1978-04-21

BEREAVEMENT OF HON. MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE EXPRESSION OF SYMPATHY ON PASSING AWAY OF WIFE OF MR. STANLEY KNOWLES

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling motions pursuant to Standing Order 43-I will, of course, try to reserve an appropriate length of time for that and extend the question period if necessary-hon. members will have noticed the rather singular absence from the House today of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This absence from this House is so rare that it is worthy of note on the occasion it does occur. I wish I could say that the hon. member's absence was due to some happy event, but it is not. Hon. members will be saddened to learn that the wife of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre passed away last night and he is, of course, in Winnipeg at this time.
Hon. members of all parties have spoken to me, and rather than having individual comments at this time, particularly in view of the suddenness of the event, perhaps I could speak on behalf of all members of the House in saying to this very distinguished parliamentarian of such long service and great devotion and affection for parliament that all of us wish in some way to reach out to him in this moment of sadness.
Our thoughts and prayers on this day are with him and his family who are all together in Winnipeg. We know the hon. member left earlier this week to be in Winnipeg because of some news and returned to his duties here only too briefly, to be called again last night to be told of this very sad news. I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. members in saying our prayers and thoughts are with him. I will, of course, be taking the appropriate steps to extend that sentiment directly to Mr. Knowles the moment I leave the chair here today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity under Standing Order
43. On the Peter Warren show on radio station CJOB in Winnipeg, it was stated that the director of Parks Canada in Winnipeg, who owns a Mooney 201 aircraft which normally rents at $42 per hour, rents the aircraft to the federal government for $52 per hour when he travels on government business. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House direct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to launch an immediate investigation into this renting practice and report to the House on why the parks director does not use commercial transportation when on government business instead of using his private plane which he rents to the government at considerably above commercial rates.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion is permitted, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

D)
[ Translation]


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to introduce a motion and ask for the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that the Prime Minister stated yesterday that it is difficult to decide whether it is advisable to unveil the constitutional proposals to the House of Commons or during an election campaign; considering that according to the confeder-ative spirit the provinces should be first to decide, or settle as the Prime Minister said, the future of confederation, although we recognize that the federal government could take part at the unanimous invitation of the provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Prime Minister undertake serious consultations with the provinces to know what they want instead of forcing his will on them, thus antagonizing them and giving rise to the present state of confusion instead of creating the harmony suggested by the Social Credit Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 21, 1978


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On March 16, 1978, the Northern Flood Agreement was ratified by the five Indian bands comprising the northern flood committee. However, it will become "another meaningless paper commitment" if the Indian people cannot participate in the actual implementation of the agreement.
In view of the fact the former minister of Indian Affairs, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), recognized the committee's need for continued funding during the transitional period after the agreement had been ratified, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the present minister of Indian affairs meet with the northern flood committee and ensure funding be continued throughout implementation stages of the agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that several months ago the House adopted a motion calling for a change in our Standing Orders which would allow the public to be present in the galleries and join us in the prayers at the beginning of our daily meetings, a motion which was referred to our Committee on Procedure and Organization for recommendations; and in view also of the fact that the nature and length of our current prayers should be modified to reflect better the new ecumenical spirit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the caucus of each and every political party represented in the House to provide our committee on procedure, within the next two weeks, with the text of a prayer in which all Canadians could join to ask Our Lord and Father for His guidance, with instructions to the committee to report before the end of the current legislature.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. From the month of April and on for nine consecutive months, Quebec's Marine Industries will lay off 100 employees each month, bringing the number of workers down from 2,500 to 1,600. This reduction is caused by international competition, particularly from Japan and Brazil.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the House ask the government to take action to stop this drain of 900 workers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely that brought about by the resignation of Claude Wagner, Esq., member for the electoral district of Saint-Hyacinthe.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.
April 21, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Because of the current concern in Quebec about the budgetary proposal and also because of the impending lay-off of 1,900 workers announced by Marine Industries and Northern Telecom, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the analysis made by his department which proves, with supporting figures contrary to the claims of the minister himself, that the Quebec proposal could help the industries outside Quebec as well in the clothing, footwear and textile industries, he will take that report into consideration and give an affirmative reply to the Quebec government, this in order to stop misleading the Canadian people by claiming that the step was taken as a separatist measure?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question repeatedly. Over a period of three weeks, we made proposals to all the provincial governments. During my discussions with my provincial counterparts, we looked into all kinds of possibilities. We picked two out which were agreeable to the nine other provinces; unfortunately, Mr. Parizeau decided to act unilaterally after the federal government reached an agreement with the other provinces. Last Friday, through my officials, I suggested a compromise through the formula explained to the House by my colleague the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations and I intend to send Mr. Parizeau a letter if he feels the information given by his officials is not adequate.


GOVERNMENT URGED TO PREVENT LAY-OFFS AT MARINE INDUSTRIES, QUEBEC
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Could the minister tell us whether he is prepared to have a personal meeting with his counterpart to discuss this issue, which is quite important at least for all hon. members in the House and, at the same time, would he consider with his provincial counterpart the possibility of offering at least his co-operation and could he tell us what his government can do to avoid 900 workers being laid off by Marine Industries shipyards in the town of Sorel?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the federal government has been working very actively to help the Canadian shipbuilding industry. When I was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a year and a half ago, I increased the level of federal government
Oral Questions
subsidies to shipyards by 12 to 20 per cent and we took action with the Export Development Corporation to finance, almost entirely, the ships which are now under construction. Unfortunately, current conditions on the international market are rather depressed and it is clear that some shipbuilding industries may find themselves without work for some time but I know the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is actively working with this industry to find new contracts.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly listening carefully to the minister's answers, but he does not answer my question at all and he cannot give any encouraging answer.
Is the minister prepared to announce soon the proposals of his government and give us the assurance of co-operation? What kind of proposal on the danger of those lay-offs can the minister make, not necessarily to the government of Quebec, but for the Canadian economy as a whole? Furthermore, is he prepared to assure the House that he will make every effort to come to an agreement on the proposal of the province of Quebec? I think these are two questions which should be answered by the Minister of Finance and as soon as possible.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as to the second question put by the hon. member concerning shipyards, I did say that not only have we substantially increased the subsidy to shipbuilding but all the ships which are now in the shipyard of Marine Industries are financed practically outright by a federal agency, and yet the company itself is owned by the provincial government.
As for the first part of the question, I said that I was sending a letter to Mr. Parizeau and, of course, I took the trouble of going personally to Quebec City with Mr. McKeough two weeks before the budget in order to talk to him about this. I would be prepared to do so again. However, he did not ask to meet me. I made a counterproposal through my officials, and he said that it was not enough for him, so I will send him a letter as early as today or next Monday at the latest.


LAY-OFFS AT NORTHERN TELECOM PLANT IN QUEBEC
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It relates to the lay-offs at Northern Telecom in the province of Quebec. I ask the minister, inasmuch as these jobs were developed from research and technology and are high-technology jobs that are being undertaken in other countries, what is the minister planning to do to keep in Canada the jobs that result from investment in research and technological advance?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it has been explained often that there is no export of jobs in the operation of Northern Telecom. It is a corporation that tries to expand its operation not only in Canada but abroad. I think it is a welcome development because it is quite important that

April 21, 1978
Oral Questions
Canadian technology and management be used internationally. Of course, because of the slow demand in that type of business in Canada at this time, Northern Telecom have temporary problems. But we hope that with recovery, orders will increase for the corporation and the people laid off will be re-employed.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly important that the products of Canadian research and technology be used abroad. We would be very happy if the government would do something to see that this has a reasonable opportunity of being fulfdled. One of the prime reasons it is difficult to get products of research and technology and the jobs resulting therefrom is that many countries have tariff barriers or internal agreements which provide that they will not accept the products of research and technology unless the work is done in their own country.
Will the Minister of Finance or the government give assurance to this House that in the GATT negotiations at Geneva which are now going on, the question of opening the borders of other countries to the importation of products of research and technology is an important condition that the Canadian government is putting forth in connection with non-tariff barriers for trade?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the negotiations going on at Geneva the government is pushing for the opening up of procurement policies by all governments. We think it is a very important element of freer trade in the world. We are asking for less protective policies in terms of procurement by all nations involved in the GATT negotiations.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance give us an assurance that the Canadian position at Geneva will be that we will not permit the importation of products of research and technology in Canada without a reciprocal agreement with countries exporting to Canada that they will give the same preference to Canadian products? Is that the position the Canadian government will take at Geneva?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have just explained the goal which the federal government has for the negotiations. Of course, negotiations are going on at this time and we will see the results when they are completed, we hope at the end of the year.


James McPhail Gillies: It will be too late then.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Exactly what we are doing is asking countries to be less protectionist in their procurement policies, which is the point I made earlier.
[Mr. Chrdtien.l


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Will he confirm that the Prime Minister is not in the House today because he is attending a private election planning meeting with Liberal organizers and candidates in Toronto, and that he flew there at public expense in a government plane?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the trip between Montreal and Toronto will be at the expense of the Liberal party.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Acting Prime Minister that the question was put in that direct way to get that kind of direct answer, and I thank him for it. Will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that all subsequent flying around by the Prime Minister in this pre-election period will be done at the expense of the Liberal party and not at the expense of the public?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I explained very clearly that the trip between Montreal and Toronto was a recognized political trip and it will be paid for by the party.
However, as sometimes happens with every one of us, we have to combine both political and governmental work. Therefore, we judge accordingly. However, with regard to the expenses of travelling between Montreal and Toronto today, they are being paid by the Liberal party.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT CONSULTING PROVINCES ON ENACTING NEW CONSTITUTION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. Given the responsibilities delegated to the minister for improved relations between the federal government and the provinces, can the minister tell the House whether he has had continued talks with the officials responsible in each province on this subject, and can he also specify if there have been talks with the officials responsible in the province of Quebec for an in-depth study of a possible redrafting of the constitution, in order to maintain harmony in our country and preserve a Canada of which we can be proud?


Hon. Marc Laionde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and indicate to him that I have indeed
April 21, 1978

been in contact with my provincial counterparts and even the premiers during the last few months. We have had the opportunity to discuss the matter raised by the hon. member. Unfortunately, as far as Quebec is concerned, I have not had the opportunity to discuss the constitutional question with my counterpart, for the simple and obvious reason that that government has clearly indicated through its official spokesmen, including the premier himself, that it is not interested in discussing a federal or federalist type of approach to Canadian problems, but that it merely wants separation of the country and the constitution of a country separate from the rest of Canada. Of course, the government does not endorse such an option and as far as we are concerned it is not even a negotiable option, so as long as the Quebec government maintains that position on the future of Canada and of Quebec, I fail to see on what grounds we could agree.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: My question, Mr. Speaker, was of course inspired by the statements made by the Quebec premier in Boston these past few days, where, according to newspaper reports, he stated that he has absolutely no intention of splitting up Canada. That is why I thought that the premier of Quebec and the federal minister responsible for federal-provincial relations had engaged in certain discussions. That being the case, however, is the minister willing, in light of the reply he has just given, to lend an ear to the least showing of good faith which may come from the Quebec government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this government would obviously be very happy to see a positive evolution by the Parti Quebe-cois and the Quebec government in their position, more particularly as it relates to the question of independence. Moreover, the hon. member knows very well that Premier Levesque is a master in the skilful use of words, that he has a tendency to speak with extreme moderation when he is abroad and to spit fire as soon as he is back in Quebec. Nothing in what has been said, both in Quebec and abroad, indicates any change whatever in the fundamental position of the Quebec government about the future of Canada and more particularly about that of Quebec. It is obvious that the Quebec government has in no way modified its position as far as its objectives are concerned, these objectives being its political sovereignty in Quebec and the independence of Quebec, even at the price of some economic association with the rest of Canada, the conditions of which have not yet been determined. As far as we are concerned, we believe that position is absolutely unrealistic; it is not a reasonable solution to the problems of Canada and, in our view, it is unacceptable.
Oral Questions


COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, we are now approaching the Commonwealth Games to be held in the city of Edmonton. There has been a tremendous commitment by the president and committee of the organization for the games and the people of Edmonton, in particular the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, to make this an event of which Canadians will be proud. We now learn that Mr. Idi Amin, a dictator of Uganda, has stated that he will be present at the games in order to coach.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: We need no coaches for murder and terrorism in this country. I ask the hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport whether the government will assure that he, in common with other criminals, will be denied admission to Canada?
U2)


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago my office became aware of the possibility that Mr. Amin might be coach of the Uganda boxing team-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: There has been no confirmation of this, however. I would inform the right hon. gentleman that this same ploy was used in connection with the Commonwealth Games held in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 1974. Mr. Amin did not appear at those games and I do not expect he will appear at ours. However, as my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has stated in the House, if such an eventuality should become a fact we shall deal with it at that time. I would like to join with the right hon. gentleman in praising the people of Edmonton for the absolutely superb job that has been done on the preparations for the Commonwealth Games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: I am most pleased to see the very great pleasure that Canadians from every part of Canada take in sharing in those games. They are presently sharing in an amount in the order of $40 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have the enthusiastic support which I knew would be forthcoming from the minister. Now I would like to ask my supplementary question. Amin having stated that he is coming, will the Government of Canada informally advise him that he will not be welcome here, so we will not have that pest entering this country?

April 21, 1978
Oral Questions MANPOWER


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN CONSTITUENCY OF PERTH-WILMOT
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: In the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to his chief statistician, the Minister of Agriculture, who said in the House during the budget debate that there was less than 2 per cent unemployment in the constituency of Perth-Wilmot?
Since no official statistics are available by constituency- though under present government secrecy, such statistics may be available to ministers-since that constituency comes under region 57 which had an unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent, up 44 per cent, and since the major Manpower office has a "live file" register showing an increase in the number seeking work of 38 per cent over the figure of a year ago, would the Minister of Agriculture, as the statistician for Manpower, explain to the House the basis on which he said the unemployment rate in Perth-Wilmot was less than 2 per cent?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that I obtained some of my facts from a conversation with him when he was bragging about the young people in Perth-Wilmot all having jobs. Most of the statistics I got were his own statistics. If his statistics are so inaccurate, perhaps I should not use them in the future, Mr. Speaker. I note the hon. member did not quote the statistics I gave about the incomes of the people in Perth-Wilmot. The farming population there has one of the highest incomes of any constituency in rural Canada. I am surprised he has not asked a question about those figures also.


William Herbert Jarvis: I hasten to assure the minister that my statistics are a great deal more accurate than those he gave in the House on Tuesday night. In supporting the very excellent situation which admittedly exists in Perth-Wilmot-nothing approaching the minister's statistics-I wonder, since the minister attributed this happy situation to government policy, whether he would agree that a 44 per cent increase in unemployment and a 38 per cent increase in the number of people registered for work and unable to find it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture in connection with sugar beets. It is almost two years since the 1976 Canadian sugar beet crop was seeded. In view of a clear indication from the minister's department and the stabilization board that a pay-out would be forthcoming, will the hon. gentleman indicate when the sugar beet stabilization payment for the 1976 crop will be made, and what will be the amount?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I signed a document and a news release the other day announcing the payment. I do not know whether it has gone out yet or whether the media saw fit to use it. I can say, however, that our support price for beets in Canada, as I am sure the hon. member is well aware, is $6 more a ton than it is in the United States. It is probably one of the best programs in the world. The marketplace has returned practically all that is needed by producers. The payment, if I remember correctly, was based upon three different sections in Canada, not just Alberta. It was based on three provinces-Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec-and in all instances it was less than $1 a ton.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister recall what the specific pay-out was for Alberta?


Eugene Whelan: Because of the economic conditions which existed in the sugar market and the return producers were able to obtain for themselves, I am happy to say the pay-out is not very big. They got their return from the marketplace, where it should come from.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I will ask it of the acting minister. In view of the concern expressed to the Canadian government by the Canadian trucking industry about the unfair application of the United States federal highway-use tax, in view of the understanding Canadian truckers have that External Affairs would raise this issue with the appropriate United States authorities, and in light of the pending requirement that the United States federal highway-use tax has to be renewed by congress, would the acting minister inform the House and the country what steps the department has taken to raise this issue with the American authorities, and what stage the negotiations have reached?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I am sure the minister will wish to deal with it early next week.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In order for the law to be obeyed and respected, free from any ambiguity so that citizens will know what the law is, and now that more than a year has elapsed since parliament approved the gun legislation,
April 21, 1978

have the orders in council called for in that bill to clear up the ambiguity in the law been approved and published?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this matter really lies within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General who is administering these sections. There are, however, no ambiguities in the law which need to be cleared up by legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister says there is no ambiguity in the law. I asked him two days ago a question with reference to the difficulties encountered by bona fide gun collectors who are trying to get certificates. I read from a police report according to which various citizens had gone to the police detachments to get their certificates. According to the letter, the commissioner had received legal advice from the Department of Justice that he lacks legal competence to deal with these applications, and because of the way the law is presently written, if those applications are not approved by January 1, 1978, they cannot be made at all. I wish the minister would comment on this subject, because we are getting hundreds of letters with reference to this deficiency in the law as it now stands.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The letter from the commissioner which the hon. member mentioned refers to the statement that under the law he is unable to process applications for the new registration of machine guns. Under the legislation it was made clear that owners of machine guns registered prior to January 1 were bona fide collectors of machine guns, but that thereafter there will be no additional machine gun collectors.
There are some cases before the courts relating to the interpretation of the statute. In one case about which I know, someone imported 500 machine guns before the end of the year and endeavoured to register them. The application was not processed after January 1.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy with reference to machine guns; they are called automatic weapons. However, I am advised that there are no orders in council approved by either the government or by the provinces, which also have to approve orders in council. Would the minister assure us that no prosecutions will take place under this act until the orders in council are drawn up? That is what the farmers, trappers and Indians are asking; they want to know where they stand on this matter. There has been a hiatus of over a year. Nobody knows what the law is. How can we obey the law if we do not know what it is?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that farmers, trappers and Indians want machine guns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


LAY-OFFS AT NORTHERN TELECOM PLANT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to a couple of questions asked earlier in the question period with respect to Northern Telecom. This is a rather sad story. Northern Telecom laid off approximately 2,500 workers in the past year and a half. The company has now announced that it will be laying off another 1,000 workers. I would ask the minister what he has done so far to prevent these lay-offs.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, Northern Telecom is making great efforts to export many of its products and we are assisting in every way possible. We believe that the more the company can export, the more employment it can create in Canada.


FINANCE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the minister should have said that Northern Telecom is exporting jobs, not products: that is a well known fact.
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It is well known that tax concessions given to Northern Telecom in the last several years have been used to build plants abroad, and that has transferred jobs out of Canada. Has the minister called Mr. Scrivener? Will the minister bring Mr. Scrivener into his office to tell him that he had better keep the jobs in Canada or there will be no more tax concessions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will be able to substantiate his accusation that the money has been used to create jobs elsewhere, because the tax concessions which have been given to the private sector have been for expansion in Canada. I think that kind of accusation which is not based on facts should be substantiated. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I are trying to help any industry to export, but I explained in my previous answer that the lay-offs at the present time are because of slow demand for that type of equipment within Canada. The jobs which have been affected are those involving exports.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to get their act together and to investigate what Northern Telecom is doing in Turkey at the present time. That is where the company is making components for telephones which should be made in Canada. Would the minister investigate the Turkish operation of Northern Telecom?


Mr. Chr6tien:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to look into that matter. Of course, when a company exports, it signs agree-

April 21, 1978
Oral Questions
merits with local industries. Perhaps that is one of the arrangements. But the technology, engineering, and so forth, which is being exported is Canadian. That is the way we proceed with foreign trade. Sometimes we have to share the work with the country to which we are exporting.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Environment) and it has to do with the Garrison diversion project. Can the minister tell the House whether the government has any intention of referring the final report of the International Joint Commission to the appropriate standing committee of this House, and does the government intend to refer the Andras plan to the IJC?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to investigate. I have not yet seen the Andras plan. I have read accounts of it but I have not seen the actual plan. I am not sure that this is the final position of the United States government with respect to the Garrison diversion, but I would be very willing to have the committee study the IJC report. There is nothing wrong with that.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to be clear on this. Is the minister telling the House and the Canadian people that he has not yet seen the Andras plan? Has he not yet seen that counterproposal to the IJC? The whole Garrison diversion question is now some four years old. Would the minister undertake to give an answer to this House on Monday? Will he look at the Andras plan over the weekend and report the government's response on Monday? This is a long-standing problem. This is incredible.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I said I have not seen the actual document, but I have received accounts of it. I have been briefed on the Andras plan and my officials have indicated their concern and opposition to it. The IJC plan was very acceptable to us because it met all the concerns we had. We could have lived very easily with the report made by the IJC.


An hon. Member:: You are six months late.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Conference Board in Canada has revised its unemployment figure for 1978. The board is forecasting unemployment for this year to be 8.5 per cent. The board forecasts an unemployment rate of 16.3 per cent for Newfoundland, 11.3 per cent for Quebec and 13.5 per

cent for New Brunswick. Would the minister indicate the level of unemployment forecast in his April 10 budget?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have replied many times that we do not have a precise figure for unemployment in the next fiscal year because it is too difficult to predict in view of the participation rate over which we have no control. I laid out other information in the budget speech. The Conference Board made those predictions before the provincial and federal budgets were out.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board has revised its estimate of real growth in the country down to 3.9 per cent. Would the minister indicate his current estimate as of April 21 with respect to real growth in Canada in 1978?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on budget night I predicted that the real growth of the gross national product in Canada for 1978 would be close to 5 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Provencher.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, the minister to whom I want to direct my question has left.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister's department preparing legislation, to redeem his department's credibility, for presentation to this House which would make the 1973 formula of mandatory application in the calculation of disability pensions for war veterans? In addition, are any proposals coming forward to accord prorated pensions to widows of those who are drawing pensions?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to Hansard he will find that on probably 17 occasions I have made reference to this matter and told the House just what the position of the government is.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether there is any legislation coming forward because I am sure the House would undertake to give it rapid passage. There are people in dire need. Is the minister refusing to bring forward legislation: is that what he is saying?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if anything of this nature happens, it will be available to all members of the House.
April 21, 1978


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Large segments of our electronics industry, such as television research and production facilities, which are the largest ones, have discontinued Canadian operations. Northern Telecom, which has been "the" private Canadian industry in terms of research and development, is now experiencing difficulties.
Will the minister tell the House what new action the government will take to stop the erosion of Canada's industrial base, which Mr. Shepherd, director of the Science Council of Canada, estimates is happening at the rate of 10,000 jobs per month?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will be asking for speedy passage of the Export Development Corporation bill. Last year, through the Export Development Corporation and its assistance in exporting goods produced in Canada, we created or maintained 200,000 man-year jobs alone. Thus, it is very important for the House to pass that piece of legislation.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I draw to the minister's attention the answer he gave in response to a question I asked some time ago, that representations were made to auto manufacturers to carry out a proportionate share of their research and development in Canada amounting, by some estimates, to $250 million a year, which is not done here now. Can the minister report any success in this matter? When, and what companies, will commence such operations?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work with the Big Three in the automotive industry. We have set up a sector study on the entire question of the automotive industry. I hope to be able to announce shortly research and development plans for the automotive industry in Canada.


COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT-STEPS TO CORRECT TRADE IMBALANCE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It follows on the questions posed by my colleagues, the hon. member for Don Valley and the hon. member for York-Sunbury. Is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware that last year Canada imported $1,251 million worth of communications equipment and that we exported $39 million worth? In other words, we had a net deficit of $1,212 million. What is the minister going to do about it? It is a significant market.
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am doing two things in particular about our manufacturing industry. Just as the hon. member did with one particular item, the $26 billion item of manufactured goods imported into this country is being analysed by my department. We are studying who buys them, what they are used for and why they cannot be produced in Canada. We are about to launch a program to encourage and to educate Canadians as to the value of buying Canadian goods. It would create jobs and improve the basic standard of living of all Canadians if we could procure more of our equipment in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if there is any mechanism of which he is aware in the statistics-gathering mess in the government to indicate whether the results of research and development policies of the government in fact go out of the country? When we look at $26 billion in imports of high-technology products and the amount of research and development which has been done in Canada in the last ten years, certainly a great deal of it is going out of the country and not staying in the country as it should. What can the minister tell us about that? What mechanisms does the government have?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we have a Patents Office. The Canadian government encourages Canadian manufacturers to patent the results of their R & D. Naturally, the patent only lasts so long and then it can be used by other countries.


William James Kempling: That is the problem.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It arises out of an answer which he gave yesterday, as reported at page 4687 of Hansard, which reads in part as follows:
-the present and past postmasters general have acted on the advice of the Department of Justice that the use of section 13 of the Financial Administration Act is a proper and valid use of that section-
Is the minister aware that the former postmaster general, the hon. member for Papineau, in 1974 said that he would not proceed to raise rates until he had an opportunity to amend the Post Office Act. His successor, the Hon. Bryce Mackasey, in 1976 was the first to use the Financial Administration Act but he realized he was operating contrary to the will of parliament and said that he would move retroactively to regularize what he was doing by this irregular procedure. The present Postmaster General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, perhaps he can come to it quickly; we are running out of time.

April 21, 1978
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The previous postmaster general said that he would be amending the Post Office Act to make his action regular. Why is the Minister of Justice advising ministers to break the law, and in particular to circumvent the rights of parliament which is the main charge made in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments that was concurred in unanimously by the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, none of those statements in any way affect the statement I made yesterday. There is more than one way of doing something. One way-


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Legal or illegal.


Stanley Ronald Basford: both of which are legal, and one of which may well be preferred by the hon. member or the committee. That is a matter of opinion and debate. But as was indicated yesterday, it does not affect the legality of the action taken.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice does not even realize-and yesterday the Postmaster General indicated that he did not realize-that he is violating the fundamental right of parliament in the advice he has given-


Walter David Baker: And the law.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, and the law. In view of this, would he now table the judicial opinion which is supposed to support his illegal activity or his illegal advice?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, successive postmasters general have acted on the advice of the Department of Justice. I take it the hon. member wants the legal opinion upon which that is based, not the judicial opinion. As the hon. member well knows, for the reasons once very eloquently stated in the House by the hon. member for Peace River, governments do not table their legal opinions.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The northern flood committee in Manitoba was led to believe by the previous minister of Indian affairs and northern development that funding would be available for a transitional period after the flood agreement was ratified. The agreement was ratified on March 16, 1978. Will the minister give a firm commitment now to fund the northern flood committee during the implementation stages of that agreement?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member that discussions are ongoing at this time

among the members of the flood committtee and the regional director of Indian affairs in Manitoba. In fact, they are discussing a proposal for funding. I will review any commitments made by my predecessor and if they are there I will certainly live up to them.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, will the minister meet the request of the northern flood committee and meet personally with them at his earliest convenience?


James Hugh Faulkner: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 find it amusing that when I rise, hon. members opposite try to end the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, but I will wait until the House has quietened down and the shouting has stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: As the Acting Prime Minister will know, on April 7 the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion moved by the hon. member for Matane and seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton expressing the horror and condemnation of this House at the murder of some two million men, women and children in Cambodia. The Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs at that time indicated that the extent of the action the Government of Canada was prepared to take was to have the matter discussed at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. That is good as far as it goes, but obviously it does not go far enough to give expression to the horror felt by this parliament.
As a matter of policy, will the Acting Prime Minister give us a commitment now that the government will put this item on the agenda of the fall session of the United Nations?


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, as this problem comes within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will let him reply to this question next week. Because the proposition of the hon.
April 21, 1978

member does not call for action before the fall, we can wait a few days.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board which arises from reports a few days ago on the report of the Public Service Commission to the D'Avignon committee which is looking into personnel management and the merit principle in the public service. This report was intended to be made public shortly after it was made. Public reports indicate that now that a federal election is in the wind, the Public Service Commission is keeping the proposals under its hat for fear they will become political footballs. Would the government be prepared to concur in the tabling of that report in the House of Commons?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Public Service Commission reports to parliament and might or might not be properly influenced by government attitudes toward it. However, the chairman of the Public Service Commission has indicated that the facts as the hon. member has stated them in his question are essentially correct, and this is by its decision, not by the government's.
I also gather that this decision was based upon some implied advice by the parliamentary committee at an earlier stage to the effect that this question be kept out of the political realm. If the hon. member disagrees, I have no particular objection one way or the other. I think probably the proper way to do this is to have the chairman of the Public Service Commission note these views and make a decision. We could not, of course, impose the government's view upon the Public Service Commission, but I will convey that view to the chairman.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, for the minister's benefit, let me say that the task force referred to by the joint parliamentary committee has now had part of the Public Service Commission's submission given to it and that part is public. I am sure that if the minister, on behalf of the government, joined with me-or I am prepared to join with the minister if he is willing-in advising the Public Service Commission that there would be no objection to this report being tabled in parliament, particularly now that it appears the election they feared is not so imminent, the Public Service Commission would be prepared to do this.
Would the minister undertake, on behalf of the government, to join with me and others in the House who are concerned about these secret plans for the public service, which will not be released before an election, in advising the Public Service Commission that it should release and table the report in the House of Commons?
Privilege-Mr. Woolliams


Robert Knight Andras: We will give that suggestion consideration, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the hon. member intended to indicate otherwise, but if he did I think we should be clear that this is a decision of the Public Service Commission and not of the government. Therefore, the suggestion of secret plans and that sort of thing and the implications should not be addressed to the government. This is a decison of the Public Service Commission.


Walter David Baker: Are you willing to go to the Public Service Commission with me?


Stanley Ronald Basford: They are not accountable to you two people.


Walter David Baker: We could ask.


Robert Knight Andras: I will reiterate what my seatmate has said: they are not accountable to us. Under the circumstances, I will listen very carefully and give great consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member, but that is as far as I can go at the moment.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MISS BfiGIN-UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE USED BY HON.

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege and I refer to page 4690 of the English version of the House of Commons Debates of yesterday where the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), whose name appears in Hansard, is reported to have said, when speaking of me during an answer to a question, "She is a hypocrite". I do not think that is considered to be parliamentary language. I checked the meaning in the dictionary, and I do not understand at all to what the hon. member is making reference. I should like him to withdraw the remark or to explain it. If he makes an explanation, I should like the opportunity to answer. None of my colleagues can understand why he should use such language, and I would like him to withdraw it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have checked the precedents this morning in respect of the use of the word "hypocrite". It was drawn to my attention that it was on the record of the House. That is unparliamentary language, and I withdraw it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. WOOLLIAMS-ANSWER GIVEN BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) would not deliberately misinterpret my words. When I used the term "guns" today I am sure he knows

April 21, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
what I meant. When I was talking about regulations in connection with the act which governs the new owners of long guns, guns used by farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and trappers,
I suggested the regulations had not been drafted. That act has been law for almost a year. I have looked into this matter and there are no regulations which have been approved by the provinces or the Minister of Justice. In other words, there is a law on the books without any explanation or understanding.
For example, in respect of the definition of a bona fide gun collector, we have no idea in law whether this has reference to one gun, two guns, or twenty guns. When these people apply for permits in order to get certificates they are told quite properly by the commissioner he does not have the authority to issue the certificates. If the certificates are not issued before January 1, 1978, or at least applications are received, gun collectors can never get certificates. That is what I was putting to the minister.
We have waited a whole year for this from the government, as we did in respect of regulations regarding gas and oil. These people are subject to prosecution probably because of the illegal possession of weapons of any kind, in the absence of those regulations. The minister misinterpreted my question to be related to machine guns. The Minister of Justice knows I was not talking about machine guns, but he used that answer deliberately to cover up his own procrastination.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was not talking about machine guns, but the letter from the commissioner, from which he has quoted in this House on two occasions, is a letter relating to the registration of machine guns, in which the commissioner makes it very clear that the law states that after January 1, 1978, new collectors of machine guns cannot register what are now absolutely prohibited weapons. The law is also quite clear that bona fide collectors of weapons other than machine guns can register their guns. The RCMP is clear on what is a bona fide collector for that purpose, namely, someone whose record, on checking, does not contain some adverse comment, and nothing is known to the local registrar of firearms that would indicate the information on the application, as a collector, is false.
On the third point the hon. member raises, and I am surprised that the hon. member is not aware of this, having sat as a member of the committee studying that bill, it has been made very clear by the government, by myself, and by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), that the portion of the law relating to firearms' acquisition certificates in respect of long guns, rifles and shotguns does not come into effect until January 1, 1979 and, therefore, there are no orders in council to be passed. Farmers, trappers and hunters who want to go out and buy rifles or shotguns can do so now under the law.


MR. STEVENS-ALLEGATION CONCERNING COMMITTEE APPEARANCE BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the fact that, in spite of the

minister's main estimates being introduced in the House on February 22, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has refused to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to give an accounting to that committee.
Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, in a similar situation, took it upon himself to send a letter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, requesting that committee to review the matter and determine whether there is some way a minister can be required by parliament to appear before the appropriate committee to answer in respect of his estimates.
This is particularly pertinent today because, in response to questions is this House, and I had only one supplementary, the minister made it very clear that he has presented a budget to this House and the government does not know what unemployment level to anticipate in the current year. Surely, Mr. Speaker, a minister who makes that kind of admission to the House should be virtually required to go before the appropriate committee of this House and give an accounting, not only with respect to his main estimates, but with respect to how he could conceivably be asking this House to accept a budget, as he has done, without having the basis of that unemployment level they foresee for Canadians. My formal question is, Mr. Speaker, that you consider at least sending a letter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization pointing out the fact that we have not been able to get the Minister of Finance to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
This morning he was tentatively supposed to appear. He flatly refused, saying that he did not have time to go before that committee, yet he had time to attend a session in Vancouver. I would suggest he should make the time to spend at least 60 to 90 minutes before the appropriate committee of this House to account for his estimates.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, again we see how this member of parliament can be dishonest with the House of Commons. My parliamentary secretary stated that I would appear next Tuesday night, and I have accepted that, but the hon. member rose in this House this week again to throw some cheap shots because I was presiding over an international meeting in Vancouver.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There were 2,000 delegates, ministers of finance from the Latin American countries and so on, and I was performing my duty as Minister of Finance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You should have been here.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Because we on this side of the House can be gentlemen occasionally, I invited the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to sit in my place and represent Canada at this conference. He is more of a gentleman than the hon. member.
April 21, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member seems to think that my three-day absence was a very long absence. It was probably longer than the life of the Western Bank of Canada before it went bankrupt. I did go to the meeting because I was representing Canada in my responsibility as Minister of Finance and as governor of the Inter American Development Bank, for which I was elected chairman of the Board of Governors in the coming year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know that the hon. member will be at the meeting on Tuesday to ask his thousands of questions that will make no bloody sense!


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, you gave him time to make all sorts of insinuations on a point where he was completely wrong.
I had already indicated when I would come before the committee, and it was not necessary for the hon. member to get up in this House and accuse me of refusing, when he already knew that I would be there. Or, if he did not know, it is because he is not aware of what is going on in front of the committee, perhaps because he is a part-time member of the opposition-I do not know.
I will be there on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, because with the kind of policies they are proposing we will not have an $11.5 billion deficit but it will be $20 billion, and if he becomes minister of finance the fate of Canada will perhaps be the same as the Western Bank.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Again the Liberals opposite, particularly the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), whose major contribution to debate is to shout from his seat, are trying to shout me down.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: I did not say a word.


Charles Joseph Clark: What has happened on this question of privilege is that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who is responsible to this party as the critic on economic matters, quite properly stood in his place to express concern that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) for Canada at a time of the most serious economic crisis in the country, has refused to this point to come before the appropriate committee of the House of Commons to discuss his main estimates. The minister tells us today that-and my colleague from York-Simcoe has informed me that this is the first time that he, as a member of that committee, has been advised-he intends to appear on Tuesday night. Well, that is fine, and we will see if he keeps that engagement, because he failed to keep the engagement this morning.
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
The point raised by my colleague was a request to you, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of the greatest of importance to the ability of this House of Commons to do its job in examining estimates and to try to hold this government accountable. I regret to say that it is not only this minister who refuses to come to committees, but it has become a pattern with that government on its estimates. It is a very appropriate request that the hon. member for York-Simcoe has made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Please do not try to shout me down again. I can understand that a party that is in full retreat from calling an election wants to shout, but I wish that they would not try to interrupt debate in the House in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental right and an obligation of this House to review estimates. It is particularly important in relation to the economy when we are in the state of crisis that we are. There is a precedent of which you have been reminded by my colleague from York-Simcoe and he has asked you to consider taking very seriously that precedent.
The Minister of Finance, as has too often been his practice, instead of dealing directly with matters which might have advanced confidence in the Canadian economy, has resorted instead to the inference of malicious intent, personal attacks and the debasing of debate in this House of Commons. That is why I rise. The business of the Parliament of Canada and the necessity of confidence in the Canadian economy are too important to be put aside by the partisan game-playing of the Minister of Finance.
What I would like you to do, Mr. Speaker, is to give most serious consideration to a very serious request put forward by my colleague from York-Simcoe, and you act as previous Speakers have acted in similar circumstances when previous ministers refused to carry out their responsibilities and come to committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have had contributions from the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), and the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). I do not believe this matter need be discussed any further.
The Minister of Finance stood in his place today and said that he was not able to attend the committee meeting this morning and that he has indicated to the committee, and confirmed in the House, that he will be at the next meeting, which is Tuesday night. That closes the matter as far as any procedural difficulty is concerned.
I am unable to take any action in a situation in which the minister says that he has indicated that he is prepared to come to the committee at its next meeting and that is the first opportunity he has had to be there. Therefore, from a procedural point of view, the matter is closed and ought not to go any further.

April 21, 1978
Ways and Means


MR. LUMLEY-NOTICE OF MINISTER'S APPEARANCE
Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not wish to further this debate, but the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) made a very erroneous statement when he said the opposition parties were not aware that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) agreed to come on Tuesday, April 25. At our last meeting of the steering committee of the standing commiteee I stated emphatically, while the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was present, that the minister would be available on April 25, and tentatively available on April 21, which was this morning. The minister could not make it this morning, but he has re-emphasized the fact that he would be there April 25. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is totally erroneous.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We can go on at great length here, and argue this matter, but we are clearly into questions of debate. The procedural question raised initially by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and contributed to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was totally answered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) when he stood in the House and stated that he would be at the meeting on Tuesday night. There is no further procedural argument or remedy that can be advanced at this time.


MR. STEVENS-MINISTER'S COMMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of privilege. During the course of his remarks the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said that I had acted dishonestly. I would ask him to withdraw his comment because I believe that it is unparliamentary language.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If my memory serves me correctly, the minister said that this indicates the manner in which the member can act dishonestly, or can be dishonest with parliament. However, I will check the record to see if in fact he said there had been dishonesty in the circumstances.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60 I request you to designate an order of the day for consideration of the Notice of Ways and Means Motion with regard to the Customs Tariff, tabled Monday, April 10, 1978.


PETITIONS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition in the following terms:
The petition of the three hundred-fifty (350) undersigned residents of the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your Petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy,
The petition goes on to show:
That there is grave dissatisfaction with the present method of mail delivery from the site box system in the constituency of Edmonton West and more particularly in those areas west of 170th Street;
That those residents of such areas now pay tax levies for postal service at the same level as do other citizens in the said constituency who receive door to door delivery and to that extent your petitioners feel that they are being discriminated against;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Government of Canada give immediate consideration the institution of door to door postal delivery in those areas of the constituency of Edmonton West not now served which in all respects meet the normal requirements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wanted to let the hon. member go along enough to describe the petition, which he is entitled to do. He is not entitled, as a right, to read it. I would certainly not want to encourage any practice whereby those bringing petitions into the House would consider it a right to read the terms of the petition. The hon. member is entitled to present the petition and describe it accurately, which he did in that particular way on this occasion. I want to stress again that I would not want that to be taken as a precedent that those bringing petitions into the House for application and approval would be entitled to read them in every instance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the terms of the petition are as brief as any other description that could be made. I hereby present the petition.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 1,445.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Is Mr. Lionel Orlikow employed by the government and, if so (a) what is his job designation (b) upon what basis and on what criteria was he hired (c) for how long has he been hired (d) what salary and what expense account per year is he receiving?
April 21, 1978

2.	Will he be submitting an annual report of his findings and will the report be Tabled in the House of Commons?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,081 and 1,390 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 1,081 and 1,390 be deemed to be made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Robert Cardinal employed with the National Film Board and, if so (a) in what position (b) on what date was he appointed (c) what is his annual salary?
2.	What were the previous positions he held with the National Film Board and the dates concerned?
3.	Has he been specifically involved with the promotion of films produced by the National Film Board and, if so, what is a complete list of all such films and the expenditures in each case, including the total expenditures in all cases, made for promotion, etc?
4.	Is it a requirement of the government and the National Film Board that at least three tenders be received for those to be considered for promotion of films?
5.	In how many cases did Mr. Cardinal (a) call for tenders (b) not call for tenders and, in each case, what was the amount expended, to whom was it paid and for what film being promoted?
6.	To the knowledge of the government, were amounts of whisky or other gifts delivered to Mr. Cardinal at any time by firms doing promotion work for the National Film Board and, if so, what are all the details?
Return tabled.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What was the amount of federal income tax payable by a resident of the province of (a) Quebec (b) Ontario (c) Alberta, on a taxable income of (i) $5,000 (ii) $10,000 (iii) $15,000, in the fiscal years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78?
2.	What is the reason for the difference in tax abatements?
3.	On what basis are the formulas for abatement in each case, decided?
4.	In each case where compensation is received by the provinces, how much adjustment is made through (a) cash payment to the province (b) recoveries from each province?
Return tabled.
Currency and Exchange Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Marcel Lessard (for the Minister of Supply and
Services) moved that Bill C-39, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to allow the Governor in Council to authorize the Royal Canadian Mint to strike and issue gold coins, to determine their face value and specify the maximum mumber of gold coins to be struck in a year.
In 1977 the Royal Canadian Mint was authorized to issue a special 22 carat gold coin with a $100 face value to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Her Majesty. In only four months, 176,000 gold coins were sold for an amount of $24.6 million. [English]
The world annual market of numismatic coins is estimated at about $1 billion, and in 1977 the Mint sales were more than $31 million. The government believes the Mint should continue its efforts to gain for Canada a substantial share of the world market.

Such a project could yield such benefits as creation of jobs at the Royal Canadian Mint and better profitability of production services; creation of jobs outside the mint, for example for the production of related products like blanks and cases; creation of jobs in mining and related industries; and improvement of our balance of payments through the sale of coins abroad.

I trust these advantages will commend themselves to hon. members opposite and that any difficulties they may find with the bill will be resolved in a spirit of mutual co-operation at committee stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I expect there will be considerable difficulties from members on this

April 21, 1978
Currency and Exchange Act
side in connection with this bill because of the possible wide powers it takes away from the House of Commons and gives to the cabinet.
This would not be the first time we have seen attempts by this government to reduce the powers of the House of Commons. I do not have to think back very far to remember the last tally we had on orders in council issued by this government. The last annual count was something like 3,300. I think we have to compare the number of orders in council used in this parliament with the number used in the British House of Commons. There, for the same period, 12 orders in council were issued, compared to over 3,000 issued by this government. It may be that through familiarity with the use of orders in council, Canadians, and even Canadian parliamentarians, have been lulled into a sense of complacence and think there is nothing wrong with this.
I ask hon. members to recall a few short years ago when we had a lengthy debate in this House on the right of the government to issue these very coins that are under consideration. The reason for that debate was obvious. Members of the opposition were quite concerned that this kind of tampering with the coinage and the money system in Canada should be taking place. I only refer to this to indicate to the House the seriousness of the measure before us.
I am sorry that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has left the chamber. He was party to another move by this government when it attempted to remove the importance and power of this House of Commons. I am referring to an action taken within the last two months by the Minister of Justice who, while in Vancouver, called a press conference for the express purpose of announcing a matter of serious concern to British Columbians. It was a matter which should have been announced in this House, not by the Minister of Justice but by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay). I am referring to the matter of the importation of and duties on wide flange steel beams which are so widely used in steel fabrication in British Columbia.
The government has imposed a tariff on imported steel in order to help eastern steel producers. That move was probably understandable, Mr. Speaker, but the government had not thought it through to see how that kind of a move would affect the industry in British Columbia. It was established that the B.C. steel fabricators were not using eastern Canadian produced steel in any event. Freight rates and other factors made it non-competitive with steel that was available from overseas.
I do not mean to debate the steel issue under this bill, but I am stressing the fact that instead of the then minister of national revenue getting up in the House and saying that the government had decided to remove temporarily the tariff on imported wide flange steel, the government took that power away from the House and sent the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to Vancouver to hold a press conference at noon Ottawa time on a Friday, which effectively closed off any
[Mr. Clarke.l
possibility of debate until Monday afternoon of the following week.
In the normal circumstances the Minister of National Revenue would have made a statement in the House. There would have been an opportunity for reply from this side and from other opposition parties, and then questions on the matter, so that it would have been fully aired. As it was, the Minister of Justice was sent to Vancouver to do it. But not only that, he had indicated in less than a frank manner after the cabinet meeting the night before that no decision had been reached on that matter. Furthermore, he indicated to the press conference in Vancouver that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) or the then minister of national revenue-I am not sure which one it was-would be making a simultaneous statement in the House of Commons. That, of course, did not happen. The only statement which was made in that case was made by the Minister of Justice in Vancouver.
Another reference which we can all remember involving the removal of powers from this House of Commons was the holding of a first minister's conference by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Ottawa which took place down the street from this building. This conference, held during the current session of this parliament, took away from the media and from Canadians the importance of the business of this House. We can excuse the Prime Minister-I guess we can get along without him from time to time-but in this case there were more ministers than just the Prime Minister absent, which curtailed the answering of questions. As well, other members had to absent themselves from the House in order to observe the conference. I draw that to your attention, Mr. Speaker, simply as an example of attempts by the government to take away powers of this House.
Who knows at this point what the intentions are of this particular bill or what powers will be taken away from the House and given to the cabinet under this bill? What is the bill actually telling us? It allows the gold content of coins to vary. It allows the cabinet to determine the number of coins to be issued. The parliamentary secretary has set out briefly and accurately the intent of the bill. However, I would like to look at the explanatory notes to the bill, shown on page 2. With regard to clause 1 it says:
This amendment would allow the Governor in Council to authorize the issue of gold coins of different denominations and would remove the requirement that the value of the gold in the coins be equal to the amount that appears as the denomination of the coin.
What will that do to our coinage? Already under the Olympic Coin Act we have a situation where we have two categories of gold coins. In each category the gold coin has a face value of $100. We find the 14-karat gold coin contains 7.77 grams of pure gold, whereas the 22-karat gold coin contains 15.55 grams of pure gold. I do not know what reliance people can be expected to put on the value of coinage. Here are two coins both having a face value of $100 but each containing a different quantity of gold. We do not know whether it is the intention of the government to issue a Kruger rand kind of coin with a known quantity of gold, for instance one ounce.
April 21, 1978

We can refer to some other actions of the government to illustrate that the government does not let us know exactly what it has in mind. However, before I do that I want to refer to the Olympic gold coin program and in particular with regard to the advertising which was used to market the coins. A buyer was given the impression that this investment would pay handsomely within a short period of time. The advertisement states:
Seven reasons why the Canadian Olympic 22 karat Gold Proof Coin is one of the most unusual coins in history.and why you should reserve yours now!
Those words appear in large print at the top of the advertisement. Following that the seven reasons are given why these coins will increase in value. Then it opines "Yesterday's Olympic Coins are today's treasures." Then a table is given which is headed "Value of Olympic Coins-The Historic World Record". The impression created is that these coins are a good investment and will increase in value. In very small print at the bottom of the page in something like we call shyster print out in my part of the country, it says, "No assurance can be given that any particular coins will appreciate in value". It is even hard for me to read these words under the bright lights of the House here.
With that kind of advertising and the kind of content we see here, I hope that we on this side of the House can be forgiven for wondering what it is that the government has up its sleeve. I have a comment here about these particular coins:
Critics point out that the coins do not contain sufficient precious metal ($35.50 and $71 worth of pure gold respectively), to justify their face value, nor are they scarce enough to bring about large price increases.
I recognize that collectors make their own markets, and if the claims in the advertisement are correct that fewer coins are being issued than there are collectors in the world, perhaps the values will go up, although there is no assurance that the government will not be producing any more coins to take away the value contained there.
I remember a couple of years ago that the government laid a charge against an industry in this country, the particular company involved was fined, I think it was $7,000, by the courts of the land for advertising pewter beer mugs. This was a give-away kind of thing offered by one of the cereal companies, I believe it was General Foods, and these beer mugs were to be sold for $2.39 or some other very low figure. The government laid a charge against General Foods and the company was subsequently convicted, even though it would have been obvious to any person with the slightest knowledge of valuable metals that pewter beer mugs could not be sold for the price advertised. Of course, there was no pewter in those mugs at all. They were made out of some kind of metal which looked like pewter or, possibly, out of plastic. Anyway, the courts made the decision, and it is not my intention to reflect on that decision.
A similar instance occurred right here on Parliament Hill when the Secretary of State circulated a letter to all members of parliament offering supplies of desk flags, Canadian flags
Currency and Exchange Act
suitable for placing on a desk. The letter said they had a "nice gold mounting". Perhaps the expression used was "gold-plated mounting". Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not gold at all. It was merely a plastic base and a plastic stick, but they were gold coloured. I raised that point in the House because this happened about the same time the government was charging somebody else for selling pewter mugs which were not made of pewter. But neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs felt that the law applied to the government. And to this day those flags are still being advertised as having gold bases and gold standards. I use this example simply to illustrate the trouble into which legislation like this can get us.
I wish to turn attention for a few moments to the history of the Royal Canadian Mint and to the circumstances in which it became what it is. It is interesting to note that for approximately the last ten years it has come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Supply and Services. I should like to refer to the remarks of no less a personage than the Prime Minister who spoke as follows when introducing the measure to establish the Department of Supply and Services following the creation of the Royal Canadian Mint as a Crown corporation:
The most significant suggestion concerns the establishment of the Department of Supply and Services. The Glassco Commission had recommended the grouping within a single department of common services-
These are the important words-"common services"-
-such as purchasing and supply, in a way that... would be advantageous... The proposed department will be responsible for procurements as well as for other administrative services.
That will enable us to... to provide most of the common services needed by the various government departments.
Common services might very well be understood to include the issue of coinage for daily use in our commercial transactions, but I do not understand at all how common services could be considered to include the issue of gold coins or souvenir coins produced for sale or profit by the Mint.
About the same time as the Department of Supply and Services was formed, the Mint was established as a Crown corporation. It was understood that this was being done to permit more flexibility in its operations. At the present time the Mint can make a profit. This is known as seignorage. When the Mint produces certain coins and circulates them at face value, charges are made and the Mint is in a position to make a profit from their distribution. Here is a statement from the Mint itself with regard to the position:
Like any manufacturer, the Mint has problems of supply and demand and has never been able to accurately predict the requirements of the public. Under the new financing arrangements, the Mint now has greater operational flexibility and is able to adjust rapidly to fluctuating demands.
A great debate is going on at the present time as to the latitude which ought to be allowed Crown corporations. We have had experience of Crown corporations improperly using their retained earnings in revolving accounts. Moneys provided by parliament for certain purposes are subsequently used for different purposes. The Royal Canadian Mint was previously obliged to seek appropriations in parliament for each year's capital expenditure. This procedure, of course, gave the House

April 21, 1978
Currency and Exchange Act
an opportunity to examine the estimates, since each appropriation is considered by a committee. Under the new arrangements the Mint will be able to borrow funds from the treasury and build up a surplus out of its expected profits. However, the limit on the accumulation of such profits will be one million dollars-any sum in excess of that has to be turned over to the treasury. Some foresight appears to have been used there. The freedom which has been provided is, of course, exercised by the Mint's operations.
We come back to the question: what did the government have in mind when it produced this bill? I ask myself: why are we expected to relieve parliament of the task of approving the issuance of coinage? I seriously question whether this power should be taken from parliament and placed in the hands of cabinet. In my view consideration should at least be given to placing a limit on such authority by granting it only for a certain period so that we might have an opportunity to see how the new system works out. I would think a trial period of two years or so would not be unreasonable.
I trust we shall have an opportunity before parliament is dissolved to get this bill into committee and examine it in more detail, and that the government will then give us information on the basis of which we shall be able to make a reasonable decision on the matter.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this bill. I do not know why it has been presented in this way. It leaves a lot of decisions up to the cabinet, and ministers may find themselves facing the same questions as the Post Office does in relation to the issue of stamps.
The government has now found out something which I knew a long time ago; it is that we have never really gone off the gold standard. We have played around with it. We have fooled around with substitutes. But when the crunch comes, gold is important because of the respect paid to it by people all over the world, not only for its value in terms of coinage but for its worth as a precious metal to be hoarded or saved.
The value of our dollar has risen slightly in the last day or two, not because the minister is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bolster it but simply because the United States says it will take gold out of Fort Knox and put it on the market to bolster the American currency. Our currency is the tail on the American dog. The value of our money went up a little because the issuance of gold from Fort Knox to the international market to buy American dollars resulted in a stronger American dollar.
In the sixties I asked the then minister of finance to consider establishing a gold coin for the centennial year, 1967. There were three ministers of finance after that before one would agree that a gold coin should be issued for our centennial. That had not been done for many years. The minister of finance I First spoke to was a Conservative, Donald Fleming, and he would have nothing to do with that because he had decided that the American dollar was all-powerful and that he did not

want to put a price on gold in Canada. The only assistance Canada was giving to its gold industry was in providing emergency gold mines assistance.
After much discussion with three ministers of finance it was decided that Canada would put out a $50.00 gold piece for our centennial year. I do not know how much one of those would be worth now, but 1 wish I had a hundred of them. They would be worth more than bonds, speculative oil stock or anything else, because their value went up tremendously. They were so good that when the 1976 Olympics were in such great difficulty it was agreed to put out another gold coin. However, there was so much confusion that some people were unable to get a series. Some people were able to get only one out of the series. This caused great difficulty for collectors. The indication was that we could not over-produce because there was a large market for gold coins.
The government must have learned, although that is not indicated in this bill, that once it decides to mint a coin which is to be used mainly by collectors, it has to go on the futures market. I am very unhappy that the government will not say how much gold is in the coin and that it will not be redeemable for that amount of gold. Our history of gold coins indicates that gold coins have never been common tender.
Gold coins are not seen on the market. They are not seen crossing bank counters. They are not used for tender because their intrinsic value as collector's items is considerably higher than their face value, even if that face value fluctuates according to the market, and there has been considerable fluctuation at a reasonably high level.
If we decide now to put out gold coins, we should indicate the reason, what use will be made of them, and how many will be issued. If we can stabilize gold in Canada by developing the Kruger rand system or some other system, we will solve much of the problem of our falling dollar and certainly much of the unemployment problem in my area because there are literally dozens of gold mines which could be reopened. They have very high employment factors because of the type of mining involved. Many of these mines could reopen if a stabilization of the price, to eliminate some of the fluctuations, were guaranteed. I doubt if we will mine very much more gold in Canada unless there is a big incentive. We will not produce much more than we can use for our own currency.
I am pleased that we are going ahead with this operation, but I am surprised that we are leaving it up to the cabinet. This is a beautiful way of bootlegging. How many hon. members have received complaints because people could not buy nickel dollars last year?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Silver dollars.


William Arnold Peters: They used to be called silver dollars, but they are now made solely of nickel. They are not very attractive, but they are collectors' items, and people with grandchildren or great grandchildren might want to give these dollar coins to them. The children can look at them and fondle them. They cannot swallow them, and there are no problems with paper. They are collectors' items, but the banks bootleg them. The
April 21, 1978

Mint turns them over to the heads of the banks. I had about 20 different conversations with banks, the Mint, with local banks, and with everybody in an attempt to get 100 of these coins for a collector in my area. They are not distributed. They do not become tender. They are bootlegged from the banks or from the Mint directly to coin collectors.
While collectors can buy these coins for a dollar from a bank or the Mint, they are not available to the public. However, they can be bought from coin collectors for $1.25 or $1.75 during the current year. Not only has the Mint been making some money but so have coin collectors. I think it is almost like bootlegging. When a certain kind of liquor is not available at the liquor store, it can be bought down the street from a bootlegger. That is what we have been doing with coins, and I think there should be an investigation of this bootlegging from the Mint and from head offices of banks. I have had great difficulty obtaining from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce even new coppers for my constituents who are collectors. Even coppers are sold to coin dealers. They are delivered to coin dealers rather than to banks. I think there has to be some control. Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I mentioned that I welcomed this bill and the decision on the part of the government to make gold coinage a regular part of the operations of the Mint. Also I mentioned the difficulties we were facing in relation to acquiring gold coinage at the present time. Obviously something has gone wrong with the Mint, because it is very difficult for my constituents and for other coin collectors to get coins from either the Mint or their local banks. Yet they see coin dealers selling fairly large amounts of coins. For example, the current issue of the silver dollar is sold by coin dealers at anywhere from 25 cents to 75 cents higher than the cost of purchase from the banks or the Mint. Obviously the coin dealers have some edge on that market, and a great deal of bootlegging apparently is taking place.
We are interested in the production of gold coins other than as legal tender. I agree that they have to be put out as legal tender in order that they will qualify in the field of numismatics. What is happening in respect of this currency is that the coins are all being retained by those individuals who purchase them as a security investment or for some some other reason. In any event, they are being kept off the currency market.
There are other gold currencies being traded in Canada. It is possible to go to the bank and buy gold coins manufactured
Currency and Exchange Act
in England, and Kruger rands are quoted on the Canadian exchange, as well as several other gold currencies.
These coins contain a certain amount of gold, but they are not traded for the face value but for the value of the gold content on world markets. As a result this value fluctuates from day to day. I presume this will not be the case in respect of the currency we will be producing and it will not qualify under the Currency and Exchange Act. We were not talking about currency with a face value of less than $2, including one and five cent pieces, or perhaps other coins of a value less than $10. What we have in mind are coins that will be considerably more valuable than this, such as gold coins of $100, $200, and $500 denominations.
For these reasons I think these coins must have an established mineral content and a specified value in order to serve the purpose I want served, that is, these coins should provide the Canadian producer of gold with an outlet, with a value that is fair and reasonable to those purchasing the coins, rather than making the coins specifically for the numismatic industry. That market is a world-wide market and, as the parliamentary secretary has suggested, it amounts to something in the neighbourhood of $1 billion a year. A great proportion of the gold coins manufactured for that purpose would find their way to that market. I want to see more involved than just that. These coins should be produced in a form that will be purchased by the people because they have a known value. Coins produced for numismatic purposes do not necessarily fall into that category.
Our present act states that a gold coin has to contain a certain amount of gold equal in value to at least the coin's face value. That is to be changed. That is not a big change, as we have done it with everything else. Up until 1968 our silver coins contained silver. Following that we switched to purely nickel coinage. I am surprised that people are still buying silver dollars and fifty cent pieces which contain no silver at all. As far as the fifty cent pieces are concerned, it is difficult to find any, even though they contain no silver at all. Our commonly circulated coin contains no silver, but it has a value as legal tender. I am wondering why there are so few of these coins available. The minister or his parliamentary secretary should give an explanation to parliament about what happens to this coinage. We mint a very large number of silver dollars each year, although they now are nickel dollars, and we mint a large number of fifty cent pieces, but to my knowledge no bank in Ottawa had any fifty cent pieces this year. They were all absorbed by the numismatic industry.
What we are talking about is the feeding of that industry and the bootleg market in coins. I do not know whether the Master of the Mint is getting rich, but he damned well should be. You will remember that there were investigations on a couple of occasions about things that go on, some of which would lift your scalp, I suppose. Somebody is doing very well in respect of our coinage. The silver and gold industries are not doing very well at the moment in Canada. If we are going to get into this business we should be willing to share some of the

April 21, 1978
Currency and Exchange Act
profits with those industries, thereby putting people back to work in those areas of high unemployment.
I have no objection to the governor in council making the decisions regarding the denomination of the coins and when they should be minted, but I do not think we want to add just another $100 coin to our production. These coins should have some significance.
This whole thing may be likened to our postage stamps. We must be supporting almost every artist in the country as we are putting out more stamps than it would be possible for you to buy, and certainly more than a young stamp collector could afford. I buy stamps, although I am not sure why as I am not a collector. I have bought corners for years and just left them in my office. The last time I looked they had disappeared. I am not really much of a collector, but I do buy them. Considering the number of notices one receives of new stamps coming out, one would have to pay $5 or $6 on occasion just to buy a new issue. These stamps are becoming very high priced and we are turning them out like they were going out of style and we were going out of business. I have no real objection to that, but I would like to see some less expensive stamps. With the prices we are paying for them now we must be getting them done by Goya, and I have in mind that series put out a little while ago with ships and things.


An hon. Member:: It wasn't this Goyer.


William Arnold Peters: No, I am sure it is not this Goyer, but some famous artist. In any event, these stamps are very good, and we can be proud to have them travelling around the world. I have in mind particularly a fourteen cent stamp put out recently.
In any event, I think the same should be true of our coins. Part of the intrinsic value of our coins is in how they look. We should give credit where credit is due. The Mint has done a beautiful job with these coins. Perhaps it has not done any better than Franklin or probably one or two other private mints around the country, but for some reason the coins minted in Canada are beautiful.
It is interesting to note that a number of countries throughout the world have their coins minted in Canada because we do such a nice job. I suppose our Mint will do the same with these gold coins. The responsibility will not be that of some committee. The minister must assume some responsibility in this regard, and I would not like to see the same old game played. I have seen this happen at least two or three times in respect of postage stamps.
A decision must be made as to what denominations are to be put out and how many of each coin will be minted. Then much of the business can be given to our mining industry in Canada. I suppose it does not matter a damn which way we go, but let us at least buy what we need for these coins from the industry in Canada. The last time we bought silver and gold for coinage we did not buy nearly enough. The first half was at a very low price, and when we went into the market the second time to buy enough to finish the run we were paying almost twice as much. So, if there is any money to be made from the advan-

tage that our coinage will have on the market, surely some of it should go to the mines themselves, and we should buy it in a pre-set block. There is nothing unusual about that.
Ontario Hydro has done that very thing with the mining industry. They have set a block aside and said that they will buy that over a period of time at a set price. Therefore, they know how much it is going to be. It is less than wise for the Mint not to have their full run either ahead of them or the price set in the futures market so that they are not involved in that speculation that takes place once a decision is made to make a new coin. I commend the government for finally having made the decision that to mint gold type coins in Canada does not mean that we are back on the gold standard. I am not prepared to argue whether or not it would be good to go back on the gold standard.
As I mentioned earlier today, when the Americans decide to take money out of Fort Knox in the form of gold and put it on the market, it is going to help our dollar, and we are quite a piece away from Fort Knox. It will certainly help their dollar as well, so maybe it is a relationship that we should honour. Certainly, in relation to the hoarding of coins through collections and in other manners, we are going to have a ready market for these gold coins provided we do not overdo it by manufacturing too many at a time.
If a gold coin is used for tender, it should be such that it is evaluated on its gold value as well as on its face value. There should be some relationship. This is not possible in a free market; therefore it was probably necessary to take that out. There was really no point in changing the section that said that you could use gold to make your full transaction or full tender. Now, under the proposed bill, only one coin can be used towards that tender each day in transactions. If it is going to be called a tender, then it should be available to make the total payment, and I do not think that it should be restricted to this one coin.
I welcome the decision, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that this means that in co-operation with the mining industry we can provide a stable base price by our future orders, and that that stable price will allow many of the gold mines throughout very distressed parts of Canada-northern Ontario, northern Quebec, northern Manitoba-to reopen so that work can take place in those mines for the advantage of communities that were built on them. These communities have always been subject to the fluctuations that are influenced very greatly by decisions of government, and I hope that this is one decision that will be favourable to them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This little two-clause bill, Mr. Speaker, would appear to many to be a very innocuous bill, but I would suggest that it is in fact the contrary. This bill seeks to eliminate for the government the problems it had over the debate when Olympic coins were set off. That debate did not have the proper arguments, and it was a bad case.
April 21, 1978

I am sure there are some people who would confess right now-and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is one of them-that they shared a lot of doubts about the Olympic gold coin issue. Oh yes, one remembers! Now, however, the ministry of which he is a part seeks to give power to the governor in council to act on its own without getting parliamentary sanction. There are those purists who will say, "Oh, but the House committee for statutory instruments would have a go and could comment upon it." This is not the case. This is not like the Post Office. In the Post Office case, which is now of current debate, it is a question of whether there is legal power to so act to pass the order in council. Under this bill there will not be a question of legal power to issue gold coins of a partial value, debased value, or a glittering value, because the power will be there. The governor in council is to be given power to issue coins of various rates, that is, to use the language of the bill:
-of the denominations and standards of fineness specified in Part I of the schedule ...
Automatically there will not be any more such controversy. I do not know why they are asking for that. This is a point the parliamentary secretary failed to explain to the satisfaction of the House, and is also a point the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) will have to explain when he comes to committee.
It is interesting to note that C-39 in the Revised Statues is the number, in those statutes, of the Currency and Exchange Act, a pure coincidence. There was a debate last year with regard to part of this act because certain amendments were brought in whereby with respect to the foreign exchange fund, which is audited by the Auditor General, there is no longer a requirement that the audit report be made to parliament but that it be made to the Minister of Finance. The minister then has five months after the end of the year, as I recall, to submit the report on the status of the foreign exchange fund during the previous year. I believe the House was divided on that point, but this particular matter deals with two areas. The first area is determining when the governor in council can issue gold coins.
As the act now stands, and I am wondering why the act was not amended to make it conform to present circumstances, the conditions that apply in C-39 Revised Statutes, have not been eliminated entirely. Apparently under the old act, as was established another act of parliament and as is being maintained, Canada is on a floating dollar. Therefore, there is no value to the dollar on the basis of gold value, so this is eliminated.
The wording of section 4(1) of the Currency and Exchange Act will be as follows:
The governor in council may by proclamation authorize the issue of gold coins-
The old section 4 is being subdivided into three subsections. The first subsection continues as follows:
-having the description, standards, remedy allowance and least current weight specified in Part 1 of the schedule.
Currency and Exchange Act
Then the governor in council is given authority to issue other new gold coins, not those specified in the act but coins of an undisclosed nature.
Subsection (2) reads as follows:
The governor in council may by proclamation amend Part 1 of the schedule by adding denominations of gold coins other than those specified therein and prescribing ...
In other words, as the governor in council sees fit, so shall it act. This House will have no recourse whatsoever not even through a review of the order in council because the order in council shall only be reviewed as to its legality, not as to its intrinsic value.
Subsection (3) reads as follows:
The governor in council may by order specify the maximum number of gold coins of any denomination specified in Part 1 of the schedule to be struck in any year.
We need an explanation of why these changes are being made, and I can advise the parliamentary secretary that these explanations will have to be forthcoming. There can be no pressure put on opposition members on the committee because of a pending election. At this late date it is pointless. There has been plenty of time to get bills through, and there will be competition for time in the House for measures arising out of the budget which are important.
The second point is that the bill changes the status of coins in so far as their being legal tender is concerned. Hitherto legal tender consisted of gold coins for their face value, because that was the value of gold. We know now that value is around $160 or $165 per ounce, and no gold coin can contain gold to that value because the size would be too big. We are going into a debased gold coinage and it is going to ruin the market, unless you get one with the figure of a nude dancing girl on the back that is struck upside down, or with some other peculiarity that will make it of extraordinary market value.
We also want to know why it will not be possible to pay any account with more than $10 in 25-cent pieces for $1 coins. Ten dollars is the maximum legal tender on any one occasion. There is nothing to say that I cannot walk into a store where I owe an account and put down the $10 payment in pennies, however, and then go out and return with another $10 worth of pennies.


An hon. Member:: Not in this act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member would check, the explanatory note referring to paragraphs 7(2)(Z>) reads as follows:
... would limit the legal tender of all coins of denominations of ten cents or greater but not exceeding ten dollars to payments for amounts of ten dollars or less.
Therefore, every time I pay on an account is a payment, up to $10, except in the case of a gold coin which usually has a greater value than $10. Let us assume there is a $50 gold coin or a $100 gold coin. In that instance the payment could be in legal tender up to the face value of the coin.
4754

April 21, 1978
Currency and Exchange Act
We are playing around with coins here, Mr. Speaker. I wonder why a limit was placed on the legal tender of coins. I can see no particular reason for it. A reason will have to be offered by the Minister of Supply and Services or whoever is acting on his behalf.
Those are the two purposes of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I am rather surprised that we have not heard any comments from backbenchers on the government side, although an explanation was offered in part. I am not too sure the parliamentary secretary understood what she was telling us, and 1 am sure some of her cabinet colleagues did not understand it either, unless they had the translator on.
Why is there a rush to bring this bill forward at this time, to be followed by Bill C-36 which requires a great deal more examination than this one? This bill is to go to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, which is a strange venue for it. It should really go to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Is the reason to leave that latter committee free to deal with Bill C-36? The finance committee has before it the finance estimates and the industry, trade and commerce estimates, so Bill C-36 will have to take its place.
Ministers will be sounding the alarm on several bills because of a pending election and claiming that they must have the legislation. Mr. Speaker, this House does not take cognizance, officially, of a pending election. It has the responsibility to examine estimates until May 31. They have first priority. I think it is an abuse of his position for any minister to come along with legislation now. It points up the nonsense of the committee structure. These are the people who instituted that form of committee where the same committee is charged with the study of estimates and legislation. The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is usually the butt of most this pressure. Ministers do not appear, or find that they have other things to do.
I want to interject my views on a matter that was raised earlier on a point of privilege, after question period today. This matter was in regard to the duties of a minister to appear before a committee examining his estimates. It was suggested in the past that action should be taken by the procedural committee to provide some sort of sanction, some sort of rule, compelling the minister to appear on his estimates. All I can say is that a minister who does not appear before a House committee with regard to his estimates is failing to discharge his duties. He is misplacing his priorities, and he is actually giving affront to the House. He is responsible to the House. However, all too often cabinet ministers suddenly become statesmen. It is their scale of priorities that suddenly becomes the most important.
I will refer to the scheme of committee structure which I proposed through the procedure committee along with my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), and other members on the other side of the House who agreed with my proposal. Some who felt that they had

greater knowledge of the rules and the practices of this House objected to my form of committee structure, but no one has been able to come up with anything that begins to match the flexibility of the system which was proposed. We would not be faced at this time with the difficulty, I suggest, which may face certain government ministers, if the committees of the House had the backbone to stand by their duty to examine estimates with which they are charged, and for which they have so little time to carry out.
Now, a minister merely has to appear only as frequently as is decent, leaving the rest to his officials. For any sessions for which he is being closely questioned, with a ten-minute question period, the minister can consume the questioner's ten minutes with eight minutes of inconsequential answers. He only has to go through about 90 minutes a session. It is the old business of "just keep a low profile, duck your head, or pull in your head like a turtle and ride it out". That is how much control the House has on a minister with regard to estimates. It is nonsense. I would like to hear one minister from the government side defend the present structure-one of them.
In so far as these bills are concerned we do not know when this House will end. These bills will go to particular committees. We will see some other legislation possibly on Monday. Tuesday is an allotted day. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has given notice to us of the coming forward of a bill to implement his customs tariff proposals in the budget. They stay in the House in committee of the whole. All of this will take more than next week. Therefore, to say sittings of the House must necessarily come to an end next week is nonsense. It is nonsense, because there are certain ministers here who will ask for legislation to come forward and who will be most insincere. I do not agree that there should be this pressure.
On miscellaneous estimates I certainly intend to ask my full share of questions of the Minister of Supply and Services when, and if, he gets around to us on this particular bill. We certainly intend to go into any other bill that comes before the committees, as they should. I do not intend, because there is a pending election, to neglect the discharge of my duties, nor do my colleagues. I expect the same from the conscientious committee members on the other side of the House, and there are some who will do a good job. They will have to be satisfied as to the validity of these legislative proposals.
It may be that we will reach Bill C-36 this afternoon. Because that bill is not so simple a bill, there are a lot of questions which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is going to be asked. With these few points I am quite prepared to see this bill go to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to see what explanations we can get. I reserve my position depending upon those explanations.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak to this bill. However, as I sat here and listened to some of the comments being made, my curiosity was aroused and I read the bill carefully. I wonder what we are getting into. I did not hear all of the statements being made. I followed the introductory comments made by the parliamentary secretary. As I said, my focus of attention
April 21, 1978

was not on the bill at that time and I do not know whether an explanation, in the absence of the minister, was given. It does seem strange that the minister should be absent when a bill in which he is interested is before the House. I should have thought that this is one of the prime roles of a minister, to introduce and to shepherd through the House, at least in the introductory days, a bill in which he has some concern.
There remains this question in our minds as to why a minister is absent when a bill standing in his name is brought before the House. It is not just an ordinary bill but a bill with royal recommendation. There are funds involved, and the minister has assigned his parliamentary secretary to introduce this bill.
Then we come to the timing of the bill. This has already been referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). These days were considered at one time to be the days when we were winding down and it might be thought that these bills of secondary importance, perhaps, are being introduced to fill in the time? Are they being used to fill in the time? Are we under pressure? Are we being pressured? This raises a question in my mind too. I have a feeling we are being put under false pressure in order to get some of these bills through. There seems to be some disinclination now, for one reason or another, for better or for worse, to wind down this tension that has built up over the last couple of weeks and put off that evil day, an evil day for the government. But it will be a great day for the country when that election comes, I can assure you.
We have been subjected in this parliament by this government to a reign of error. Unbelievable, a reign of error! This government has committed one error after another. That is what we are confronted with. We are being asked to put through a bill of doubtful priority, so much priority that the minister is not here. I have my curiosity aroused on the second point.
The third point that grasped my attention was not curiosity. It was fear, because of the provisions of the first clause. I think it is worth reading into the record. Those who read Hansard do not always know the terms of the bills we are considering. The first of the amendments we are being asked to approve reads like this:
The governor in council may by proclamation authorize the issue of gold coins having the description, standards, remedy allowance and least current weight specified in Part I of the schedule.
I notice that even in the development of this bill and its presentation to the House of commons, possibly by oversight on the part of the public service which put it together for the minister, they did not even bother to include schedule I as it stands. It is not being amended. The idea is that this parliament shall have no further opportunity to amend this schedule.
I went to the library while my friend was speaking to get a copy of schedule I. I looked at it. Then I looked at the second part we are being asked to amend, 4(2), having in mind "may
Currency and Exchange Act
by proclamation authorize the issue of gold coins" under part I. The second part reads this way:
The governor in council may by proclamation amend Part I of the schedule by adding denominations of gold coins other than those specified therein and prescribing the description, standards, remedy allowance and least current weight for each coin so added or specified therein.
What's cooking? Why should we be asked to allow the governor in council to proclaim the issuance of coins under this schedule in the existing act and then be prepared to grant to a government like this the authority to add and change, not just the number of coins, but the standards, the amount of the standard weight, the number of grains in each coin, the standard millesimal fineness of each coin and the remedy allowance.
I am not sure, but I suspect the remedy allowance is the degree of variance from the standards, plus or minus .5 grains or, in the case of fineness, plus or minus 1.5 millimeters. I suppose that is what it is. Also, the least current weight can be changed.
There is a footnote in part I of the schedule which indicates that the least current weight of 280.59 grains means that when a coin has through usage, through the passage of hands-and I am not sure gold coins will pass through that many hands- been worn down to the point where it no longer weighs more than 280.59 grains, it must be withdrawn from service. Thereupon it could be melted and reduced or added to another coin.
The whole operation of granting a government power by proclamation to issue gold coins is fair enough. It is probably within the purview of a government. However, to authorize any government, this government in particular, to change the denominations, standards, remedy allowance and least current weight is something at which I balk. If this government had a better record of performance in any area, I might have been prepared to consider agreeing. I cannot grant this government the right to debase the coinage. It could reduce the amount of weight contained in the coinage. That is what they want this authority for. However, why do they want that? My curiosity is again titillated. I cannot make out why they are aiming in this direction. I think the right expression is to strike coinage.

-in French, la monnaie est frappee, is it not? I believe the translation in English-

-is to strike coinage.
There is an interesting sidelight on the operations of the Mint which I am not sure has been examined carefully in this House or by the minister, who is not here. That is the production of decorations and medals.
Recently a new medal was struck and sent to Canadians. Each member of this House was sent a copy of the Silver Jubilee medal honouring the occasion of this twenty-fifth year of Her Majesty's reign. Good. Fine. Excellent. The medals are good. They are well designed.
80038 - 1 iVi

April 21, 1978
Currency and Exchange Act
That goes for the large medal, but do you think you can find a miniature? Do you think it is possible to find one in this town? They just do not make them here. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has been talking about how he has been forcing Canadian industry to do this and that. However, they do not even make miniatures in this country. Why does the Mint not make them?
For three weeks I have been trying to get a miniature so that I might wear it proudly when I am invited to a formal occasion, whether it be at Rideau Hall or the Lieutenant Governor's in British Columbia. In fact there are people in high places in this country who have asked me whether I can get a miniature for them.
Do you know what is happening? The suppliers of these medals are sending to Britain asking that the miniatures be sent to them so that they can be sold here. However, it is the British Silver Jubilee medal not the Canadian one.
The Queen's head on both medals is identical, but the reverse side of the Canadian medal is a distinctively Canadian design, and so it should be. I have no objection to that. In fact I am proud of that. It is a good design. However, you cannot get the Canadian design in this country. Why has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in collaboration with his friend, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), who is primarily responsible for the conduct of the Mint, not worked out a scheme whereby the miniatures would be struck by the Mint and made available to the Canadian people? I asked about this in a committee earlier this week.
I understand this medal was issued to some 7,000 members of the Canadian armed forces. I am delighted. I am sure they have earned them and will wear them proudly. I am glad it has been extended to them and to a number of other Canadians.
There are 7,000 miniatures that might have been part of the commerce of this country from our Mint. Never a thought was given to the idea that they might be struck by the Mint. Why not? I am at a loss to understand how that opportunity might have been lost by our Mint which has done such outstanding work both in the minting of Canadian coins and coins abroad.
When I was serving abroad, I had some of these suppliers of metals come to me in Costa Rica to ask if I could introduce them to people at the central bank. They wanted to take orders for supplying the metal for striking in Canada of the coinage of these foreign countries. This is good business, yet the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not applying for this business. He is not paying attention to it at all. The Minister of Supply and Services is not paying attention to it either. Yet they say they are interested in developing Canadian industry.
On the four grounds I have mentioned I shall find it extremely difficult to support this bill. As we all know, it is impossible to amend a bill at this stage; we just have to outline some of our ideas and misgivings. I suppose it could be defeated on second reading, but I doubt it. We have all asked numbers of questions to which answers will be required in

committee. I am sure the Minister of Supply and Services could have been here. He is not presiding over a group of international bankers.
Incidentally, I might remind hon. members that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was not singled out at the meeting in Vancouver for election to the Chairmanship of the assembly there. It is simply a matter of international courtesy that the minister of finance of the host country is chosen chairman. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us the hon. gentleman was out in Vancouver and made a point of adding that he had been elected chairman. Well, he was elected chairman because he was minister of finance of the host country. One feature which disturbs me is the absence of the Minister of Finance.
Then again, the timing of the bill gives rise to some uncertainty in my mind. Further, it would be parliamentary suicide to accept the second clause; we have been asked on far too many occasions to agree to parliament withdrawing from whatever it is doing and allow the government to take over. Not this government, thank you.
Also, I wanted to draw the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to his failure to get the Mint involved in a profitable business, that of striking miniatures and selling them. It looks as though the hon. gentleman will not be proud to wear his Silver Jubilee medal. That is for him to decide. I think we should have commissioned the Mint to strike those medals and make them available to Canadians. I will have a lot of questions to ask when this measure gets to committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I came into the House in the middle of the speech of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and I intend to emphasize the cogent arguments he advanced. I see the cabinet is strongly represented here today; of that multitude of 33 ministers there are four present in the chamber. That is par for the government course when there is a bill before the House.


An hon. Member:: We don't see you here often on Friday.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not the government but we shall be soon, and we would not be trailing all over the country when we should be here. To my mind this is complete contempt of parliament, another example of the government making a eunuch out of this institution. I have every regard for the hon. lady who is the parliamentary secretary, but we are being asked to deal with a gold bill, a bill changing the law with respect to the content of certain coins, and no responsible minister is here. I do not think we would have got much further if the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) had been here. I understand that the uselessness of the Minister of Supply and Services has been well established by now. I understand he is about to be translated to the repose of a high government executive position based upon trade and the expansion of trade in this country.
When I think of him I often think of him as the $20 million kid. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the situation in which those
April 21, 1978

dollars disappeared and we never got an explanation of what happened. The Minister of Supply and Services is concerned with the subject under consideration today. He should be here to explain, though I do not think he would be able to explain in any case. When I see parliament treated in this way I am reminded of the words of Cromwell to the Long Parliament: "In the name of God, go; go at once." I would only add, to bring those words up to date: "Go, Goyer, go without any possible delay". It is making an abomination of this institution.
This must be an important bill. It is one which has to be passed before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ultimately reaches the conclusion that he must go to the country. He has fooled around for the last ten days or so trying to find some explanation for the apparent change across the country. One of the hon. members over there shakes his head in the negative.
This bill has to do with gold, but there was another recent incident dealing with Goldfarb. Goldfarb operates some kind of poll. He is close to the government. My information is that in the last few days he has produced a prophecy which indicates that all is not well for the Liberals in Toronto and in Ontario. So the Prime Minister is not here today. He is away.
Oh, since I started to speak I have added 20 per cent to the number of ministers in the chamber which indicates the attractiveness of my contribution. What is the purpose of this bill? Why the rush? I followed my hon. friend from Victoria who asked why the right should be given to the governor in council to add denominations of gold coins other than those specified therein and prescribe the description, standards, remedy allowance and least current weight for each coin so added. What is the purpose of this? Is it the intention to issue an emaciated, depreciated currency? Is the government not satisfied with the present standard of gold coins? Does this proposal for turning over the power to the governor in council to determine the gold content of each and every coin indicate that there is a desire on the part of the government to get this bill through for a purpose as yet unknown and in respect of which no information has been given? This is just part and parcel of the course that is being followed.
We sit, we ask, we endeavour to get information and we hear from the government that it believes in freedom of information. Fifteen hundred questions which would have been embarrassing to the government, many of which have been on the order paper for the last six, seven or eight months, are still not answered; and when this parliament ends those questions will not be answered. That is the contempt which is being shown to parliament. Never have I seen anything like this. I remember the days of war under the Right Hon. Mackenzie King when secrecy was necessary in many cases in the interests of the protection and preservation of the security of the nation. But we were able to get information. We cannot get it today. The government says it will not answer.
I do not condemn the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in any way. He has been condemned for the budget he introduced the other day. He had no more to do with that than I had. The
Currency and Exchange Act
determinant was the Prime Minister, following the course that he has in finance of determining what shall and shall not be brought in.
That is the reason the Hon. John Turner and the hon. Donald Macdonald are no longer here. They would not dance to the Prime Minister's tune. However, parliament is now asked to do that. If there is anybody in the group of ministers which is here, including my hon. friend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), ''than whom there is no whomer," to use a western expression, I would like him now to rise and tell the House exactly-and I know he has the information-what is the reason for this. Is this going to improve the trade of Canada? Is this going to advance the cause of those who believe in the necessity of an expansion of trade for this nation?
What is the reason that parliament is being asked by order in council to allow the government to depreciate Canadian gold currency? That is all I want to know, and there may be a perfect answer, at least one-and we will not look at the political consequences-which, if it comes from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I feel sure would be most revealing. I do not want to hold him up. I want to give him the opportunity of letting the House know what nobody else among the ministers present knows.
The Minister of Supply and Services is hightailing across Canada at our expense. The Prime Minister is in Toronto for the purpose of finding out whether Goldfarb knows what he is talking about in his prophecy that all is not well for the government. We want to know, not about Goldfarb, but why the gold standard of this country should be depreciated with the opportunity given to the government to do it by order in council. This is a step which has never been taken before. This is a step which ought not to be taken now.
I am going to sit down, knowing how this government has trodden on the rights of parliament and turned this institution into a place where we simply talk and debate. The government does not listen and relies on its majority, regardless of what arguments are advanced. What is the reason for this? Why has the government suddenly decided here on a Friday afternoon, with ministers all over creation, to bring in this piece of legislation which cannot but have the effect of adding still more knowledge in the Canadian people and people all over the world internationally that Canada's dollar is falling and falling, and that, today we are in a position where Canada is not in economic difficulty but actually in a depression and even worse than that?
I recall very well that when I was prime minister we valued the dollar after the president of the United States decided to try to destroy the Canadian government. We valued it and set it up, finally, at 92.5 cents. What did the Liberals say? I am speaking about the Liberals then because they are not that today. They are the Trudeau party today and since he has taken over. They said, "Oh, this is terrible". That 92.5 cent dollar brought the greatest trade Canada has ever had internationally, and I was glad to hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce the other day-and he is now applaud-

April 21, 1978
Currency and Exchange Act
ing exactly what I am saying because he has not forgotten those days-say that the only thing wrong with the present value of the Canadian dollar was that apparently it should even be lower.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: He wants a zero dollar.


John George Diefenbaker: I am very happy to see a reformation in the thinking of the hon. gentleman so far advanced among those members of the cabinet with whom he now sits, and I am waiting with bated breath to see him rise and hear him say, "Yes, I know the Diefenbaker government was right when it fixed the rate at 92.5 cents".
The minister just applauded that statement on my part, but those who today sit around him said, "We will do away with it as soon as we come into office". They waited six and a half long years before doing it. The greatest trade this country ever had was during that period following the fixing of the value of the Canadian dollar. However, we did it by act of parliament, and whatever the change by order in council in the gold standard in so far as the content of gold coins is concerned, I am against it. It is dangerous. It is apparently some trick which has been worked out which can only have the effect internationally of Canada's credit going down more and more week by week.
Today, as a result of the actions of this government and the deficit of $10 billion, Canadian taxpayers are paying $5.6 million a day in interest on the amount of the deficit which had to be borrowed. Let us hear from one of these responsible ministers of the government. One minister has left. He knows nothing more about this than he does about his own department, so I do not mind his absence. I greatly admired the courage of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a few moments ago when he approved what my government did, because those with whom he sits now kept it for six and a half years.
I now ask him to get up and with the clarity which is naturally that of any westerner clear the situation. The Prime Minister is not here. He is finding out how bad conditions are in Toronto and elsewhere. I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to rise now and let us know what benefit will come from an order in council procedure being set up to enable this government to depreciate Canadian gold coins.


An hon. Member:: Come on, Jack.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the reference in the order paper shows this bill as being directed to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, but in the course of discussions last week with the House leader of the official opposition and with the financial critic of the official opposition the understanding was that the bill would be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I wonder if hon. members who are now in the House are of the same opinion and whether Your Honour might find unanimous consent to make that change.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Chair to modify the motion so that after second reading the bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs instead of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the correction made by the hon. parliamentary secretary. I should also add that there is unanimous consent for this bill to be referred to the standing committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

John (Jack) Henry Horner: that Bill C-36, to amend the Export Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I am sorry to see that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has had to leave the House. Earlier this afternoon he urged me to speak.


Mr. Paproski:: He knew you were getting up on this bill. That is why he left.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thought he would have remained in the House. With his great concern for parliament, I expected him to take an interest in the Export Development Act.
Basically Bill C-36 amends the Export Development Act by increasing the authorized capital to $1 billion. The corporate accounts are multiplied by ten times the authorized capital.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) heard your statement. He is entering the chamber now.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I am here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It would increase the direct liabilities in the corporate accounts to $10 billion, the contingency liabilities of
April 21, 1978

the Export Development Corporation would be increased to $10 billion, the direct liabilities in the government accounts to $2.5 billion and the contingency liabilities to $3.5 billion.
The Export Development Corporation has done a tremendous job in assisting Canadian exports by finding and creating markets for Canadian produce. It is essential for parliament to understand the great work that corporation is doing. Also it is essential for parliament to understand that EDC will have lent its complete account of approximately $4.25 billion by the middle of June.


Donald W. Munro: Do we ever get any back?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is an essential piece of legislation. The hon. member is asking if we ever get any back. Actually a profit is made, and it does quite well creating jobs in Canada.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert referred to trade. Canadian exporters are winning business abroad on the basis of quality, price and delivery. The purpose of the Export Development Corporation financing is to match the officially supported financial competition from abroad. EDC is experiencing an increased level of business. It must remain in a strong competitive position in order to support Canadian exports. By the end of this year, the corporation will have lent out something in the neighbourhood of $2 billion. Obviously with expanded trade there is a need for expanded financial assistance and contingency liabilities.
Also the right hon. member spoke about the exchange value of the Canadian dollar with respect to currencies as well and major national competition. Certainly the present situation is a great boon to export trade and manufactured goods. Last year there was a $3 billion surplus in exported goods and I believe it will be higher than that this year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In constant dollars?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We had an increase in constant dollars. The right hon. member for Prince Albert referred to the trading days of the 1960's. In 1967 a little over $10 billion was exported. In 1977, ten years later, over $44 billion was exported. The hon. member can work that out any way he likes. If one takes inflation into consideration, he will readily see that our exports have risen substantially.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Our exports have risen substantially.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard):: Will the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce allow the right hon. member for Prince Albert to ask a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his courtesy in permitting me to ask a question. My question is a very simple one, because I have the same objective in mind
Export Development Act
as he has, to achieve the largest possible export trade. If parliament passes the power to the governor in council to add denominations of gold coins and to prescribe the standards and the current weight for each coin, will that improve trade?


An hon. Member:: We are dealing with the Export Development Act.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to hear the explanation, not a generalization on other matters. I know the minister can answer my question with the precision he is capable of.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard):: Order, please. With all due respect to the right hon. member, his question has nothing to do with the bill before the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is talking about trade.


John George Diefenbaker: I am talking about trade.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The previous bill which was sent to committee will create jobs, as well as a market for Canadian gold. When the right hon. member for Prince Albert was prime minister, there was an act before parliament entitled the "Gold Subvention Act" under which gold mines were subsidized. If a market for gold is created, our mines will no longer require that type of assistance. In fact, it is no longer needed at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: I came back into the chamber to get an answer to my question. Apparently the minister cannot answer it, because there is no answer forthcoming.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am attempting to speak on the legislation which is before the House now. It has to do with enlarging the liabilities and the contingency fund of the Export Development Corporation. It is a very important piece of legislation and I am pleased that it is before parliament today. I hope it can be sent to committee quickly in order for the Export Development Corporation to come before the committee and answer all questions that the right hon. member or anyone else would like to put.
The ceiling on corporate loans is $4.25 billion at the present time. That ceiling will be reached by the middle of June. Thus, it is important to deal with this piece of legislation now. If the bill is not passed, it will mean a loss of new jobs and could occasion many lay-offs. It would result in a tremendous loss in Canadian exports, and it would not assist the economic recovery which would take place if parliament did not pass this piece of legislation before the summer recess.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: What about an election, Jack?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An election would be fine with me, but it is not my prerogative.
The Export Development Corporation is probably the most misunderstood corporation in Canada. Many members of the opposition, as well as many people across the country, do not really understand what the government and the EDC are doing. Some months ago lay-offs occurred at Inco. A great deal of concern was expressed because Inco had constructed

April 21, 1978
Export Development Act nickel mines in Guatemala and Indonesia, and it was said that somehow or other jobs were being taken away from Canadians. In that particular case, the Export Development Corporation provided approximately $20.75 million for the mine in Guatemala and $57.25 million for the financing of the mine in Indonesia.
Let me explain what really happened. The project was going ahead and Inco came to the Export Development Corporation and wanted some insurance on the financing. They said they would procure about $1 million worth of goods in Canada. The Export Development Corporation said that $1 million worth was not nearly enough, and, by negotiations, increased the expenditure for manufactured goods in Canada up to as high as $60 million.
In the total project involving the building of those nickel mines in those two countries something like $900 million was spent, financed by Japan, Germany and Great Britain, and the Export Development Corporation helped to sell the mining equipment to those mines in both of those countries. The mining equipment we sold really involved something like 4,800 man-years of employment in Canada, so the Export Development Corporation is creating jobs.
Another very good example of the work done by the Export Development Corporation in creating jobs in Canada can be found in the announcement on April 5, 1978 of the biggest insurance agreement yet supporting $1 billion worth of sales by Bell Canada to Saudi Arabia with $250 million in security insurance and $180 million in export credit insurance. This contract will provide at least 2,500 man-years of employment for Canadians.
I am just picking out a few specific projects to give parliament and the Canadian people some idea of what the Export Development Corporation really does.
On March 9, 1978 loans totalling $57 million supporting engineering and mining equipment sales valued at $67 million by the Canadian firms of Sandwell and Company Limited of Vancouver and SNC-Rust Limited of Montreal to Argentina were made. Here again a tremendous number of jobs were created in Canada. This money does not leave Canada but goes to pay for the procurement of the Canadian manufactured machinery used in these projects.
During a visit to Mexico the chairman of the Export Development Corporation, Mr. MacDonald, offered lines of credit totalling $1.45 billion to help foster Canadian trade to that country. Mexico is deeply interested in developing its oil and gas industry. We have the expertise and believe we can sell the machinery needed for oil production and mining, and for that matter for pulp and paper, power generating plants and urban transportation projects, all of which are being eyed by Canadian firms for sales to Mexico.
In January of 1978 Alcan International Limited was awarded a $30.6 million contract for the construction of an alumina plant on Aughinish Island, Ireland, with the support of an Export Development Corporation loan.

In December of 1977 four loan agreements were announced involving $50 million for the sale of five electrical generators to Venezuela by Canadian General Electric in Scarborough; a $3.75 million loan to support a sale of $4.4 million by Cana-dair Limited of Montreal for two CL-215 water bombers to Greece; and a loan of $5.5 million to Romania supporting sales of $6.9 million in pulp and paper plant equipment by Combustion Engineering-Superheater Limited of Ottawa. The fourth loan amounting to $1.45 million was in support of a sale of $1.7 million by Douglas Aircraft of Malton to Finnair Oy for wing, floor and tail assemblies for DC-9 aircraft.
The Export Development Corporation on December 20, 1977 extended a $285 million financing protocol to Poland and announced a $46.1 million loan supporting a $52.1 million sale of capital goods and equipment to that country by thirteen Canadian exporters for the Kwidzyn pulp and paper mill in that country. These are loans made for the procurement of Canadian equipment to assist those countries in their own development. If we had not got into the business of guaranteeing or insuring the loans, some other country would and we would not be selling pulp and paper mill equipment, aircraft, mining equipment and the other things I have listed.
On a per capita basis, exports represent $2,000 per person in Canada; and as a percentage of our gross national product, exports represent about 22 per cent. Canada is one of the most reliant on exports of any country in the world. In 1976 it ranked seventh among the largest world trading nations in terms of value of exports and second in terms of exports per capita.
This gives the House some idea of how important exports are, and of the continuing role that the Export Development Corporation must play in order to assist this country in meeting and creating job needs, and attaining the world trade potential that is at our feet.
We must look increasingly to the export of goods and related services for economic growth and to strengthen the industrial sector. Many times I have heard members in the House say our manufacturing industries cannot compete, or that we have too large a deficit in manufactured end products. Certainly the Export Development Corporation has assisted tremendously in increasing our exports of manufactured goods.
It is imperative that this piece of legislation be passed because it means so much to the creation maintenance of jobs. Last year alone it is estimated that the work being done for export under financing or insurance by the Export Development Corporation created or maintained something in the neighbourhood of 200,000 jobs in Canada. Many times we hear opposition members talking about unemployment and the need for job creation. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, without worrying about recrimination, that I have been negotiating with the opposition to get speedy passage on second reading in order that the bill can be sent to the committee where hon. members can examine the operations of the Export Development Corporation. Questions can be asked and answers can be given quickly so that the bill can come back to the House and pass, as it is needed before the end of June. If there is an
April 21, 1978

election, as hon. members have been suggesting, we may not have the chance of passing this legislation until the fall. This would seriously hurt Canada's export trade.
There are 50 principal Canadian exporters and 220 subsuppliers involved in 42 agreements in 22 countries. Three loans totalling $95 million were made on behalf of the Government of Canada. This gives some idea of the scope of this corporation. It is not just a small thing but involves a great many companies. In fact, it is used extensively for almost all our trading off the North American continent and used as well quite extensively in trading with the United States.
This will give some idea of the importance of this tool which Canadian exporters have learned to use in trading particularly with that group I might refer to as third world countries who want to buy manufactured goods. Canadian firms today are bidding on $5.5 billion in goods to be sold in the Middle East. We have acquired in the Middle East to date approximately $1.2 billion of trade and bidding on another $5.5 billion. All of these sales are managed through the Export Development Corporation through either insurance or guaranteed loans.
I do not intend to speak any longer, Mr. Speaker, but I do urge that members give speedy passage to this bill. It will be referred to the finance committee, and the Export Development Corporation is very anxious indeed to come before the committee and explain how important it is to our export trade and over-all picture, particularly to manufactured goods which everyone will agree create a great deal of employment in our country.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister to clarify something in his policy. While I was listening to his address on this bill, I was looking at a news release put out by the government which is dated October 14, 1976. It reads:
The Export Development Corporation (EDC) will lend up to $102 million to finance the $113 million sale of Canadian equipment for a world scale integrated pulp and paper complex near Kwidzyn, Poland.
The Kwidzyn project consists of a bleached Kraft pulp mill with a capacity of 150,000 metric tons per year-a semi-chemical pulp mill of 50,000 tons per year capacity and a paper mill with an annual output of 270,000 metric tons. Also included in the project are recovery units, steam generators, water supply and effluent treatment systems.
Such a project will undoubtedly provide a lot of jobs in Canada.
I also know from my studies of the east coast fisheries problem that if we in Atlantic Canada under the present circumstances are to catch and market squid, capelin, silver hake and argentines-to name four species of soft fish which must be frozen immediately when taken from the sea-we require freezer trawlers of a minimum length of 230 to 240 feet. Our studies and pricing techniques have told us that these trawlers have been built and provided by Poland at a cost some 25 per cent lower than we can build them in Canada.
My question to the minister is: How is it that we can loan money to Poland for the construction of paper mills, or that
Export Development Act
they are willing to buy this equipment in Canada at a price which must obviously be 25 per cent higher than it would cost to build it in their own country, when we in turn must, if we can get the government to move on the construction of freezer trawlers, build them in Canada at a 25 per cent higher cost? What quid pro quo do we offer Poland in order to get them to buy from us at what is obviously a 25 per cent higher cost than they could buy the same product in their own country?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is making the assumption, Mr. Speaker, that Poland could build this pulp mill themselves without having to buy the machinery for it in Canada. There are many, many things Canada does better than some other countries. Poland may be able to build a better fishing trawler than we can, I do not know.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Ha!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member laughs. I know he is of German descent and comes from a German community, but he may be surprised to know that Canada has the best engineered packing houses and the best sausage makers. It took the Germans two years to realize that they had to buy a sausagemaking machine from Canada. They could not believe that a Canadian sausage-making machine would be better than one that they could make. However, they eventually bought a Canadian sausage-making machine because our machine could make sausages faster than theirs. What I am saying is that we in Canada do some things better than some other countries can, and I acknowledge the fact that some other countries can perhaps do some things better than Canada.
This type of situation is what promotes trade. I would like to think that the 20 per cent subsidy that I announced some months ago to the Canadian shipbuilding industry would help to promote the building in Canada of the refrigerated trawlers for the fish the hon. member spoke about.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-39 a few moments ago, perhaps I was rather prophetic in my remarks that the minister's chief plea with regard to this bill was rapid passage. I would like to ask him and the other members of the ministry why the bill is coming forward only now. Because I have attended at conferences with the president of the Export Development Corporation, and he told me of it four or five months ago.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would you like me to answer that question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, please. Why is it now?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The simple fact is that I tried to get agreement from the opposition for speedy passage some months ago and I was told "no deal", that it would not get through quickly. If it was to be held up there was no time available in the House. The House business is important, and a number of bills have been passed recently, and we would like to see this one passed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is shocking, Mr. Speaker.
4762

April 21, 1978
Export Development Act


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a matter of fact, the argument is so empty that it is not even worth putting forward. This minister says he wants speedy passage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want it to go to committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When this minister was on this side of the House, to debate a bill for only 10 days was too short, in his opinion.


Mr. Gillespie:: Do you intend to filibuster it?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not intend to filibuster. There is nothing to filibuster that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) could ever put forward.
If this bill does not pass and the corporation does run out of money, they have recourse to receiving Governor General's warrants. I am suggesting that that is a possible solution; it has certainly been used in the past. For example, in 1972 the hon. minister knows that the administration of which he is now a member ripped through the Unemployment Insurance Act by lending under Governor General's warrants $400 million in excess of the borrowing powers of the commission. There is nothing that this administration would hesitate to do if it felt the need.
In this particular case I can readily understand the problem that is facing Mr. MacDonald and the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation, but to blame us for not bringing the bill forward smacks of sheer incompetence on the part of the government House leader and the minister in question. It is not a question of the opposition kowtowing or bending to any particular whim of any particular minister, and the last man who should speak of that kind of thing is the present minister. He spent 18 years on this side of the House exhorting everybody who was in opposition not to bend before any cabinet minister. Talk about Paul being converted on the road to Damascus; Saul was a piker compared to the hon. minister! He has now become a statesman. Perhaps he will emulate a former member of this administration who, when he was in opposition, was always urging the government to do something immediately. I am referring to the Hon. Paul Martin. When he was in opposition he said that Canada ought to recognize and participate in the Organization of American States right away, but as soon as he became secretary of state for external affairs in 1963 and was asked about this he said, "Of course, when you come to this side of the House you must become responsible". I suppose that is what this minister is now saying. When he was on this side of the House he had to be irresponsible, and now he has become responsible because the corporation of which he speaks requires the money.
The minister has spent a good deal of time, like his seatmate the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) last night, trying to recite figures. Comparisons should be made on the basis of constant dollars, Mr. Speaker.

Let us not compare trade figures of ten years ago with trade figures today. If the hon. minister is prepared to admit that the 1971 dollar is worth 62 cents today, we will translate that. There has been a 78 per cent move downwards in the value of the 1968 dollar. They should apply that to the figures they quote.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You still get double.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Much less than double.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, you get double.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Over the years there have been some very great deficits on the commodity market-not that I am trying to say I would love to see Canada on the deficit side. I would rejoice as much as any member of the House if on the commodity side we had a surplus. That means some Canadians are waking up to reality and coming out of the dream world of the past few years when they thought the world was their oyster and they just had to open it to find the pearl.
We know now that we have priced ourselves out of the market and have done the same thing on quality. Our unit cost of production is high and we are slow on delivery. In other words, our industry is sloppy. I think this has now levelled out, however, because people have come up against the hard facts. In business you either sell quality goods at competitive prices and deliver on time or somebody else does it.
There is one element of competition which is much more difficult, and that is in the matter of credit terms and financing. One can produce the same or better goods, but if the credit terms are less favourable than those of the competition, the purchaser will go for the long pull at the lower rate.
This was apparent when certain proposals were discussed at the recent sessions of the InterAmerican Development Bank. One could readily see the influence of the non-regional members of the bank, the Europeans and Japanese; they realized this is a tremendous market for them, not one reserved to Canada and the United States by any means. The danger is that in trying to meet the competition of the Japanese, the Germans, British and other European members of the InterAmerican Development Bank or, in another context, the Asian Bank, we are going to extend ourselves too far in credit terms and financing.
It will be said that because we want to compete in the big league we are a soft touch; in other words, we will always try to outbid the others on credit terms.


Alastair William Gillespie: You're kidding!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) says I am kidding. Not at all, Mr. Speaker. He just does not hear these things.
I am also concerned that the Canadian banking system, because of restrictions on the operations of the chartered banks, is not flexible enough to undertake the type of financing that commercial banking does and that we need in Canada to
April 21, 1978

face this type of competition. I am concerned too that the Export Development Corporation has reserved too large a sector of the market to itself. It is not able to get down into the really small transactions.
These are points we want to go over with Mr. MacDonald and with the minister to determine whether we are on the right course. It is too simple to say on the insurance side that we are going to increase limits by 400 per cent. What is so magical about 400 per cent? Why take us to $10 billion? There are financing increases that I do not think are justified at the present time. I want to see greater diversification in our facilities for the financing of exports, and not all through a Crown corporation. There has been a fantastic increase in the scope and influence of the business, almost as though it is becoming a state monopoly. I have this inner feeling that I should like to see us develop-


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House so we may now proceed with the consideration of notice of motion No. 10, and that previous notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary that the House proceed to notice of motion No. 10 on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). We can only proceed in this way by giving consent because the items preceding this motion have already been stood at the request of the government. Pursuant to my ruling of December 5, 1977, and in accordance with Standing Orders 19(1) and 49(1), the only way these items can be stood is by unanimous consent; otherwise they will have to disappear from the order paper. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, you will note that I agree with your proposal. There are two, three or possibly four notices of motions standing in the names of hon. members who have withdrawn from the House. Presumably one should strike their names from the order paper since they are no longer members of this House. Unless there is agreement that somebody else should sponsor their motions, I do not
Age of Retirement
think we should carry them on the order paper any longer and we can clean up the order paper to that extent.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there is no urgency to deal with that problem. There is consent today to proceed with the motion in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and we will see whether or not notices of motions standing in the names of members who have resigned or are no longer members of this House should be struck from the order paper. We will see whether these motions can be introduced on their behalf or in the name of another member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is the better way to proceed. Then the hon. member will look at the motion and be sure. I know there is a motion in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) respecting the establishment of a committee that I believe has already been established. Maybe the hon. parliamentary secretary or the House leaders could look at the question. By unanimous consent, all motions appearing ahead of motion No. 10 which is in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), are stood. We will proceed and resume debate on the said motion.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 7, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of enacting legislative proposals to raise the compulsory retirement age from 65 to 70 for any person aged 65 or more who does not so wish to retire and is prepared to give up his/her entitlements to any private pension plan or annuity.
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this is the second time we have had the privilege of debating the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), although it is the first opportunity that I have had to become involved directly. I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate on this topic, which I see has had a lot of consideration from many different quarters all across this continent and perhaps even around the world.
First of all, I notice that the other place had occasion to debate a very similar motion on six different days. The latest date of debate in the other place was December 7. On conclusion of the debate on date, the motion was agreed to. That motion referred to a special committee the subject matter, being mandatory retirement at the age of 65. The special committee of the other place was to examine and report upon the existing retirement age policies affecting workers in both
4764

April 21, 1978
Age of Retirement
the public and private sectors; the social and economic implications of mandatory retirement based on age alone. I do not think I need to run over the details completely of the motion of the other place but suffice to say that consideration was given on six occasions and the subject matter of the motion was referred to this special committee.
That is not the only place where consideration has been given to this subject. I would refer the House to the congressional record of the United States Senate where less than a month ago, on March 23, a motion to put an end to mandatory retirement was considered and the vote was taken on that date. The result was yeas, 62 and nays, 10.
They have an interesting practice in that chamber, Mr. Speaker; they indicate the number of members not voting on that day. The number was 28. A further interesting wrinkle in their procedure is to announce how absent members would have voted if they had been present. Accordingly, Senator Stevens is reported as saying: "I announce Senator so and so". He then lists about eight of the absent senators, stating that they were necessarily absent and that if they had been present and voting, they would have voted yea.
Those are a couple of high-powered considerations of this motion. It would be my hope, at the end of the debate on this motion today, that this House might also approve the motion of my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton West. It asks the government to consider the advisability of enacting legislative proposals to raise the compulsory retirement age from 65 to 70 for any person aged 65 or over who does not wish to retire and is prepared to give up any entitlements to any private pension plan or annuity.
I want to refer to some other considerations of this problem. It is a serious problem and it has many implications. It is not just a simple matter of whether or not a person wants to work after the age of 65. There are such considerations as whether a person over the age of 65 continuing to work deprives some younger person of a job. There is also the effect of forced retirement on an individual who is forced to retire in the midst of a productive life.
There is a further complication which could be helped by the passage of this motion. I refer to the so-called age bulge that we have in Canada today. If we continue on the working cycle that we are presently embarked upon, there will be a small number of workers by the end of this century to support the very large number of retired people. The statistics go something like this: Presently we have seven workers for every retired person. It is expected that that number will be reduced to three workers for every retired person by the end of the century. The effects of that are obvious. The tax burden on those three workers will be more than double what it is today in order to provide for the support of the individuals who are then retired. By passing this motion and the following legislation, we could alleviate the very serious problem which will be with us by the late 1980's and certainly by the end of the century.
I want to refer again to action in the United States Congress. Consideration has been given in that legislature to that

matter. Writing in the Congressional Digest there is this foreword to an article headed: "Revision of Mandatory Retirement Age Policy". It starts out:
Pending in the 95th Congress is legislation which, if adopted, could have major impact on the work habits and job opportunities of millions of older Americans. Already passed by the House of Representatives and near floor action in the Senate in somewhat different form are proposed amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) which would bar mandatory retirement for any worker under age 70 who wished to continue in his job and who was able to do so.
The measure, which would not prevent retirement at an earlier age, is directed at those persons in the American work force-in private industry as well as State and local government-who now are forced to retire at a specified age, most commonly 65. Civilian employees of the Federal Government are already subject to a mandatory retirement age of 70, the level which pending legislation would establish for all covered workers.
The date of this issue is November, 1977. The motion reached the floor of the United States Senate last month. I imagine we can all point to examples of cases where people continued to carry out useful occupations past the age of 65. We have some notable examples of that in this House. The retirement age for members of the other place and members of the judiciary in Canada today is 75 years. I know of many workers doing far more active work than what is entailed in being a Senator or a judge, such as those cleaning and doing other manual work. Many thousands of Canadians involved in voluntary work are well beyond the age of 65 or even 75.
The history of this kind of legislation goes back a long way. I have an article here which mentions legislation pushed through in Germany by von Bismarck, First Chancellor of the German Empire in 1889. That legislation allowed their older citizens to continue to work and raised the need to define old age. In Great Britain similar legislation was passed in 1908 using the age of 70, later reducing it to 65.
I have many pages of references to the desirability of this kind of legislation to permit older people to continue to lead useful lives. I have explained the advantages I see to the economy and the employment situation as a whole. I do not think any great purpose would be served by making further reference to the body of information that I have here. All the evidence that I have been able to lay my hands on supports the view. It is my feeling that, given the opportunity, this House would also support the view. If there are any contrary views, I suggest they be given to us now so that those who wish to contribute to the debate will have an opportunity for rebuttal.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for bringing this matter before the House. He first brought it before the House on November 7, 1977, suggesting that there be an extension of the age of compulsory retirement. I would like to read his motion again:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of enacting legislative proposals to raise the compulsory retirement age from 65 to 70 for any person aged 65 or more who does not so wish to retire and is prepared to give up his/her entitlements to any private pension plan or annuity.
April 21, 1978

This motion is most timely indeed. We are all pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion today.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) pointed out that the whole question of aging has become a consideration in Canada. He stated that in the next decade, and without doubt before the end of the century, there will be greater numbers of senior citizens than ever before as a percentage of our population. He pointed out that members of the other place and of the judiciary retire at the age of 75. I note there is no age of retirement in the House of Commons. I think that is rather significant.
In making this motion, the hon. member for Edmonton West is dealing with a subject, namely retirement, which has tremendous potential implications, touching as it does on financial, economic, social and health issues, not to mention political considerations. Certainly this is a current topic which has been receiving growing coverage in the press and has been a focus of attention for governments both here and abroad.
But the subject of retirement is also one of baffling complexity which does not really lend itself to simple solutions. I am sure that in making his proposal, the hon. member for Edmonton West was less intent on revising retirement ages than he was on making all members aware of the problems facing society, both now and in the future, in this important area. Indeed, in earlier debate on this motion the hon. member indicated his awareness that there is no compulsory retirement age in Canada at present. This fact has a distinct bearing on this debate, since it reflects a certain freedom of choice and adaptability to conditions which would be difficult to achieve with an over-all mandatory retirement age.
Perhaps we should examine for a moment some of the issues which are involved in any discussion on the subject of retirement. In the light of these issues, we can then, if time permits, look at a few of the proposals which have recently been made, including the hon. member's suggestion, and place them in perspective.
One of the most obvious and important factors determining an individual's decision to retire is the state of his or her health. I am sure every member of this House has experienced days when, no matter how exciting the prospect of the day's work was, it was difficult to work up enthusiasm for the tasks at hand because physically, for one reason or another, we just did not feel up to it. Most of us are fortunate enough to spend most of our lives in good health, but not all are so lucky. It is an unavoidable fact that, as our bodies age, they become more susceptible to problems. Bones become brittle, break more easily and take longer to mend. Resistance to many diseases and complications such as pneumonia is lower. Perhaps some day, with dramatic medical advances, the situation will change. However, for most Canadians declining physical strength is an inevitable function of the aging process.
True, for some-and we need only look about the House for examples-this process moves more slowly. Unfortunately, for others, whether as a result of accident, disease or genetic factors, aging is accelerated-I believe the expression used is "premature aging".
Age of Retirement
It used to be that for many Canadians retirement from the labour force was a physical necessity. They simply could not work any longer. They could not cope with the physical and mental demands being made upon them day after day. Much of the rationale for the development of pension or retirement systems was to enable people to retire by ensuring that they had the financial resources to leave the work force. Pensions were an innovative move to help such people.
Today, of course, many people who retire are not physically or mentally hampered significantly from pursuing a career. Studies tend to support the observation that most early retirees-that is, men and women who leave the work force before the retirement age normally associated with their particular work of profession-still do so primarily for health reasons. This is a vital consideration to bear in mind before making any move to raise retirement ages.
Those who must leave the work force earlier because of their health should not find their financial situation inadvertently adversely affected. To counterbalance this possibility, many who advocate the pushing ahead of retirement years simultaneously propound the necessity for more comprehensive disability plans and suggest this avenue of assistance for those who find themselves unable to continue working.
Concern has been expressed for those faced with not only the measurable effects of physical deterioration but also the special difficulties imposed by the pressures of change, technological and social. It is unquestionably an over-generalization to say that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. The fact of the matter remains, however, that many people as they grow older are not as flexible in their ways, ideas or approaches. In many areas of endeavour this rigidity is a definite liability both to the employee and the employer. Those who defend compulsory retirement at age 65 or earlier often point to this problem, and underline the humiliation to an employee who must be told he is incompetent, rather than that he has simply reached the normal retirement age.
Of course, the financial aspect of retirement is equally important. The costs are something that too few Canadians really consider in advance. A person who retires can rarely count on an income after retirement which compares at all favourably with his income from work. Income from government sources such as the Canada Pension Plan and old age security provides a secure base of income which is adequate to meet basic needs.
But what about the additional income the individual undoubtedly desires? This must come from private savings or a company pension. The latter, even where it does exist, will usually only replace a significant portion of pre-retirement income for an employee with a record of long service for the same employer. Also, private retirement savings are something to be encouraged. All members, I am sure, have welcomed the additional flexibility for registered retirement savings plans recently announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chreti-

April 21, 1978
Age of Retirement
en). But personal savings of this type requires a good deal of advance planning.
Timing is clearly critical. A person who plans to retire at age 60 is going to have to start building up adequate income sources over a relatively short working career to provide for a longer retirement period than a 65-year-old would have. Conversely, someone who works to 70 years of age, as under this proposal, would have a relatively shorter period of retirement to plan for, on average, and a longer time to build up secure income sources for retirement.
The financial cost to the employer must also be remembered. An employer willing to provide for employees retiring at 60 or 65 will have to put more money into a pension plan than he would if employees generally were staying on until age 70. On the other hand, the employer will have to pay the wages of these senior employees, and many times will feel that a younger worker would be more productive at less cost.
This leads us into the economic aspects of retirement. All too little is known of the potential economic effects that a change in retirement ages could have. The age of workers in the labour force could affect levels of employment, the size of the work force and the general productivity. Purchasing patterns and savings rates would obviously be different if people were generally planning for retirement at 70 as opposed to 65 or 60. The economic burden on the working population which the retired population represents would also change dramatically. This ratio of retired to working Canadians will change over time in any case, and this is something that has caused concern for many experts.
The effect on employment opportunities bears some study, since it is one of the most controversial aspects of the whole retirement issue. Proposals for raising the retirement age are opposed by some on the grounds that they are taking opportunities for employment from the unemployed and denying advancement to younger workers. Countries like Denmark have instituted strong inducements to early retirement for such reasons. I hope to touch on their policies at greater length a bit later.
On the other hand, there are those who say that we should not just raise the retirement age, but abolish retirement altogether. There is no doubt that retirement is one of the most traumatic of life's experiences for the retired individual and his or her family. Many prove unable to cope with this situation, especially in a society based on the work ethic and oriented around the work experience.
Much of the problem is clearly a matter of planning on the part of the individual and society as a whole. Most people, it appears, still do not give retirement any serious thought until immediately before they get their gold watch, if then. Preparation for retirement in educational, psychological, financial and social terms should be undertaken by the individual. But this is changing, and increasing numbers of employers offer preretirement sessions in the same way as they offer training or orientation sessions for new employees. Community colleges and non-profit organizations are coming into the field as well. The scope and quality of the programs offered is improving

and will continue to improve as more experience is gained and more feed-back received.
It is interesting to note that, when surveyed, the preferences and perceptions of persons five or ten years from retirement differed noticeably from those of persons already retired. This has been especially true of the particular topic with which we are dealing today-the age of retirement. It reflects an actual difference in attitude, but perhaps it is also a result of the experience of the retired person as opposed to the less realistic viewpoint of the person who has not yet experienced departure from the labour force.
Certainly, knowledge of and preparation for retirement are important. Another approach is to change the nature of retirement. The idea of gradual retirement-taking on less strenuous or demanding work; working shorter hours; having longer vacations; working into a second career where interest rather than income is the principal impetus-has been proposed, examined and tried at various times by various people. What we seem to be finding is that there is no single solution for everyone.
In this light we can examine some of the proposals which have been made concerning the retirement age both here and elsewhere. It is of interest to note that different countries have proposed different solutions to the various issues I have outlined. While the United States appears to be moving to extend the mandatory retirement age to 70, many European countries seem to be moving or already have moved towards earlier retirement. In Italy, where retirement is currently at age 60 for men and 55 for women, labour unions are striving to reduce the retirement age for men to 55. In France, employees in private firms who opt for retirement at age 60 rather than 65 are paid 70 per cent of their last salary until age 65, when their normal pension comes into effect. Companies employing these workers are expected to replace them with workers under 25. However, few appear to be taking advantage of this offer.
A somewhat similar program exists in Belgium which, I understand, requires employers to replace those opting for early retirement with unemployed people under 30 years of age. Belgium also prohibits pensioners from gainful employment, as do Finland and Ireland.
In Denmark, the government is proposing to pay an "after wage". Workers over 60 but under the national pensionable age of 67 will qualify for this voluntary retirement payment if they have contributed to an officially recognized unemployment insurance scheme for five years or more. The so-called "after wage" offered is only 90 per cent of the current maximum unemployment benefit offered in Denmark, but such unemployment benefits may rise as high as $15,000 per year. It is apparently the hope of the Danish government that such a program will generate new job openings for they young. However, it is my understanding that many in that country feel jobs vacated by older people will not be made available to the young but merely create an opportunity for employers to reduce their work force.
April 21, 1978

In the United States an entirely different approach to the retirement problem appears to be developing. Recent legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Carter on April 6 of this year raises the mandatory retirement age in the United States to 70 from age 65. The law will become effective in September 30 of this year for all federal government employees and effective January 1, 1979 for all other workers in the United States. The bill allows those between 65 and 70 to continue working as long as they meet a competency test. Senator Pepper, the 77-year-old Florida Democrat who sponsored the bill, now apparently wants to go even further and abolish age entirely as a criterion for mandatory retirement.
I hope I have made clear, Mr. Speaker, that at present there are conflicting points of view regarding the issues concerning retirement, and different governments have taken different approaches to solving these issues. This confusion of ideas and solutions may lead us to question whether the time is ripe for fundamental changes in the Canadian retirement system such as would be implied by the hon. member's proposal.
At present, as all members here are aware, the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act are neutral regarding retirement age. Benefits are available at age 65, but beneficiaries are not required to be retired. It is true that many private employers in Canada have made age 65 the mandatory retirement age. Many others, however, have developed pension plans containing provisions which explicitly permit the deferment of an employee's retirement date. Thus, there is considerable flexibility already available in Canada and many Canadians are taking advantage of this flexible system.
To quote figures previously given, in September of 1977 there were some 188,000 persons over age 65 still in the labour force, of whom 64,000 were over 70. At the same time, there were many others who have entered retirement before age 65, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, this issue of retirement is one which must always be borne in mind, and I thank the hon. member for his efforts in bringing it to the attention of this House.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate. Despite what the hon. member suggests in his motion, there are still many Canadians who work beyond age 65 and, in so doing, make a valuable contribution to our economy and our society.
Nevertheless, while we may not agree that the initiatives proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) are necessarily the most appropriate for achieving the goal which he seeks to achieve, it is refreshing to hear some concerns being expressed for those Canadians who believe that their productive years are not necessarily over when they reach some arbitrary age such as age 65.
This is a considerably different approach from that taken by a number of persons who in the past have pressed not for the postponement of retirement for those who wish to continue in
Age of Retirement
the labour force but, rather, for lowering the eligible age for a whole range of benefits such as old age security and under the Canada Pension Plan. Some have even proposed the imposition of a mandatory national retirement age of 65 or 60 years of age in order to thrust bodily out of the labour force our country's most experienced and skilled labour.
It is rather interesting to consider what reasons we might have for taking such steps. Why do people want to retire at age 65? The use of that figure as a pensionable age is commonly attributed to Bismarck, who actually set the minimum age for retirement at age 70. That occurred more than 100 years ago. Because of the low life expectancy at that time Bismarck apparently felt that a retirement age of 70 would ensure that very few people would live to collect any pension from the state. This is assuredly not the case at present. The majority of Canadians today live to collect their old age pensions for a considerable length of time.
The idea of retirement at age 65 has taken hold rather more slowly in this country than in others. Old age security benefits, for instance, became payable at age 65 only in 1970, and the Canada Pension Plan retirement benefit has been available at age 65 without retirement and earnings test only since 1975. I might note that Sweden, which is often held up as an example for social security, lowered its retirement age from 67 to 65 only in 1976.
Regardless of its origins, however, we do at the present time have 65 as a fairly constant retirement age throughout the world. It may have become normal because it is the age at which people become entitled to retirement benefits under the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan. But I emphasize that there is no federal legislation making retirement mandatory at that age or at any other age.
Even where employees are offered earlier retirement there are usually not very many takers. I understand that since the public service has had retirement available at age 55 with 30 years' service, the average retirement age has dropped by only a year and is still well over 60. Yet we continue to hear the suggestion that the Government of Canada should consider dropping the retirement age for old age security and Canada Pension Plan purposes from 65 to 60 or even make retirement mandatory at that age. It seems we are in love with round numbers. Very few people have suggested a retirement age of 62, 63 or 61. They seem to want to take things five years at a time.
There is nothing magic about 60 as a number. I suspect that if we adopted that figure and the whole country followed suit, we would then find somebody suggesting that the age be reduced to 55 or some other number or perhaps have some other radical individuals suggesting that 50 would be even more appropriate. Clearly, the retirement age of 65 is not engraved in stone, but is there reason to believe that it is too high a retirement age? I do not know. Perhaps it is too low.
Since life expectancies and average health in our population seem to be on the rise, should we perhaps not be thinking in terms of going even beyond the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West in encouraging people to remain in the

April 21, 1978
Age of Retirement
labour force? If some sudden break-through in medical science raised the average life expectancy by 20 years overnight, I am sure most people in this country would wish to reconsider their plans regarding retirement age. Yet the interesting point is that average life expectancy has risen by more than 20 years in this century. Perhaps it is legitimate to ask whether Canadians wish to have this reflected only in the lengthening of the portion of their lives which is devoted to the pleasures of retirement, pleasures which are not unalloyed, as many older Canadians would quickly advise.
The idea of raising the retirement age, which is what is suggested by the hon. member, is not idle speculation. In 1933 retirement at age 65 was made compulsory in the public service of Canada in an effort to reduce staff during a time of severe austerity. Ten years later this country was at war and that order had to be suspended. In fact, all over this country thousands of retired people went back to work and proved quite capable of doing a job and doing it well. We are told that the world wars did much to change our views on the role which women should play in our social and economic life. Perhaps we should have learned the same lesson about the elderly and retirement.
A somewhat similar phenomenon might be occurring now. Much of the pressure to lower the retirement age in Canada stems from the belief that by retiring people early we will be making room for the hiring of unemployed and young people who are currently entering the labour market in great numbers. Unfortunately, there is really no reason to assume that retiring the old will make way for the hiring of the young. Employers will not find in an 18-year-old the skill and experience which is lost when a 60-year-old employee retires. Sometimes, also, employers may take the opportunity to automate jobs out of existence.
However, we can look a bit farther down the road and see that a change is taking place in our population which will cause this pressure for early retirement to slacken. I think this is very important. The present flood of young people on job markets is a result of the so-called baby boom which occurred after the second world war. It is no secret that this boom is long since over and that the birth rate has plummeted. Zero population growth is no longer a goal to be achieved; it is a fact which exists in Canada today. It is a goal which has been surpassed, at least in the sense that we can foresee our population beginning to decline because of the lower birth rate.
This means very simply that the surge of workers entering the job market will also begin to decline in years to come. We are told that in less than a generation from now it is more than possible that this country will have a negative unemployment rate and not a positive one. Yet in terms of what we are discussing this afternoon, if we accept the principle espoused by many Canadians, we will have the people with the most skill and experience leaving their jobs at earlier and earlier ages.
It seems quite possible that the pressures which now exist will be reversed in the future and more and more people will be

suggesting 70 as the normal retirement age, as the hon. member has. In fact, as the population ages and the percentage of the population in the over 65 group continues to rise, it may be less of a suggestion and more of a necessity to keep people at work later in life. Such a prospect might cause far less dismay among the elderly than we suspect. I am sure other hon. members would find it interesting to know how many retired people would really have preferred to work for several more years before retiring. We might find that many would have preferred never to retire. I wonder if it would be possible to find out through Statistics Canada or some other agency how many Canadians were forced to retire from the private sector and how many actually retired by their own choice and not by that of their employers.
I wonder if we should address ourselves to questions such as: are there sufficient leisure time activities to ensure that Canadians will find a long period of retirement to be a satisfying and fulfilling experience? I am reminded of a story which was told to me by a chap. It dealt with what we were doing in the age of technology, the fact that we can fly from Paris to New York in four hours. It used to take eight hours four or five years ago, and much longer in the years before that. Then the question arises: what is the point of saving four hours if there is no reason for being there at an earlier time? What in fact has been saved?
Perhaps a similar situation arises when dealing with retirement and whether it is satisfying and fulfilling. I am sure for many people their greatest satisfaction and fulfilment lies in their work. Traditionally we do not expect artists, statesmen or politicians to stop working at the age of 65. No one asked A. Y. Jackson to hang up his paint brush at age 65. What type of world would we be living in today, if Winston Churchill had been forced to retire at age 65 in 1939? What would this House be like if members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had taken advantage of retirement at age 60?
I feel the entire approach toward retirement in this country could benefit from a more flexible attitude. As we practise it in Canada at present, retirement is one of the most sudden and wrenching physical, financial and emotional dislocations which people undergo in their entire lifetimes. The stress of a sudden switch from regular work activity to inactivity has been known to cause premature aging and even death in people who might have had many years of a healthy and productive life if they had continued working in their occupations. This phenomenon is so common that doctors have referred to it as the "retirement disease".
There are numerous alternatives to an abrupt and final withdrawal at any age from the labour market. For example, some older individuals might prefer to keep working at productive activities but with shorter working hours, longer weekends or longer vacations. Others might wish to keep working but move to a job which would be less demanding physically but
April 21, 1978

still productive. Some countries have introduced systems whereby a person over a given age can obtain a portion of the regular old age pension while continuing to work on a parttime basis. Therefore, to a large extent we applaud the motives of the hon. member for Edmonton West for moving this motion.
Even after retirement there should be activities-and not necessarily leisure activities-in which older Canadians can participate. The success of the New Horizons program is ample evidence of the useful part senior citizens can play if given the opportunity. Unfortunately we tend to think of senior citizens as a population of helpless individuals who require monetary support in ever-increasing amounts at even earlier ages, rather than as an untapped source of creativity, energy and productivity which would help improve the quality of life for all Canadians.
I would be remiss if I did not conclude my remarks by referring to a phenomenon which occurred in the last several years. Basically people can set their own retirement age by investing in registered retirement savings plans, which reduce their income tax loads during their highest years of income. In fact, there is a mechanism which guarantees a secure future regardless of their employer and many other factors. Perhaps this is something which should be looked at very closely. As most of them are set up at the present time, either a lump sum is paid at age 65 or it is in the form of an annuity at that same age. However, perhaps it would be in the interests of both the companies which provide this service and Canadians to have a more flexible retirement savings plan. The plan could be open-ended, so that an individual at age 55 or 58 could start his program because of illness or for some other reason. The age could be at his own choosing, realizing that if he does not wait until age 65, the amount of money he will receive will be proportionately less. It would be less because it is calculated on an actuarial table as to how long an individual will live beyond the age of 65.
In conclusion, there are many alternatives to retirement at age 65. Because of health, some people may wish to retire before that age. Government and private programs should have the flexibility to meet that need. The individual who works beyond the age of 65 for his own very good reasons also should have the benefit of this flexibility so that he can continue a productive and full life, if that is his desire. God help us if government and other agencies are somehow given the power to make all the decisions affecting our lives.


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, certainly one can appreciate the reasons for which this motion was made. Currently a number of people are suggesting that retirement activities require a good, hard look.
I thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for making this important topic the subject of the debate before the House at this time. While I agree with his motion in many ways, personally I take exception to his placing a definite cap or figure on the retirement age. Compulsory retirement should not be introduced at any age. A person is
Age of Retirement
best suited to make up his own mind physically, mentally and in every other way as to when and if he should retire from the work force.
Perhaps I am borrowing from the hon. member himself, but if I can play the role of the devil's advocate this afternoon I should like to refer to some of the contrary points of view which have been expressed. I mean some of the proposals to make retirement compulsory at even earlier ages and the various reasons for them. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members the arguments which have been advanced by those in favour of compulsory retirement ages. Certainly I would not suggest that all the arguments are valid, but they must be put on the record and discussed. It would be useful to delineate those views in order to clarify the implications of the motion of the hon. member.
It has been suggested that the retirement of older workers is essential in order to open up opportunities for younger employees to gain advancement and make a contribution to progress by bringing new ideas and attitudes into the work force. Undoubtedly there are different outlooks, on the part of individuals in their late sixties and those in their late forties, regarding corporate and social life. I notice there are some younger people present in the gallery this afternoon. Many of them indicate that they want an opportunity which is now being held by a senior member of a corporate firm or by a senior planner in a plant. Perhaps that senior employee is reaching age 60 or age 65, and if that man retires, vacancies will be opened up all the way down the line. Thus, younger employees will be able to move up more quickly and achieve the goals which they have set for themselves in their working careers.
However, I might add that all of us who are here probably thought the same way when we started in the work force, whether it was in teaching, in a profession as a doctor or a lawyer, or whatever our profession might have been. We have looked around and seen those who had served that profession or that field of endeavour well and had attained some degree of recognition, and with that degree of recognition had attained some degree of age as well. We tended to make a comparison between the fact that they perhaps might have been grey of beard or head, in some instances without hair whatsoever, and the conclusion that it was simply because they had reached a certain age and a certain stage in their development. We soon learned, once we had gone through the work force or the profession we had chosen for ourselves, that it is not advancing years that give you progress through that business or profession; it is through the attainment of knowledge and skills and a good amount of very hard work that these people reach the positions they hold and for which they are respected.
Our attitudes change as we go along in our lives from the time we are thirty, to forty, to fifty and so on. I think that really cannot be looked upon as a serious suggestion for

April 21, 1978
Age of Retirement
bringing our retirement age down to a lower level, or even putting a cap on it, by any stretch of the imagination.
As the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson) said, somebody has said that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. That may be true, but I can assure him that the old dog can certainly add a lot of smart wrinkles to the tricks he has already learned, and in so doing make the job he has easier for himself and for those who may follow. I do not think you have to teach an old dog new tricks; he can teach you something on the way through.
It must also be admitted that some workers will not be as capable of withstanding the rigours of employment at an advanced age as some others. This may be more obvious in physically demanding pursuits such as mining, forestry and farm labour, to some extent, though I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there are farmers in my area who are exceptionally capable at the age of seventy, and some even beyond that.
If I might impart one small incident that happened recently in my area, let me state there was a lady in one small community who was slated to celebrate her 102nd birthday. It was a real event for the community. On the morning of the event there was quite a stir raised in the community because a number of people had tried to reach her on the telephone and could not get an answer. Of course, what immediately came to mind was that something had happened to this dear, sweet lady, and she was unable to answer the telephone. A convoy of cars took off and went to her house to see what had happened. They found out what had happened. This lady, knowing it was her 102nd birthday, was concerned that people would visit her house and find it not up to scratch. She was up on top of a twenty-foot ladder cleaning windows! That gives the House some indication of the physical capabilities of some of our senior citizens.
However, this applies as well to the white collar worker, to some extent, who perhaps cannot respond as flexibly to the pressures that can occur at critical times in almost any type of work environment. In some cases it is felt that employees lose the ambition and drive necessary to carry out their tasks, especially at more senior levels of industry. In such cases a mandatory retirement age avoids confrontation and possibly humiliation to the older worker by being demoted or worked around or even fired for incompetence after what may have been a distinguished career with faithful and competent service and work. If we take a very close look at the statistics, we will see that this has not proven to be the case.
It is the experience, knowledge and ability gained by that worker over the twenty, twenty-five or in some cases even thirty years he or she has spent in a particular field of endeavour that gives the competence that cannot be matched without that length of service and without that devotion, and in some cases, as has been said, without the blood, sweat, toil and tears that have gone into it.
Thus a mandatory retirement age has been said to maintain an upward mobility, avoid embarrassing decisions for the employer and allow the employee gracefully to withdraw from the labour force. We must always be reminded of what is lost when these years and years of experience and training come out of that labour force or particular profession.
Many have argued that compulsory retirement at an early age would also help to ease the unemployment situation among the younger workers of the labour force. It is pointed out, for example, that unemployment is highest among the very youngest workers. It is argued that by retiring the older workers, positions would be freed for younger persons to fill. I think I should say here that this is a rather unsatisfactory argument since such a move would only serve to redistribute unemployment rather than create any new employment.
I must also, if I may, make one personal observation here. This type of attitude tends to put into focus the growing attitude of some young people in our work force today, or of some people who are entering the work force today, that the only way they can be successful is by starting where their fathers left off. To me this is a rather sad commentary to be made, to some extent, because I believe the young men and women we have coming into our work force today do have the ability to start where their fathers started, from scratch, with the ability to show the devotion, aptitude and determination their fathers and our fathers showed before us in a career or a job. If there is any move to take away that urge from young people coming into industry or labour, it certainly should be looked upon as a serious thing for the people and the country.
It is also claimed that many employers would face critical financial problems if they were forced to keep on older employees who are in receipt of higher salaries as compared to less senior workers. It is true that pension costs might decrease in some cases since the employee could not draw a pension while still actively at work. However, it would be anticipated that health, disability and group life insurance premiums would certainly spiral upwards; thus a compulsory retirement age might have a disastrous effect on the cost of these pensions and medical benefits that are taken into the planning of the work force and industry today.
It has also been pointed out that whatever stigma is currently attached to the retired state would be reinforced if retirement was not a part of the normal course of working. The sense of discrimination and the loss of status and prestige felt by some older persons-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 24, 1978