknown people. There has been circumvention of foreign laws, and the government has simply failed to act or has acquiesced.
It is clear that the government has used Crown corporations as a vehicle for government departments to evade and circumvent parliamentary control. They become nothing more than reward centres for the heelers and bagmen. They have become tantamount to the Senate.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but my time is running short. I will conclude by saying the government is now syphoning off 41 per cent or 42 per cent of the gross national product. The federal share has grown rapidly, while municipal governments have been squeezed by both senior levels of government. Federal spending rose by 14 per cent this year, and will rise by 11 per cent or 12 per cent next year. The year before that it was some 18 per cent. I do not find this consistent with the empty promise of keeping government's expenditure in line with the growth in gross national product. Talk of cutbacks and restraint is comical when we know that we will see three or four sets of supplementary estimates.
We must ask if there is a solution and if we will ever be able to deal with the issue referred to in this motion. It seems to me we have to consider seriously the growth, power and size of the bureaucracy. We have to address ourselves to this problem of mismanagement in Crown corporations in which is involved a large amount of taxpayers' dollars. We have to consider
February 15, 1977

seriously a better vehicle for planning and evaluating our programs, and the impact of further centralization. Above all, we must ensure that parliamentary authority is restored.
To achieve some of these goals the first thing we must do is honour the recommendation of the Auditor General and appoint a Comptroller General. On this the Auditor General had the following to say:
... will lay the essential foundation of a soundly conceived program for restoring effective control over public funds and assets, and for ensuring probity, prudence and economy in their management.
Second, the increasing trend toward centralization of government must stop. Local governments can, if permitted breathing room, do an effective and efficient job of providing service to Canadians. In a country as vast and diverse as Canada, local governments can provide a much broader form of government service.
Third, and in conclusion, it is important for the government to consider seriously the establishment of an effective program review agency, an agency which would be responsible for the independent evaluation of all programs involving government spending. I suggest that such programs ought to be examined by an independent-I stress independent-source early in their lives, probably in the second year of operation. Established programs should be subject to ongoing evaluations as to efficacy and cost. I suggest thorough cost-benefit analyses should be performed, to ensure that the Canadian public is getting its money's worth for every dollar spent.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for introducing the motion under consideration which is of the utmost importance when one considers Canada's financial situation at this time.
On many occasions, the Creditistes presented the same subject for discussion in the House because it is not only of vital importance to them but also to the economy in general, in particular when one considers the financial situation of various public agencies and I cannot mention many of them today because time is running out.
At the moment I have in mind the financial problems faced by some municipalities in my riding and in some neighbouring towns. Last week, in my riding the whole city council resigned because of a serious financial situation. The problem is now left with the provincial government. More than 46 per cent of this municipality's budget goes to pay the interest on the municipal debt.
More than 58 per cent of the budget of St. Hubert, a town near Montreal, goes to pay the interest on the public debt. 1 could carry on, Mr. Speaker and give you a list of nearly all the municipal governments in Quebec in a difficult financial position.
Before going any further, I would like to say a few words about the new Quebec government as it faces the municipal
Governmental Debt
problem. One does not know yet the solution they will propose, but at least they said the day following the elections or a few days later that they would grant municipalities and towns discretionary subsidies. The government used to decide which towns were to receive a subsidy, which should not, thereby creating discrimination among various municipal governments which led to a situation where these last ten years, some municipal governments were in highly abnormal position compared to others. For instance municipalities with 15,000 people would receive $100,000 from the provincial government whereas others with 50,000 or 60,000 people did not receive anything due to the discretionary policy of the Liberal government in Quebec. Therefore, I am looking forward to see at the provincial and at the federal levels, taxation and monetary policies whereby municipal governments, towns and school boards would know where they are going and which sort of support they can count on for the next two, five or ten years. Under the present system, all the municipal governments in Quebec are completely in the dark which explains why many of our councillors are now hitting the roof in front of the financial situation which confronts them.
Mr. Speaker, the motion under consideration today proposes a monetary reform. We are asking the government to issue new funds through the Bank of Canada and to stop private interests and intermediaries, namely banking institutions from creating public funds.

Finance public enterprise with public funds (that is, with new money created by the government, through the Bank of Canada, and issued as interest-free loans for such projects); Finance private enterprise with private funds (that is, with the savings of the people).
... we now have a dual-economy, consisting of both public enterprise, and .. . the two should be Financed on different bases .. .
The government's incredibly stupid and utterly needless practice of borrowing Canadian money, at interest, means that the taxpayers are saddled with the burden of paying about $5 billion in interest, each year, for which they receive virtually nothing whatever in return. This payment of huge amounts of unearned interest, which represents no corresponding new production, is a major cause of the present inflation and is largely responsible for our excessive taxes.
The government's practice of Financing public projects with private funds (that is, with money borrowed, at interest, from private moneylenders) is doubly inflationary. Not only does it cause an excessive increase in the amount of money in circulation but, at the same time, it also tends to very greatly decrease production. When the people are urged to buy interest-bearing government bonds, the government is saying to them, in effect: 0Why bother to invest your money in private productive enterprise? Lend it to us instead and we will guarantee you a high rate of interest on it, with no work and no risk whatever on your part. The real producers will be taxed to pay you this unearned interest.' How much longer shall the private moneylenders be allowed to thus sabotage our system of encouraging and rewarding initiative in private enterprise?
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars are now being invested in the public sector. Those billions of dollars come from the savings of Canadians and are created with a stroke of a pen by the savings bonds of the federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as school boards. The billions of dollars invested in building roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are unproductive. The financing formula we advocate for the public sector will have the effect of releasing those billions of unproductive dollars so they may be invested in the private

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
sector. We believe that profit is a legitimate goal and that savings invested in businesses are entitled to a return and would find there a terrific opportunity of serving the common good by helping the country progress.
The savings released from the public sector could be invested in residential construction which would provide an opportunity for profitable investments and serve highly social purposes. The savings diverted from the public to the private sector would also provide businesses with an abundant source of capital. Canadian businesses would less and less have to turn to foreign investors and foreign banks to sell bonds and shares to provide for their financing. This way, Canadians could finance the economic development of their own country.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather easy to understand that private profit-making businesses must pay interest-and that is normal. On the other hand, public businesses such as the federal and provincial governments, municipalities and school boards which are non profit-making organizations designed to provide the community with services should have to pay interest. That is why we in the Social Credit Party of Canada advocate an economy where public capital would be financed with public capital and private enterprise should be financed with private capital. The savers, those who convert their money, their savings in savings bonds could convert them in company shares that could be guaranteed by the government of Canada and the provinces to prevent private businesses from being faced with the problem of financing their businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough time to quote all relevant figures, but those interests stand out as the cause of those huge umpayable debts and taxes stiffling all sectors of our economy. I do not intend to refer to the figures of economists quoted this afternoon by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), some economists who are paid to advocate the present system. I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to the Reader's Digest of Januray, 1977 which also has economists and takes a more realistic view of things. I quote:

Quiz on Taxes and Government Spending Total taxes paid by the average Canadian family, including direct and indirect taxation imposed by all levels of government, increased by 85 per cent between 1969 and 1975 because government spending at all levels has soared.

Mr. Speaker, between 1969 and 1975 taxes increased by 85 per cent, more than 14 per cent a year; this means that in seven years taxes will have gone up 100 per cent in Canada. [English]
Moreover, governments spend much more than they take from us in taxes.
[ Translation]
The government is spending more money than it is getting through taxation.

In this way they have contributed to the inflation that depletes the value of every dollar we earn ...

The national debt-the amount Ottawa must borrow to make up what it has spent beyond income, is soaring past $25 billion.
[ Translation]
I am still quoting from the Januray 1977 issue of the Reader's Digest:

In ten years, the budget has skyrocketed 350 per cent from $8.8 billion to a forecast $39 billion in this fiscal year (April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977).
Total government spending per person was $2,900 in 1975. But the governments took in only $2,700 per person. Thus they have proceeded to spend an additional inflationary $200 on each of us! And government spending has increased over 100 per cent per person since 1970 . ..
The national debt of the federal government will be around $28 billion at the end of the fiscal year, the result of budget deficits in 20 out of the last 23 years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that during the last 23 years we had 20 budget deficits yet neither the Progressive Conservatives nor the Liberals have changed their policy on this point for both have produced budget deficits.

All these answers are correct.
Mir. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see a quorum here, and I have not seen one for the last half hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am not trying to delay the proceedings. The hon. member has brought to the attention of the Chair the lack of a quorum. It states here that I am asked to consult. I do not know whether it means to consult hon. members to see what they have to say on this. I think the proper thing to say would be to ask the Clerks for guidance on this. It states in the rules that the names of those present-


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would seek your guidance in dealing with the situation which apparently some members of the House have drawn to your attention. Your Honour referred to the rules. Would you be good enough to mention the rule to which you are referring? I might then be able to refer to that and make some comments with respect to it.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock. [English]


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I see the problem that Your Honour and all parties are having. I am therefore prepared to withdraw the point of order. However, when we return this evening all parties should at least have the courtesy to show some respect for the motion of the Social Credit party and be present to listen to the debate. I withdraw my point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think the hon. member's point will be well taken. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.



*

February 15, 1977



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock, I was reading from an article published in the Reader's Digest of January 1, 1977 dealing with Canada's financial situation and related to the motion moved today by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I was referring to paragraph 5 of this article. [English]
The interest on the national debt, which was already $1.2 billion in 1967 will be around $4.6 billion at the end of this fiscal year, making it the third largest federal expenditure after health and welfare and economic development and support. Last year, the government guaranteed $15.5 billion in loans and advances to Crown corporations, of which about $7 billion went to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The government also guarantees loans made by charter banks to certain groups, including the wheat board, farmers, fishermen and students.
Federal spending has grown faster in the past ten years than the private economy which supports it. While GNP tripled, federal spending increased from $10 billion in 1967 to roughly $41 billion this Fiscal year. Some $12.4 billion was spent on social welfare programs during the last Fiscal year. Defence expenditures, however, amounted to only $2.6 billion while government outlays on activities associated with Canada's natural resources and primary industry amounted to $3.2 billion. Under the government's bilingualism program, expenditures reached $121 million.
From each dollar of national income, federal, provincial and municipal tax collectors take 42 cents of which 22 cents goes to Ottawa. Tax revenues have been rising consistently since the mid-1950's. If public spending continues on its present course it will not be long before the government takes more than 50 cents from each dollar in taxes.
Government at all levels employs 1.8 million people, teachers and armed forces included. That is one out of every five in the labour force. It is the largest employer in the country, spending over $10 billion on salaries and wages. Federal employees, excluding the armed forces, were paid about $5 billion in 1975, roughly triple the $1.7 billion they were earning in 1965. Between 1965 and 1975, the consumer price index rose 72 per cent. At that rate, a dollar saved today will be worth only six cents 50 years from now.

Mr. Speaker, this is a shocking figure considering that the increase in the cost of living in the last 10 years was 72 percent. Taking into account, as the Minister of Supply and services (Mr. Goyer) said this afternoon, the fact that our national product amounts to approximately $175 billion and then what the Reader's Digest has to say, it means that inflation apart, our $175 billion gross national product for 1976 will come up to about $55 billion in constant dollars of 1965.
It means that our national production in constant or current dollars has hardly increased during the last ten years. We could say that the national production amounts to about $175 billion, but if we consider the cost of living we can say that the production did not progress during the last decade. However, in 1867, when our Confederation came into being, the national debt in Canada was $93,046,051; in 1900, our debt reached $346 million and fifty years after Confederation, our debt hit $3 billion, totalling ten years later, in 1943, $9,228 billion; in 1955, it was at $17,952 million and in 1967, public expenses, of all government levels amounted to $21.8 million to rise up
Governmental Debt
to $55 million in 1974, an average increase of 14 per cent a year; that constitutes 32.9 per cent of our gross national product in 1967 and 39.1 per cent in 1974.
Mr. Speaker, that tremendous increase certainly indicates the continuing trend of governments appropriating a larger part of economic profits in this country.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, hardly 100 years after Confederation, the federal debt in Canada had soared by almost 60,000 per cent. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian population increased sixfold since Confederation, but over the same time the public debt went up by almost 600 fold. So every day Canadians have to shell out almost $10 million in taxes merely to pay interest on the national debt.
How many bridges, hospitals, public schools, utilities will not be built for Canadians because of that $10 million a day? Ten million a day to help investors getting richer while Canadian taxpayers are waiting for services which they are entitled to and for which they paid taxes. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the governments which let the public debt spiral out of control are responsible for that shameful waste, that is $10 million a day spent public debt service. That money should be used to meet the needs of Canadians, not to enrich financiers.
Mr. Speaker, several years ago, more specifically in May 1934, before the Bank of Canada was established under Bill C-19, when the Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce was discussing the possible establishment of such a bank, there was in the British Columbia legislature a Liberal member who was to become a member of this House in 1935, and later a senator. Referring back to pages 500 to 800 of that committee's proceedings, we find that the Liberal member's suggestions to the committee are still extremely significant and relevant in 1976-77. I am referring to the Hon. G. G. McGeer, a Vancouver lawyer, MLA for Vancouver Burrard, who appeared on May 1, 1934. I would like to quote him from page 503, since his evidence is quite relevant to the motion now before us:
Under our system, there is no reason why mercantile banks should not keep doing what they have been doing until now, that is serving private interests. But when it comes to allowing a private banker to lay his hands on public credit and manage it to his own benefit as a monopoly, it is time all public leaders got involved, because under the present system, we are leasing the nation's public credit to a group of Financiers who manage it with two goals in mind, first to serve the monopoly's private interests, and then to maintain the consumers' purchasing power and support the taxpayers' ability to pay. But unfortunately the latter aim has been sorely neglected. So much so in fact that across the Dominion ...
. . . that was during the depression . . .
... municipal, provincial and national bankruptcy is widespread, the social system is in complete chaos.
I could go on quoting page after page of this extremely interesting evidence. On page 54 of the book Let's Talk Money and Banking, Arthur I. Judge, editor of the Baltimore Canning Trade, said the following:
For over a century, the management of the monetary system has been entrusted to bankers and finance specialists, in blind faith and absolute confidence.

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
Necessity now forces us to do away with bankers' management, and let governments manage public funds and control and direct the monetary system.
By giving these privileges back to the government, democracy will take over from the oligarchic power that bankers now have on government and trade.
Thanks to these changes, the elected representatives of the people will become the masters of the "economic arteries" of the nation, and it will be possible to maintain a responsible government on democratic principles.
No one has the right to say that the establishment of such a democracy cannot and will not lead to progress and prosperity as long as governments are not given a chance as were bankers, to control the monetary system.
The government should now take power away from bankers or the mismanaging of public funds will destroy the government and bring the civilization that generated it to an end.
The right hon. Prime Minister said is this House that provincial governments had only to ask for financial reforms, but I must remind him that, on the 20th of March 1934, as can be read in the minutes, under the title Money, Credit and Unemployment, the British Columbia parliament adopted the following resolution:
Whereas the monetary value of the exchange of goods and services inside the Dominion of Canada has fallen from more than $46,000,000,000 in 1929 to less than $30,000,000,000 in 1933; and
Whereas this decline in domestic trade has been followed by a disastrous increase in unemployment in Canada;
Whereas, pursuant to the constitution, the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over the creation, issuance and circulation of purchasing power in the form of money and credit belonging to the people of this province-
It is therefore resolved that in the opinion of this Assembly, the state should set up a national banking system to distribute national, provincial and municipal credit to keep in circulation a sufficient amount of purchasing power in dollars and cents and that the national, provincial and municipal credit should be used to alleviate the present burden of taxation and unemployment as well as to help restore and maintain Canada's prosperity.
It is also resolved that this Assembly declare itself in favour of a determined plan ...
And not decided upon blindly, in an ad hoc context, on a day-to-day basis ...
... of effective co-operation between national, provincial, municipal authorities ...
That is what we are asking for.
... and the proposed banking system, to use public credit, monetized in the form of purchasing power, to implement an important program of public works designed to help the country and provide an income to its people, and to use as well the public credit thus monetized for expenditures required for the good administration of this country, its provinces and municipalities, school boards as well as social services which are vital to maintain education, health, peace, satisfaction, and freedom of all citizens of Canada with a minimum of expenses to taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, before the Bank of Canada Act was passed in 1935, G. G. McGeer, a Liberal member, had warned this House and said: "Let us not make the same mistake as ancient Rome which brought about its ruin by entrusting bankers and financiers with public credit, and let us not provoke at home the same disasters which happened in Rome by surrendering national revenues to the public sector and allowing the latter to make overly big profits in taxes levied in the wealth of other vicious systems."
Mr. Speaker, it means that when the government collects high taxes today, it is to pay back mainly interests on the public debt. As I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to refer to what G. G. McGeer said in 1934, and it is still relevant in 1977 since at present we have entrusted private institutions, which are called banks, with the administration or control of our currency, our credit, which represents 94 per cent of the money supply in Canada.
The Creditistes want the banks to carry on their financial transactions but not to manufacture money. The Bank of Canada which was established in 1935 has only been a "cover-up" for the chartered banks which today operate within the Bank of Canada because the federal government does not discharge its responsibilities and does not manage the finances of the country on its own. The federal government by issuing federal bonds, gives the banks the power to monetize the credit of the nation to let the country in debt and to make us pay now 50c for each dollar that is paid in taxes to the government of Canada, for the repayment of the interest on our provincial, municipal, federal and school board debts.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss in the House today in the presence of all our colleagues, a subject as important as this, namely the Bank of Canada. We, French-Canadians have a reputation to speak often about culture and language but rather seldom on financial matters. And yet owing to some of our French-Canadians colleagues opposite, we have the opportunity to-day to consider an important subject and I am convinced that this congenial and friendly discussion will make our colleagues, the other members of the House of Commons, realize that we are all concerned about financial problems.
Above partisanship, Mr. Speaker, it remains however that the basic matters of concern in our modern society are financial matters and even though the concern we share is the same in principle it does not always meet in certain areas because we often deal with it in different ways. And from this confrontation of ideas and solutions we have a richer society. If I consider the preamble or what is in fact the substance of the motion of today I read the following and I quote:
This House notes with distress the prodigious increase in the federal, provincial and municipal debt, which will result in the shattering of our country . ..
However incredible as it may seem, I share most of the concern of my colleagues opposite. I can see that our citizens are concerned with an increase in the debt of governments rather than with individual solutions to solve these problems.
Mr. Speaker, I think I voice the concern of all my colleagues when I support government commitments at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal, in respect of the social duty we must perform towards all individuals, and particularly toward the underprivileged. But I am not the only one who finds that the first concern of those known as our leaders is not to assume their responsibilities but to pass them on to the government level, and no doubt I am not the only one who deplores that the self-styled leaders of society at every level have become afraid of responsibilities, those who believe that governments are there to meet every demand submitted to them.
February 15, 1977

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Canadian society has tremendous advantages that I do not intend to appraise or stress, but I find that even the present society experiences exceptional difficulties, because its members are inclined not to assume the responsibilities that are theirs. If governments at all levels are so excessively in debt, that comes from the weakness of governments because they say yes to all requests put before them. That is because of the poor sense of responsibility of our leaders at all levels who, with a view to getting their responsibilities off their hands, apply to governments as if they were wonder governments, able to give at any time, under any circumstances, a favourable answer to everyone asking for money.
Mr. Speaker, as a French-speaking Canadian, as a full member of this House, I am glad to be able to demonstrate tonight with my colleagues opposite that the problems our government is facing will be resolved under the condition that our colleagues opposite collaborate with us to find solutions. When I ask this to my colleagues opposite, I know that they are aware that our governments need some participation, some collaboration from every member without any party considerations, because what is important is not to win acceptance for one's own political idea, but first of all to win acceptance for this idea of one Canada of which the flag is a concrete example, the flag beside our distinguished Speaker who does his utmost to give to every member of this House the rights to which they are entitled.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is becoming important to realize that the problems we face are not unsolvable. Sometimes we tend to exaggerate situations and it is sometimes normal, in all fields, in order to give a faithful image of a situation, to caricature it.


An hon. Member:: That's the same as the Creditistes?


Gilles Marceau: No, it is not the same! What I mean is that in our society, there is a tendency to picture problems as though they were tragic. I suggest it is a better way to explain, and above all to say things. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am particularly happy to take part in this debate, not in the hope of bringing revolutionary solutions, original solutions that will solve all our problems, but I feel that what inspires all those who bring their contribution to this debate, their first concern, is to help Canadians, and particularly those who are least privileged.
We, who are here, cannot say we are underprivileged. I think we all enjoy a fairly high standard of living, that we all enjoy socio-economic advantages that are admittedly above average. But I do think it is our concern, our duty, our responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. And when I hear my colleagues across the way express their concern by suggesting solutions that may not be new, but have some value, in an effort to solve the problems, I feel that we cannot shrug off people who, like us, are trying to find solutions.
This evening, as I read the motion before the House, I see it is expressed in extremely restrained terms. When, for instance, one reads this, and I quote:
Governmental Debt
That this House further regrets the fact that the government has failed to advance any new formula for financing the public sector to correct this situation...
I am almost willing to conclude that the warning sounded by our colleagues is of value because, considering the problems facing us, we have to conclude that we have failed to find a real solution. Let us be honest about the situation. We should not dismiss any solution offering some possibility of helping those who are less well-off than we are. To my mind, the debate until now has maintained a desirable level, which allows us to conclude that we are not here to try to destroy by the use of words that exceed our thoughts, words that win acceptance for political ideas or that pave the way for an eventual election.
We are given here the opportunity to note together, in a fraternal and friendly atmosphere, that Canada, an extremely rich country is nevertheless beset with problems which we have not been able to solve. I think that this debate will have .fulfilled its objective if it brings home the realization that we will have to work together if we want to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, those who know me are aware of the fact that I am not the most knowledgeable person in financial or monetary matters but then it is impossible to be knowledgeable in everything in life. I do not think that all hon. members in the House who speak on behalf of the Canadian people can claim to be in a position to find solutions to each problem and to be well informed in every field. There is, however, one fact which seems to me to be most essential and most important. Members from all provinces, except one where we are not represented-and it is unfortunate since every province should be-should come together and realize that we are all Canadians sharing a common goal and prepared to work and accept solutions whether they come from the opposite side or this side, which could help the underprivileged.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion we have to debate tonight, on this opposition day, provides an opportunity for those who want to go beyond the boundaries of political parties, and work for Canadians, to do so provided that they set aside their partiality and radicalism and tonight, I am prepared in a spirit of friendship and fraternity, to accept my friends on the opposite side who endeavoured to present a resolution and had the courage to state their points of view before the House.
I think the time has come for us Canadians of French expression to bring our other colleagues to the realization that not only do we have the right to express our own views but also the opportunity to form with them a united front against problems and henceforth, I am offering my cooperation to my colleagues on the opposite side. I assure them that I have listened carefully to their remarks and hope that we will be able to work together and, above all help people who expect to get from us the assistance to which they are entitled and that they won't be disappointed in the future.
3080

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
[DOT]	(2030)


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of interest that I take part in this debate today. I think it is most timely that this motion has been brought forward by our hon. friends in the Social Credit party.
I would like to read the first part of the motion which is as follows:
That this House notes with distress the prodigious increase in the federal, provincial and municipal debt, which will result in the shattering of our country...
There are a great many respected people who are seriously considering our economic position with regard to debt. Perhaps there have been times when the economic well-being of Canadians has been more endangered-for example, in the great depression of the thirties-but that was a long time ago, and we apply different standards now.
It can be said that people's expectations are the result of the economic times in which they live. At one time the economy was much more rural than our present economy, and people could almost have lived, albeit poorly, in a cashless society. To a considerable degree they found the basic necessities of food, shelter and clothing within the rural framework. Elowever, more people now live in cities, and generations of them have no understanding of how food is grown. All they know is that it is found on grocery shelves. Some think that milk comes from factories and that housing is automatically provided by the state.
During the past 25 years-at least up until 1974-the western world had one of its most productive and tranquil periods. I read in a newspaper article some time ago that the first quarter of this century was, by and large, a reasonably good one; the second quarter was awful with depressions and wars; and the third a most tranquil and prosperous period. However, it looks as if the last quarter of this century will be more unpredictable and much more stormy.
Canada is fortunate because it has a large amount of natural resources. It is particularly fortunate to have a national oil policy. When the price of Arab oil quadrupled in 1973- and oil is very important to our economy-we were not dealt the knockout blow which the economies of western Europe and the developing countries suffered.
[DOT]	(2040)
When one surveys the financial situation of this country and of its neighbours around it, it is cause for a great deal of serious thinking. Canada, being one of the most endowed nations of the world, is really turning up in much the same way as many of the Third World countries are in handling its business and handling its household affairs. I think it cannot be said better than in the December 17, 1976, issue of the Montreal Gazette, in which a columnist likened Canada to the improvident character, Mr. Micawber in a Charles Dickens story, who was always up to his ears in debt, always pursued by bailiffs, always hoping that something would turn up. Mr. 
Micawber was able to define his situation in precise terms: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six; result, misery." However, for Canada, he would have said: "Annual income $46 billion, annual expenditure $51 billion; result, misery." And if we do not feel the misery yet, it is because Canada is still able to borrow the $5 billion to make up the difference and, of course, we have the fact that this nation has the Quebec situation with which to deal.
The government has been paralyzed since November 15 and really does not know where it is going, because of the awesome political fact that there is in Quebec a prime minister dedicated to taking that province out of Confederation. But, to get back to our balance of payments in the foreign sphere, unless these improve we will have to take a sharp drop in our living standards to find the funds to pay the principal and interest on the money being borrowed abroad. And all of us in this House watched with a great deal of interest when Mr. Levesque was speaking to the bankers in New York where he was definitely making a pitch for continued financial support. The general comment was, "He will get his money but it will cost him two or three extra points."
The foreign debt owed by Canadians is a matter of great concern. For 1976 the Canadian merchandise trade showed a surplus of $620 million, which is considerably better than we have been able to do at any time in the past two and a half years. I believe, in fact, that it was something more than this as the figures were reported by Statistics Canada. But in Canada in the third quarter of last year, which was our best quarter for the year, we were still $700 million short for that three months. In other words, we still had to borrow to pay our way. And it does not do any good to remember that for all those people who take the sun in the far south, it is indicated that our balance in tourist trade this year will be nearly a billion dollars in the red. That is something for those who think about their suntans.
An analysis of the situation made by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce indicates that Canada will have a surplus of about $1.2 billion on merchandise trade this year, but a deficit of about $5.8 billion on non-merchandise transactions. Mostly the money we must pay is principal, interest and dividends on capital previously imported, so we will end up having to borrow more than $4 billion just to balance our accounts with other countries. For 1977 the bank forecasts that things would be even worse. One of the ominous aspects of our Micawber style of handling international deficits is the way that our non-merchandise deficit is growing. Here is the picture: 1973, $3 billion; 1974, $3.8 billion; 1975, $4.7 billion; 1976, $5.8 billion, and for 1977 a forecast of $6.6 billion. Even if our balance on the merchandise side improves, we are still far behind. The deficit has more than doubled in the past four years and is still rising fast.
I mentioned previously about the deficit incurred by Canadians travelling abroad, but in fact we are borrowing heavily just to meet our current bills, and every jump in the amount we owe outside the country means a jump in the
February 15, 1977

amount we must pay in interest the next year. One effect of this borrowing and accumulating of debt abroad is to be found in the decision of the government to impose quotas on textiles. The necessity to impose quotas is the direct result of borrowing abroad, keeping the Canadian dollar at an over inflated level and hence facilitating the entrance into this country of textiles, laying off our own workers in an industry that is vulnerable. Quotas seem like an easy and logical solution, but import restrictions tend to force up consumer prices and these prices are passed off as a benefit to the textile workers, paid for by consumers.
In the long run the textile workers suffer too because the Canadian's general cost of living is his cost of living too. And protection hurts the workers because it hurts customers not only in terms of price but in terms of jobs. Trade barriers are conceived as an attempt to exploit unemployment, that is, if somebody has to be out of work let it be a textile worker in Hong Kong or the United States, but not in Canada. But in a country as dependent on international trade as Canada it is self-defeating, so that the unemployed worker in the foreign country is not now able to buy Canadian production. Production really strengthens the beggar-my-neighbour forces in every country. It persuades others to try this game of increasing exports while shutting out imports. That is what happened in the great depression of the thirties, to a large extent.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is in our relations with the Third World that we have followed them in many instances. After the election of 1972 the government, to regain its popularity, decided that the money supply should be stimulated along with a vast new array of programs. Government spending at all levels grew at the rate of 16 per cent to 20 per cent, in spite of the fact that the so-called tax reform bill gave the government coffers a huge tax increase. Canada had developed unprecedented public sector deficits for 1974-75, while the money supply grew by 120 per cent over the five years ending in 1975. It is no wonder that a phenomenal wage inflation developed. Tremendous programs were created by grandiose and extravagant public works schemes somewhat like the Kubitschek of Brazil in the 1950's.
In fact the competitive position of Canadian corporations decreased as interest rates rose. Borrowing abroad occurred at a rate of $5 billion to $6 billion a year, which was to cover the balance of payments deficit. The government moved with its controls, but this fact only covers the basic weaknesses in our financial situation, so we have in Canada the basic ingredients of a severe financial disaster-an over-valued currency sustained by continuous recourse on a vast scale to foreign credit.
I think it is significant that three or four years ago the United States was considered to be in trouble when it had a foreign trade deficit of something like $2 billion or $3 billion. We have huge budget deficits and balance of payment deficits, a largely uncontrollable public sector, a sharply declining competitive position in manufacturing, and a persistent shift of employment to unproductive and under-productive areas away from the producing areas.
Governmental Debt
And then there was the Quebec election of November 15- the election of a very able prime minister of Quebec. We all know what his aims are. We all like to believe that the election of the Parti Quebecois was due to people turning against an inefficient government. Mr. Bourassa himself, writing in Le Monde, has said that he regarded the province of Quebec as part of the Canadian common market. Deep-seated structural and political strains are showing in Canada.
Canada is obviously not the only country in trouble. Britain, Italy and Mexico are also in a position worse than in Canada. But they have not nearly the capabilities of production in their economies that Canada has. Canada's foreign debt is about $28 billion; the United Kingdom and Italy's debts are $25 billion and $22 billion. Then there are the non-oil producing poor countries at $170 billion, with some already in default and many more that have been quietly rescheduling their debts. The Communist bloc is rumoured to be in debt to the west for $40 billion, with North Korea reporting a default of $2.1 billion. The president of North Korea has indicated that he sees no reason why this money should be paid. This year there might not be enough money left in the international economy to finance all these debts, since the International Monetary Fund will be cleaned out to take care of the United Kingdom and Mexican loans.
The world economy, Mr. Speaker, seems to be in the terminal phase of a supercycle; and, just as a person or firm, on becoming overly-burdened with debt and reaching an excessively illiquid position finds it difficult to function, so does an economy in similar circumstances find it difficult to function. These supercycles to which I referred seem very likely to create severe disruptions in the world. There could be widespread rejection of debt payments, and economic troubles, inflationary as well as deflationary, could well come to the fore.
The government could do several things. For example, it could end controls. Even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has talked about the flight from investment in the Canadian economy. Our corporations are uncertain about the investment decisions they should take. The Foreign Investment Review Board, while perhaps not a toothless tiger, has certainly given the impression abroad that Canada does not want foreign investment. This gives economic nationalists, who preach that we should borrow and not invite foreign investment, something to think about. Obviously interest on borrowed money must be paid, no matter what the level of the economy may be, whereas foreign money coming in as equity money must take its lumps. Obviously dividends paid to those outside the country will be reduced if a corporation is not making money.
Although our economic position is serious, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the people of Canada must address themselves to the question of national unity. The Prime Minister will have his chance to do so when he addresses the Congress of the United States in one week. He has said that he
8OOO8-57V2

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
does not plan in his address to reply to Mr. Levesque's speech made to the Economic Club of New York a few weeks ago. The prospect of talking about the many issues affecting our two nations may be a most appealing one for the Prime Minister. Subjects which could be raised include the effect of oil and gas sales, the proposed pipeline, the new American tax on conventions held in Canada, and the CRTCs bickering as to whether we should delete certain U.S. programs from Canadian television. However, the U.S. Congress is made up of people from all walks of life, just as this House is. They will want to know about those things which worry them, those things about which their constituents at home are worried. No doubt they are wondering what is to happen to Canada politically.
Since November 15 the government has shown no indication that it knows where it is going. It has initiated no new stances for dealing with the problems of Quebec. The Prime Minister said that he was willing to live with an 1867 constitution, but would change it if the provinces want more flexibility. He did not spell out what he means by "flexibility." As a result, we are left in the dark. Probably the Prime Minister himself did not know. Nevertheless, when the Prime Minister addresses the Congress of the United States he will have to answer Mr. Levesque and announce his plans for keeping this country together. Will he give Congress the details of what he has in mind, or will he merely leave the impression that Quebec independence may be inevitable?
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on this motion. After examining its contents, I realize that this is an appropriate time to discuss certain matters. With this country, the provinces and the municipalities going deeper into debt without much chance of coming out of it under our present system, I believe it is worthwhile at some point for the representatives of the Canadian people to try and find a solution to that problem.
I was listening earlier to the previous speakers and I was pleased to note that those I heard seem to be much more open than in the past to new ideas, suggestions, more willing to consider suggestions on an eventual monetary reform.
It is obvious that we cannot think of keeping on running things under a system based on increasing indebtedness. Indeed, none of us Canadians manage our business, our budgets, as the government does. There are laws, regulations which compel a person going into debt to pay his debts at a certain point-and that is normal-that is our way of doing things. I find that normal. You must try not to go deeper into debt than you can afford. The government, that should be showing the way through its example to the people of this country, is running into debt in a disorderly fashion. They are forced to admit that they are no longer even thinking about paying back our national debt. All they can do is to try and find the means to pay the interest on the debt. But that is nonsense. If any individual in Canada could not manage after a while to pay the interest on his debts, what would happen to him? That is what this country is doing.

As representatives elected to the Canadian House of Commons, we are not seriously considering a way out. My hon. colleague, earlier, acknowledged what I have heard hundreds of times, that we are privileged to be living in a rich country. The more learned would add: Immensely rich! How is it that there are so many thousands of Canadians who are poor? That is sheer nonsense. Members of this House are sometimes surprised, or pretend to be, that the Creditistes should so often talk about money, about monetary reform but that is the source of our concern. Ask anyone, at about any time, whether during the day he does not think more often about money than about God, his Creator! Ask him that question and see how he does answer. In fact, you do not even have to ask anyone that question, address it to yourself and you will see that in the course of a day, you think more often about money than about your Creator.
And unfortunately, when the time comes to bring in the reform in this field, the representatives elected by the people to give Canada a sound administration seem to be looking for an army of economists. Governments have officials called jugglers, who are well paid to juggle with figures and to try and find a way out of the present system. They fail to come up with anything. Why? Because, as we see it and as we suggest, they are not looking in the right places. It is common knowledge that all that is decided and controlled-you will all agree- many great social reforms, many fine programs to improve the general conditions of our Canadian society, are not carried out for lack of money.
There was the Local Initiative Program. Today, we have the Canada Works and the Young Canada Works programs. Government employees have laboured at finding these formulas which should help fight unemployment. But again, the minister, probably with the best of intent, tells us that these grants will be given out by constituency and we know from the start that the sums allowed to each constituency will not be high enough to carry out many of the projects already planned because of an early publicity. Surely, the government has encouraged people to prepare projects. Well, they have prepared them and we will once more be dealing with these new programs, with a host of fine and practical projects, which are feasible because we have the manpower and the materials required but which will not be accepted because they will run out of funds.
There is the problem again. That is why I was glad tonight to hear hon. members say how good it is for this House to take time to study the proposals made either by Creditistes or by members of other parties, provided they are made in all sincerity-and 1 do not think that members of the opposition have any doubt about it-for the purpose of bringing about better conditions in Canada. And then, that was the main purpose of the motion; we referred to public and private capital, to the debt incurred because interest rates have increased fourfold, and this is altogether too notorious, since everyone knows that when a municipality has to borrow in order to build a mile of sidewalks, why should this municipali-
February 15, 1977

ty be required to pay the costs for three or three and a half miles?
If we were certain that under that system, we would pay for one mile of sidewalk, we would use it and the money would be repaid. But to get a single mile of sidewalk, we have to pay for three and a half miles; two and a half miles for the financing costs and one mile for the municipality. This makes no sense and this is why we try to make suggestions.
I have also prepared something that I would like to note in passing. In our modern world, we all realize the difference between private and public capital. It is important for people to try to understand that. It is easy to understand that money which belongs to someone is private capital. Income from work, from the operation of a business or from some type of commercial activity is private capital.
When this capital is put into a bank and lent to someone else, it is supposed to bear a reasonable interest, just like a worker is entitled to reasonable wages. Public capital is not at all the same thing. Money used for building roads, bridges, water systems, schools or sidewalks, in other words everything that is meant for the general public and which does not make some profit for someone in particular, that is most federal, provincial, municipal and school taxes, comes into this category since this makes up a large part of public capital. In a sensible system, we would not use private capital to invest in public works any more than we would use public capital to invest in private enterprise. In a well-balanced economy, private capital would be invested in private enterprise and public bodies would use the public capital required for various public developments.
Therefore, why must governments borrow money and pay interest on capital used for public purposes and which do not bring any profit to anyone? How can a public agency pay interest if it does not make any profit? To be able to pay interest, it is necessary to make a profit because if we do not make a profit and we have to pay interest, our debts will automatically accumulate.
Under the present system, governments borrow money and pay high interests to build schools, roads, bridges or sidewalks. This is ridiculous and stupid. Many people who do not understand the present monetary system but who keep saying that Social Credit is too complicated, will wonder: What is there to do? How can those pyramids of unpaid and unpayable debts be checked under the present system? Creditistes have been saying it for over 30 years, and all those who removed the red, blue or any other color, bandages they had over their eyes understand that the federal government through the Bank of Canada, should make an appropriate credit device available to provincial governments, municipal administrations, and school boards, that would enable them to obtain the required capital at administrative costs, namely at about 1 or one and one-quarter per cent, which they could use to develop public services.
If the supporters of the present system cannot prove that the sum of $100,000 borrowed and invested to build a school, a bridge or a road in 1976 or 1977, will yield the value of two
Governmental Debt
schools, two bridges or two roads in 20 years, we are twice right in our contention that the system is upside down, since the interests we pay amount to two and sometimes three times the value of such schools, bridges and roads or any other public works.
Then, as I said, if you cannot prove that the yield will be equal to the value of two or three schools within three years, then time has definitely come for you to open your minds and wonder if a solution could not be found. We did find one, and are suggesting it to you. You do not have to accept it, but if you do not and if we continue to live by this crazy system, we will say: for Pete's sake, try and find something, if you will not accept our suggestions.
We are paying for two or three schools, for two or three bridges, for two or three highways, but all we own is one school, one bridge and one highway; one school, one bridge and one highway belong to us while two schools, two bridges and two highways belong to the finance companies. That makes it unreal.
Those who defend the system blandly admit that since they will not follow the philosophy of the Social Credit party, they have to go through the channels of the financial system whose "big shots" resort to boisterous publicity in order not to see the light of common sense.


An hon. Member:: A lamp without oil.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: The kind of banking operations that have been going on for too long remind us of this patient who, when being asked what kind of operation he preferred, first class or second class, and enquiring about the difference between the two was told that, in first class operations new instruments were used with old assistants in attendance, whereas, in second class operations new assistants were in attendance and old instruments were used. Needless to say a patient cannot easily make up his mind in such a situation.
In the banking legislation field, there are novices who seem to be reasonably well disposed, but even in this age of electronics and automation, they go on using instruments with stripped gears. This is why the financial machine is squeaking. Those responsible for its operation seem to forget putting oil in the proper places to prevent the kind of bankruptcy which is to come sooner or later according to all the impartial observers.
There is concern about the possibility of fraudulent bankruptcies. But the people responsible lack the courage needed to take the necessary steps to help change the situation, for fear of hindering some "big shots" that go on getting fatter on the system. In normal times, products are always available, at least the essential ones, when one can afford them.
Let us consider housing. Various organizations are now dealing with that problem and what are the results? They are asking the government for labour credit, that is loans to families looking for accommodation. What does that mean? There is no shortage of space, lumber, stone, workers, techni-

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
cians to build, but there is a shortage of money. You only have to lend the money and houses will be built. It is the same in other areas. Give money to the head of a family and you will see if he can find something else besides rags or used clothes for his children.
Surely, it is out of the question that money would be provided for non-existent commodities, but only enough money to purchase available goods necessary to meet the needs. We often hear nowadays financiers and politicians who maintain that there is too much money around. Well yes, some people say so at times. However, when visiting people, there are few who will admit that they have more money than they need.
Such facts are acknowledged everywhere. So it is hard to understand why the governments keep a portion of every worker's pay. Income tax has been debated at length lately. The government is facing a shortage of money, and they suck it right out of the worker's pay cheque and then ...


An hon. Member:: Out of the pensioner's cheque!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: . . . everywhere, everywhere it can take a bite.
And yet the working families so badly need all their income to meet their very normal requirements. How can there be too much money around?
Oh yes, we sometimes hear some members make fine speeches on the monetary reform, who make comparisons between the money supply and the excess money in circulation. If there really is too much money in circulation, it is where there is too much of it that the government should go and get it, not where there is not enough. Is that clear enough? There is a shortage of money, but money is a human institution. As soon as the problem boils down to a question of money, people become frozen, helpless, as though overcome by the weather.
Of course, what can you do against the weather, but money is something else, it is possible to get some if you want to. But no, we remain idle, we do nothing when faced with an unbearable situation. What are we waiting for? A revolution, strikes everywhere, rampant disorder? I do not know what we are waiting for, but I am afraid we might be waiting too long. We have no power over the sun or the rain, and many who consider themselves as educated take ...


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. The hon. member may go on with his speech only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I thank my colleagues for giving me a few extra minutes to complete my remarks.
I was saying that we have no power over the rain and many who consider themselves as educated take for granted that one has no control over money, over the lack of money, over the lack of means of payment. Well, there are people who have

come to think thus. Yet, money is not God's but man's creation. It is very important that people try to understand that. Where does money come from? How is it that it disrupts all economic activity at a given time? It is controlled by men, so why not take a look, a real hard look in that direction? We could certainly find out something there. There was no money on earth at the beginning of the world. Can somebody say anything to the contrary? In definite and fixed quantities, by a decree of God or by the forces of nature? Nothing of the sort. Whether it be metal, paper, or a mere credit transfer in bank books, all this money only exists because it was made and put into circulation somewhere by an act of man. And when the money supply increases or decreases in a country, it is because some people, men or groups of men, make more money or withdraw some from circulation. That is why it increases, decreases or becomes scarce at a given time.
Now, let us try to find out who those men are, let us try to understand and to see if there is some way of controlling the power of those men. All this is pure nonsense. Money comes from people who have the power to make it. This is the first thing we must understand. People should first become convinced of that. After that, if we want to remove the financial barriers between the goods and the needs of the people, we have to find out who controls the means, we have to find the money. That is what has to be considered.
The second thing that must be learned is that money is the easiest thing in the world to produce in the required quantities. That is what is surprising. I am always astonished to see that people do not try to understand why. It is much more difficult to grow a sack of potatoes than to make $5! Come on! To produce a sack of potatoes one has to think about it 12 months ahead of time. One needs a good crop, that has to be kept in the cellar if it is to sprout.
It has to be planted in the right place, cultivated, cared for, sprayed to avoid the potato beetle, and it takes all this work to produce a bag of potatoes. Nobody is afraid of running short of potatoes but everybody is afraid of running short of money; it is the easiest thing to do. Really, I am happy tonight to find that some feel that the time has come to try and find out what is wrong in the monetary field.


An hon. Member:: The world is sick!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Unfortunately, there are too many doctors around the patient. It must be kept in mind that when Canada declared war in September 1939, nobody had had any money in this country in the last ten years, from the government to individuals. The crisis was due to a shortage of money. There were some good executives at that time. At least, many people believed they were good. There were no Canada works program nor LIP program, but various solutions were tried out with the funds available. The answer given was: There is no money.
All of a sudden, money became plentiful overnight. No money shortage throughout the war. Did we see those striking
February 15, 1977

examples? Money came by millions, even by billions, as much as it was needed, and this in every country at war. Where did that money come from? Surely not by opening gold mines, because workers were not directed towards gold mines, but towards armies and ammunition plants. Money came by a stroke of the pen, by the simple decision to make it come. Those are the people you ought to try to find, my friends! With that, if all together we manage to find those who decide when the money should come and make them take out their pen, and if we draft legislation to make them act at the right time, we shall see that with Local Initiative Programs and Canada Works and Youth Canada Works programs, we will be able to resolve all those problems, and the number of unemployed will decrease.
This will wrong nobody, have no fear about it. This is not dangerous for inflation. Inflation we have, and those people control their pens and nobody seems willing to control them. Inflation we have, and inflation we fight against. When we try to jugulate-that again is another word which has become very in lately-inflation, unemployment appears and then we are dealing with two evil-minded twins. We cannot find any solution.
I most sincerely think it is about time to find a solution. I suggest ours. As soon as we understand it, we can no longer say we are short of money when money alone will move goods from shelves into households. Lack of money then is a criminal liability fraught with consequences. If we only thought about all the misery there is here in Canada! Fairly respectable people looked into the problem of poverty for months and they concluded that there were thousands of poor in Canada.
Poor people suffer miseries and privations. We are responsible. Then how come we who earn good salaries have ideal working conditions? I know what it is to chop pulpwood for 50 cents a cord. I know what it is to work for 50 cents a day. Today I am very happy with my living conditions but all those who enjoy the better things in life should never forget that some people live in misery because of the hardships we cause them by not considering the situation as it is. No government in wartime-I challenge anyone to deny this-would have agreed to lay off its soldiers or close its ammunition plants because of a lack of money. How could those same governments let individuals and families, by the hundreds,-that is going on even now-suffer from hunger and sickness, lose their homes and farms merely for lack of money? Not so long ago, a citizen of my area put this question to me which I find brilliant. He was speaking to me about the Anti-Inflation Act. He said: I am watching the implementation of that famous act to some extent, though I have not read it and I would like you to try and find out whether the board and its many civil servants has at some time put a break on the increase in taxes, municipal, school or other; so try to find out about that. That would be important because when taxes go up here, naturally it costs us more to keep up the house, to send our children to school. So the Anti-Inflation Board should also control tax increases.
Governmental Debt
In closing, I thank the Chair for having extended my time. To my mind, the country must not buy money. That fact must be recognized. It must create it itself. It may be a bit more difficult, but you'll see how easy it is. It is the sovereign right of the state. It belongs to us. It is a matter of using it instead of allowing ourselves to be controlled by a small team of bankers who decide whether people will eat three or four times a day. It is easy to see that does not make sense. A country cannot be managed if it does not use its sovereign right. The economy is distorted, turned upside down, damaged and that is what we have today.
I trust some of my suggestions will be followed, and that studies will be encouraged in that sense, that an attempt will be made to understand what ails that infamous monetary system, why we are controlled by a group of people who deprive everyone; even though Canada is rich, as I said at the beginning, tremendously rich, it is inhabited by people a high percentage of whom are poor in the midst of that wealth.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, first, let me tell you how pleased I am to take part in this debate because as concerns the indebtedness of governments, public bodies and municipalities, I share the same concern as my colleagues of the Social Credit party, although I would not propose the same solutions which I find simplistic. I may perhaps echo an old story that we have been hearing back home for 12 years and that I am still hearing in the House after more than two years.
I wish to point out the difference between an opposition member who can always ask for more regardless of cost and a government member who must decide on priorities and appropriate and redistribute public funds. I blame my Creditistes colleagues for exploiting the people's credibility by harping on the same string, but to be more positive, I would rather urge them to go deeper in search of solutions. I feel that for my colleagues opposite, it is a marketing problem, and they should understand that the House of Commons is the place where it is most difficult to understand, first because most people do not buy anything for want of money and second because those who would normally buy have quite different demands, as their mandate is quite different. However, I agree that we stop to think and try to find means to rectify a situation which could become catastrophic when I consider that the federal government had a deficit of some $4 billion last year, that the province of Quebec alone had a deficit of more than $1 billion and that my own little town with a population of 7,000 and with a budget of $1.7 billion might have an annual deficit of nearly $100,000 as things are. But if this discussion is just an oral dispute, there will be two causes for the catastrophe instead of one. I think we can come back to the proposal of our colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), who told us we should look at our own budgets; there is certainly a way to face debts very efficiently, namely by deciding not to run into debt. This gives us the advantage of not having to pay interests which we find extravagant.

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
Therefore we should make sure that our constituents are committed to such a philosophy because there lies the only possible solution. Everything depends on the ability to pay of the Canadian taxpayers and on their free choice, insofar as they can make a choice. Therefore, it becomes a matter of conscience and knowledge, a matter of priority and personal choice. Thus what we must protect is the ability of the citizen to make a choice through adequate information, a participatory system and, finally, through real participation to the decision making process. The government should respect his mandate and, the opposition should perhaps see to it that the government is doing so, instead of putting words in other people's mouth to please a few.
I should like to say, however, that the matter raised by the Social Credit has merit and that together we should try to find possible solution. Indeed, it is useful and even absolutely necessary that thogether we should consider the financial position of our country; I would even go as far as to that what the opposition did today might be useful, provided that the proposed solution is understandable and intelligent, and the motion, in its present form, puzzles me. One thing is sure the phenomenal increase of the debt-be it federal, provincial, municipal, of the school boards and even of many taxpayers- must stop because the day of reckoning will come soon and the money will have to be available.
I think that, even in the most honorable and generous schemes, it is a problem which has to be solved right from the start and the government should see to it that these restrictions and reasonable request are accepted by the great majority of the people.
There is no magic formula. If goods and services are purchased, they will have to be paid. And if our liberalism can be faulted, it is for going too far, for getting people into the habit of requesting and receiving ever more. As a rule, they were always asking for more and good governments were those which were giving more. At present, a good government is the most reasonable, the one which will make people think. Why? Because otherwise they will all become slaves to their wishes, because our resources will exceed our ability to pay. And this is how rich people grow ever richer, and the poor who do not know how to ask but are only able to wait are becoming poorer in comparison with the rich.
I believe all Canadians can make that effort to think and understand because to protect oneself is also to protect others. Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal for a few moments with taxation at the municipal level. Surely we all agree that this is a real disaster, but I want to point out that the debt at the municipal level is neither a prerogative nor an initiative of the federal government. The fact is, however, that the taxation problem at the municipal level is such that we must absolutely find a solution and I think this initiative should come first from the provincial jurisdiction, and this is more than just devising a balanced budget formula.
The basic problem at the municipal level, and I speak from experience as a mayor, is that municipal governments are too
[Mr. Tcssicr.j
dependant upon funds on which they have no control. I will quote as an example my own municipal budget which I had to administer and which amounts to some $1,700,000. In this budget, taxes amount to $726,000, compensation accounts for more than $56,000. exchanges of services for $280,000, local revenues total $400,000 but there are also revenues from outside, such as the sales tax which represents $494,000 and grants for $106,000. Therefore you will note that out of a budget of $1.7 million, $601,000 came from outside the municipality and in most cases, these are revenues which vary from year to year, and therefore which we cannot take for granted.
What is wrong is that people get used to receiving and finally they get the impression that everything is due to them. But we also create a state of dependence which changes from year to year. In addition there is the matter of bookkeeping; people cannot unravel figures from year to year and then they start having doubts about their administration.
To conclude, in municipal taxation there is only one accountant for the municipality, but as everybody is a rate payer the people should know why they pay and require that the money be used for the purposes for which they pay. It's a matter of discharging our responsibilities. There will be room for changes from time to time, always according to the wishes of the population-and the regulations of various systems and their size can change the regulations themselves.
At the present time, when we talk about Quebec and Canada, we should be careful not to confuse the issues. There is the government of Quebec, which assumes power in time and space. There are also the intentions of the P.Q., I mean the Parti Quebecois, to separate Quebec, which is not included in what we consider the mandate of the Levesque government, namely the good management of Quebec affairs.
In my opinion, my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has perfectly managed to confuse all the issues. His party should clearly explain its position. Do they want the separation of Quebec, do they want to join that movement? If so, let there be no confusion. If not, they should be responsible and honest enough to say yes to Canada. We should pay tribute to men like Robert Stanfield and Real Caouette who were also members of the opposition but who have always put Canada's unity above petty, partisan considerations and if the week-end reports had any basis I think that the present leader should heed this warning. Besides, Mr. Speaker, I would have liked more details from the opposition, and particularly from the Social Credit party of Canada, as far as the open attack against the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned. To my mind, DREE, though, at the beginning, it was created to solve regional disparities, is the only instrument we now have, especially in rural areas, to help industries.
This is the question I ask: do we want to help industries in rural areas? Yes or no? Of course, I can see that the risks are greater in our areas because business people are obviously fewer, I think that they have as much merit, if not more, as the
February 15, 1977

experienced industrialists of the great urban areas. Should we keep on trusting the small businessman trying to assess the risks, but should we continue to help the industries in our rural areas? To say that it is merely Liberal patronage is another gratuitous statement, and if there is to be some discussion, it will be about the application of the principle of assistance to industry, wherever it may be in Canada. Questions may be asked, but if charges are laid, they should be substantiated.
Secondly, in the specific area of health and welfare, particularly the guaranteed income for the handicapped-and I wish it would come as soon as possible-are we prepared to say yes or no? But the ever recurring question is: where will the money come from? More taxes, fewer services, other priorities. I also heard my colleagues across the way talk about increased pensions, pensions at 60, pensions at 50, pensions to spouses, and so on. Such aims are most commendable, but one thing is certain: where will that money come from? We agree on finding it together, but please, do not delude yourselves into thinking that services will be maintained without the required money, if not through further taxes or readjustments within the existing systems.
Third, with respect to housing there is talk, for example, of low cost rental units, particularly for elderly people or for the handicapped. Very complicated calculations are made to show how much buildings will cost. We are told that this building will pay for itself twice, three times, four and a half times. I think the real question to be asked is: are the Canadian people now prepared to provide that service for older people or the handicapped? If they are prepared to pay for such a service, then it might be possible and desirable to have the necessary calculations made in order to determine what such projects actually cost. For my part, I consider that people are now in favour of projects such as low cost rental units, homes for older people, even hospitals, schools. We are talking about a choice; this is a mandate we have to carry out and we intend to stand by it.
Fourth, I should also like to deal with agriculture, and particularly the milk policy that was severely criticized by the opposition and the press during the past year. It is a fact that in 1975-76, while the operating budget for the policy had been set at approximately $275 million, the cost to the government was in the order of $535 million. The government had no choice, it was a necessity, but some $535 million still had to be found.
In 1976-77, normally, the budget should have been in the order of $290 million, but we knew that we had to pay surpluses. The budget had been set at $631 million and during the year the government agreed to add an additional $10 million which brought the budget to a record $641 million in support of the milk industry as well as farming and rural economies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his
time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if he has unanimous consent. Is there consent?
Governmental Debt


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claude Tessier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the House for that courtesy. I should like to pursue the matter I was discussing.
Yet, if we analyze the dairy policy, we know that the industry has taken advantage of the situation, and when I say the industry, I am talking about all the partners making up the dairy industry of Canada. The unions have also played foul with the rules, and to protect the economy of rural areas as well as milk producers, we had to pay a steep price. Some questions remain to be asked, and I ask them as follows: will the government have to pay milk producers for tractors that cost such fantastic prices as $25,000? Is that our responsibility? Yet we know it happens. Some producers have two, three, even four tractors or more. Once again, will the government have to give in to such well-organized blackmail, to help the dairy industry? Once again, the answer must come from the base, because I consider that among ordinary people common sense is still the best rule. This answer from the base must be reasonable and the government must insist on a reasonable answer.
Fifth, I would like to talk about job creation. This is of course a sensitive matter. We have talked earlier about the Local Initiative Program, about Youth Canada Works and Canada Works. In my opinion, this project is questionable because, to my mind, the creation of temporary employment is itself questionable. But are we ready to change from this concept of temporary job creation to a concept of permanent employment? If we choose to create permanent jobs, does this mean that we shall have to subsidize the industry directly? I believe my friends will agree that in the rural regions, when we talk about effective job creation, we do not talk about creating permanent employment-and until I have some evidence to the contrary, I shall always consider that no one equals big businessmen when it comes to creating permanent jobs! Does this really mean that the government will agree to find the required sums? Where, and instead of what priority?
In reality, it is always the same question. It is possible to have a multitude of projects. I believe that if after honest and sincere reflection we can come to a general consensus in the House, as my colleague said earlier, I believe it is possible to find solutions if we can forget party politics, and particularly partisan politics.
School boards have also been mentioned. I think we must be honest enough to admit once again that the federal government as such has no responsibility in this area, but we must also note that to reduce the powers of the school boards, a relationship dependency has been created towards the provincial government and the cost of this dependency has been excessive centralization and a nearly complete loss of power on the part of school boards themselves. The aim has been to subsidize furniture and boxes called "schools", but the rest has been completely forgotten.
3088

February 15, 1977
Governmental Debt
Moreover, the efforts of the last few months have been aimed at saving the furniture, at trying to make political capital. Wage increases have been granted and the anti-inflation program has even been completely rejected in Quebec to allow these wage increases because of which, today, school boards are in such a situation that they are virtually unable to operate. This is why school boards still have to face strikes, like in the eastern townships. The goal was met. This dependency is a determinant factor, but today there still is the possibility of regulating at the provincial level. But as concerns school boards, where shall we find the required funds?
I feel that we, on this side of the House, must not delve upon this whole matter of the Bank of Canada but, like the others, we must take the time to consider the control of public finances and we are ready to do so, by reasonable and acceptable means. It is as much the responsibility of the opposition as it is ours and we are ready to assume it.
In conclusion, I would add that it is important to curb expenses and severely restrict the services we have become accustomed to in order to reshuffle priorities. Otherwise we will have to pay and since the paying capacity of the government, public agencies and individuals is limited, we will necessarily have to learn or relearn how to live within our means.


Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in the five minutes or so that are left, I would like, with your permission, to draw a very short conclusion from today's debate, free of all political partisanship. Having heard the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) it seems to me that our message got through.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank very briefly my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and commend him for bringing forth this motion. My colleague, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has touched upon the constitutional aspect of the financial problems of our country. My colleague, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) dealt with the role of public and private assets with regards to the dealings of the House committees, to show that the idea we are touching upon today follows modern problems that have been around for a long time and my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) has defined the role of public and private assets in our country in a very efficient and vivid way.
In this respect we have heard the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) claim that provinces had enough with one-fifth per cent of federal general revenues. We have heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) say that time has come to sit down, leave aside any partisan spirit and consider the increase in the debt of our public bodies at federal, provincial or municipal levels, as it is a major problem. We have just heard our colleague from Compton (Mr. Tessier) raise the same question: Where are we going to find the money?
Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters did not ask for any project. Today our party considered in a very positive way a problem which confronts every Canadian municipality in every

province of Canada, this Canada in which we believe indeed but, in answer to the hon. member for Compton, not at any cost. Today we moved a motion proposing that the Bank of Canada be used to intervene, not in the private sector but in the public sector so as to put an end to this endless process by which we are constantly running deeper into debt.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks I would like to give an example which seems fundamental to me. The House of Commons has two problems to solve as soon as possible. First the financing of our public sector at municipal, provincial and federal levels. One has only to recall the successive failures of the federal-provincial conferences of finance ministers and of the first ministers to see how urgent it is to find a solution to this question. The second priority for the House to deal with is the question of the unity of our country, the Canadian unity. For our party these are two related questions and they are deeply linked together. We cannot pretend to rewrite our constitution while preserving a system for Financing the public sector which was conceived a hundred years ago.
Mr. Speaker, this is a priority, so we repeat the proposal we made today that the government positively consider using the Bank of Canada to help provinces and municipalities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, the proceedings under the motion have expired.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is leaving for the United States next week to meet with President Carter, I wish to make one final plea that he include the Garrison diversion project on his agenda and again request of the President that the United States stop work on parts of the Garrison project, namely, the Lonetree Reservoir and Velva Canal, the two sections of the project that will affect Canada and pollute Canadian waters.
This matter has been raised in the House dozens and dozens of times. The misleading answers we have received from the Prime Minister have been most disturbing, as is the lack of positive action by the government to request assurances from the United States government that Manitoba is protected. Last week the Prime Minister was asked if he would include the Garrison diversion project on his agenda. He gave a most
February 15, 1977

curious answer, stating in part, as reported at page 2775 of Hansard for February 7, 1977, that:
The hon. member is aware that that report has come out now and is before the IJC and is favourable to Canada.
It is not at all favourable to Canada. It calls for $50 million worth of projects to be changed in the diversion unit. 1 do not know how that can be considered as favourable to Canada. The Prime Minister went on to say:
We are expecting that the IJC will accept the conclusion of the report.
I do not know what the Prime Minister means when he says the IJC will accept the conclusion of the report. The IJC simply makes a report and presents it to both countries. It holds hearings. The IJC has no authority to force either country to take action. Instead of receiving answers from the Prime Minister to indicate that he will discuss the matter with the president and make certain that Manitoba is protected, we receive evasive, misleading answers.
Last week I asked the Prime Minister if, since the United States is ignoring the $1.2 million IJC study and continuing with two aspects of the project which will affect Manitoba waters, the Prime Minister would negotiate with the president to place $50 million in a trust fund, to allow for the alterations needed to the project. I also asked that a timetable be established for the work necessary on projects such as the $6 million alternate water supply which will be needed for the city of Portage la Prairie.
The northern Manitoba Commercial Fisherman's Association has also made representations to President Carter. In a letter sent to the president last week they stated that by 1980 the effects of the appearance of alien fish species into Manitoba water systems from the Missouri River watershed could result in a net loss of $5.2 million a year to Manitoba's commercial Fishermen.
You can see that this is a matter for concern, Mr. Speaker, why we are asking for straightforward answers and why we ask the Prime Minister to raise this question with President Carter next week.
Another matter of concern has to do with the fact that the government of Canada, in a note it sent to the United States in October, 1976, requested a specific moratorium on Lonetree. This request has not been answered by the State Department.
I point out that Congressman Dante Facell, chairman of the Subcommittee on International Political and Military Affairs and a member of the Committee on International Relations was concerned about the fact that the request by Canada has not been answered by the Department of State. All of this leads us to believe that present construction work is a breach of the promises and of faith between the two countries.
Lastly, I point out that the North Dakota legislature has been asking Congress to accelerate funding which would further that breach. It is a matter of concern that anyone should be asking for further funding of this project when the IJC
Adjournment Debate
report stated that modifications should be made to that project.
I am asking the Prime Minister to request the president to establish a trust fund which will allow for the $50 million to be spent on alterations which would cover such items as the McClusky canal fish screen modifications, which would cost $2 million; the installation of works to remove wasteways, which would cost $22 million; the Lonetree outlet works and filtration outlet, which would cost $1.9 million; the sand filtration involving the Velva Canal, which would cost $9 million; additional costs for membrane lining for the Velva Canada Canal, which would cost $14 million. In addition, there will be a need for an alternate water supply for the city of Souris; that will cost $1.5 million. As I said earlier, it wil) cost $6 million to establish an alternate water supply for the city of Portage la Prairie. As well, additional cost will be incurred every year for operating this water plant.
Work is being done on the Garrison diversion project, but we have no timetable and no idea when it will affect Canadian waters. They keep digging and we keep asking, but we only get evasive answers.
The IJC has concluded that the Garrison diversion unit, as envisaged, would have adverse impacts on water uses in Canada. These effects arise primarily from effects on water quantity, water quality and the biological resources of Manitoba. The board has recognized that there are also potential benefits. We do not know what they are. They have not been spelled out. Alterations to the GDU for the purpose of relieving or eliminating some of the impacts are practical. Measures which might be taken in Canada to mitigate impacts may deserve further study. While they are digging, the IJC is telling us we need further studies. This is why I am once again requesting that the Prime Minister make a firm commitment that he will discuss this further with the President of the United States next week.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, on January 25, 1977, during adjournment proceedings, I had the opportunity to answer a question put by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) on the same problem, the Garrison River diversion project. However, the aspect involved was rather the tabling of the IJC's report and the possibility of a work delay.
On the matter of the hon. member's suggestion ...

I would like to clarify at the outset, once again, that the report which was made public on January 11 and was referred to in the House, is not the report by the IJC to the governments on the Garrison Diversion Unit, but the report by the International Garrison Diversion Study Board to the IJC. The report is currently being studied by the IJC itself and will be the subject of public hearings in March in Manitoba and North Dakota. The IJC is expected to submit its own report to governments in June, 1977.
80008-5 8%

February 15, 1977
Adjournment Debate
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) negotiate with President Carter with a view to placing $50 million in a trust fund to allow for necessary alterations to the project and to establishing a timetable for the work on such alteration. Such a course of action would not serve Canada's interest. It would indeed prejudge the conclusions that will be reached by the Canadian government on the board's recommendations, and the subsequent recommendations to governments by the commission, as it would involve an assumption that if these recommendations concerning necessary alterations to the project, entailing expenses of $57 million, were implemented, the Garrison diversion project would be acceptable to Canada. Neither the IJC itself nor the Canadian government have yet reached conclusions on the adequacy of the board's recommendations. The government, therefore, does not intend to undertake specific negotiations with the U.S. before both governments have received, and had the opportunity to consider fully the IJC's own report and recommendations.
Finally, I would like to correct the impression of the hon. member from Winnipeg South Centre that the U.S. is now proceeding with work on the Lonetree and Velva Canal sections of the project. At North Dakota legislative hearings held on January 27 on a resolution related to Garrison, Mr. W. Jamison, the manager of the project, stressed that no construction contracts for the Lonetree Reservoir would be awarded until the State Department answers the October 12 Canadian diplomatic note. As for the Velva Canal, its construction is not scheduled to begin until after 1982.

I can assure the hon. member that the problem will be raised by the Prime Minister during his visit with President Carter, and the Prime Minister will have ample opportunity to completely inform the president of Canada's concerns with the project.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-REQUEST THAT MINISTER VISIT EDMONTON TO EXPLAIN RELOCATION OF AIRBORNE REGIMENT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, originally I addressed this question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) as one member from Edmonton who is very concerned. I expressed grave concern at the sort of non-information and reticence of the minister, and the absolute reticence of the Chief of Defence Staff to discuss the matter of the proposed relocation of the Canadian Airborne Regiment from the Edmonton training area to some split areas in central Canada.
Here I want to speak on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), in whose area is located Canadian Forces Base Namao which provides air capability and also the Buxton dropping centre, which is the training area and the Griesbach barracks and ancillary facilities which happen to be presently in Edmonton West, a lot of it going in the future to my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton

Centre (Mr. Paproski), who will be taking over Edmonton North.
All Edmonton area members are vitally concerned. But what raises our hackles is the complete refusal to discuss this matter. Questions have been put to the minister critical of the strategy of denuding the whole of the north west of an active, transportable military force, not clerks, cooks and storemen on the Canadian Forces base. They are not the military presence referred to. We want the whole of the Northwest Territories to be considered.
We have seen fatuous statements made that the unit, or fragments of the unit after it has been broken up, will be transferred to areas where there is a greater concentration of population. That is wrong. Ten years ago, every effort was made by people who considered the Canadian Forces needed an airborne regiment, to bring one into being. There are papers galore on this subject. Those officers, Mr. Speaker, are as highly qualified, then and now, as are General Dextraze and his advisers at the present time.
All I can say, from my point of view and my connections with the Armed Forces, is that General Dextraze is among those who did not agree, years ago, with the formation of the airborne unit, and now that he is in the position of being the chief, his original objection is being implemented by a change which destroys all the work of a succession of commanders of Mobile Command. These are men whose capabilities are as good as those of the officers who are presently there, and they say this is one of the most fatuous moves which could possibly be inflicted upon the forces. If there are reasons, and I presume there are, why is it the minister and the general cannot come clean and tell us what they are? Do not send the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) or the minister in charge of small business (Mr. Marchand) to Edmonton to say the move is justified for military reasons. That is nonsense.
A great deal of money and effort was spent on putting this thing together. I have here a copy of a paper headed "The Selection of a Site for the Canadian Airborne Regiment." This was a working paper utilized in the Armed Forces-


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: When?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In 1972. They were considering at that time where the Airborne Regiment should be located and they had various sites in mind-CFB Edmonton, Rivers, Val Cartier or Petawawa. And every factor being considered, Edmonton was chosen as the ideal site.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The facilities are there for training. There is one point which it seems to me has been overlooked by everybody.
I am not concerned now with any argument as to economic impact. I am thinking of the personnel involved and of their dependants. I am sure neither the minister nor his parliamen-
February 15, 1977

tary secretary will tell us that in the Petawawa area these people will be able to find the same employment opportunities as in Edmonton, or the same educational facilities. Available in the Edmonton area are fine schools, as good as can be found anywhere in the country, and in French, if desired; an ample stock of residences off-base for those who want such accomodation. Where will they get this in Pembroke, close to Petawawa; and where will their children go to school? What technical schools and universities will they be able to attend? I am sure the parliamentary secretary and the minister do not know how many men have indicated to us privately that they will retire rather than be transferred. This has caused a terrible morale problem.
The last question is: how much is it going to cost to provide the necessary infrastructure for a comparable unit, unless this is the first step for a downgrading into merely an airborne capability? What about additional housing? What about the cost of moving 700 troops from Camp Petawawa to Gage-town? No one has come down with a cost figure in this regard. They do not dare, because they cannot stand by it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I can readily understand the hon. member's concern about the loss of the airborne regiment to the city of Edmonton. But after listening to him and to his statement that the statements made by my minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff were utter nonsense, I have to conclude that if that is true then they have no monopoly on nonsense.


An hon. Member:: You are speaking nonsense yourself.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, we have a donkey in the Fiouse tonight.


Mr. Paproski:: We have an ass over on that side.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: A big one over there. The hon. member's charge of non-information is, of course, without foundation as well, because both the Chief of the Defence Staff and the minister have made several public statements and have made public the rationale for the movement of the airborne regiment from Edmonton.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They have not given one reason.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member says they have not. I have before me a statement by General Dextraze to this effect:
At the present moment, I do not believe that the posture of the army field formations in Canada is in balance with military requirements. We have a combat group and an airborne regiment in the west, a small combat group in the centre, and a combat group in Quebec with an independent battalion in the maritimes. This undesirable situation is being redressed by redeploying our land forces in a more balanced posture. The planned overhead savings will be devoted to "The Sharp End" and will allow me to make better use of my total force capabilities.
That is a direct quote from the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Adjournment Debate
The hon. member makes a great deal about the statements made by some retired officers of the Armed Forces. While I will not in any way take away from the service that those people have offered to this country, I will not sit idly by and listen to a dedicated public servant like General Dextraze being attacked in this House where he has no vehicle to defend himself. That is not an honourable course to take in this debate. General Dextraze is an outstanding soldier, an outstanding public servant and an outstanding individual, and is far more competent to judge the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces than some retired generals who happen to have a special interest in the airborne regiment.
That does not mean to say that General Dextraze does not have a special interest in the airborne regiment. But he has the responsibility for redeploying the Armed Forces in Canada to fit the needs of the defence structure of this country. That is his responsibility and the responsibility of the minister. The military forces knew when they joined that they were subject to movement within the country and outside it.


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


INDIAN AFFAIRS-POSSIBILITY OF RETURN OF MONEY COLLECTED FROM NATIVES THROUGH EXPORT TAX
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, tonight on the late show I wish to speak again on a question I raised some time ago in December last regarding the possibility of the return of the oil export tax to the Indian people from whose land the oil was extracted. As reported at page 1733 of Hansard for December 7, 1976,1 asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In regard to the export tax which was collected from Indian bands four years ago, is the minister prepared to state unequivocally that he is going to return the money to the Indian bands, and will he arrange for a tripartite meeting to clear up this whole matter?
I think it is very important. The minister replied that the question is under review. It is important to know that I have been asking the same question now of three successive ministers of Indian affairs and northern development from whom I have received the same answer, namely, that the question is under review and that they will let me know about it.
I have also placed this question on the order paper. I asked how much money has been collected through the export tax from Indian bands, how much is held in the treasury, and, because of the time it is taking the governments to decide what to do in this situation, can the Indian people living on lands where oil is produced expect interest to be paid on this money? Because I have received no answers to this question, I can only assume that the money in question amounts to some $4 million.
We find that a great deal of the money in the Canada Works program is being set aside to provide employment for Indian people because the rate of unemployment among the Indians is the highest in Canada. In many bands it is in the region of 80 per cent or 90 per cent.

February 15, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Surely this money could be put to good use. This is money that rightly belongs to the Indians. They are the ones who should decide what to do with it, how to put it to use to assist members of a band in Finding employment.
Because I was not getting answers from the ministers, I put the question to department officials at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which was held about a month ago. The response of an official, as recorded in the proceedings of the committee, was as follows:
We are actively interested in this and we are looking for a solution that would correspond to the interests expressed by the Indian people of Alberta. I am not fully up to date and I have the impression that some headway is being made as between the province, our department and the Department of Finance ...
I am asking that the federal government provide some leadership and call the provincial government and the bands affected by decision not to return the money, to meet at a tripartite meeting to sort this out once and for all. The Indian people in Alberta should know how much money there is. This is something they do not know for sure. They should also be informed as to whether they can expect any interest on that money which has been collected for four years now.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) raised this question on December 7 of last year. The question regarding the oil export tax which was collected in respect of oil produced on Indian land and whether this money will be returned to the bands is, of course, a serious and urgent question which has the attention of my minister.
I can say to the hon. member that there is no pat answer. I say that because, as he knows, the question involves three federal departments, the Department of Finance, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I can only speak
for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I say to the hon. member that my minister, as well as his two predecessors, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan), have advanced the requests of the Indian bands concerned that the share of the tax distributed to the provinces should be given to the Indian bands from whose land oil was produced.
As we all know, the Indian people of Canada are unique in that they are the aboriginal inhabitants of the land, and for this reason they deserve special consideration in respect of the reserves of land and minerals set aside for their full use and benefit. In this context, my minister recently wrote letters to his colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), to see whether a basis can be found to pay over to the Indian bands a share of the tax moneys collected by the federal government under the Oil Export Tax Act. Until their response is in hand, hon. members of this House will appreciate that any unequivocal response such as that sought by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin-and I appreciate his endeavours in seeking this-is just simply not possible from this one minister.
I should make note in addition that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) considers that, again, until the response is received, it would be premature to seek any tripartite meeting to consider the matter.
In conclusion, I appreciate that the hon. member has raised this matter, and I will undertake to add whatever urgency I can to see that we can get an adequate resolution to this serious problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, February 16, 1977