1978-06-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
for widows of veterans where the veteran's pension was below 48 per cent, and to introduce the said bill immediately when parliament next meets, it being the view of this House that there should be no further delay in granting a pension to all widows of disabled veterans as a matter of right.
['Order, please. The minister has clearly and unequivocally withdrawn the remark that he made about the hon. member for Central Nova. Therefore, I am required, in parliamentary terms, to accept that withdrawal. However, I cannot overlook the fact that repeatedly the minister rose to his feet to continue to argue a point when I had indicated that the only reason he had the floor at the time was to withdraw that remark.\nI want to remind the minister and hon. members that on previous occasions when members have used unparliamentary language, they have understood that if they wished to argue the merits of what they had to say, they have had always an opportunity, then and at other times, to do so in parliamentary language. Therefore, at this moment it is not open to the minister to carry this argument forward. If he wishes to do so, he will do so at the proper time and in proper parliamentary terms. At the moment, he has withdrawn the remark that was offending the order of the House and we may now proceed to the question period.\nIt now being 11.25 a.m., the question period will terminate at 12.10 p.m.']
Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?



Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The affair of les Terrasses de la Chaudiere has reached the stage where only a public inquiry can search out the answers to the questions that must be on the public's mind and which ministers have refused to deal with in the House. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott):
That the committee of the Privy Council, by order, instruct the Chief Justice of Canada to appoint three justices from among the justices of the provincial superior courts, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, who shall be constituted by the committee of the Privy Council to be commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire fully into any allegations, made or to be made, respecting the acquisition of land for the construction in Hull by Robert Campeau Corporation of les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, the construction thereof, and the arrangements for the occupation of the said premises by the Government of Canada, and any matter bearing upon the above, and if the said commissioners consider that there is prima facie evidence of an offence in relation to any matter inquired into, to consider such other matters as may appear to the commissioners to be relevant and to report fully thereon.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be introduced for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that some 2,000 overworked and underpaid federal nurses will be in a position to strike on July 4 of this year, and in view of the fact that negotiations for a new contract have been under way for 18 months and a conciliation board report has supported the nurses' wage demands as being reasonable, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the President of the Treasury Board take steps to immediately bring both parties back to the bargaining table and, failing that, that he explain on motions what contingency plans he has for providing nursing services required in places such as veterans hospitals, and so on, if the strike does go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of this matter increases as time goes on; sooner or later it must be resolved, and I hope it will be resolved soon. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs, during the
forthcoming summer recess, to prepare a bill that will provide pro raid pensions


OPERATION OF CN MARINE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity affecting the livelihood of CN marine stevedores, CN vessel crews and CN employees in general as a result of continuing drastic cutbacks in ship-

June 30, 1978
5.0.	43
ments of goods and freight through the port of North Sydney to the province of Newfoundland.
Despite continuous representations which I have been making to the Minister of Transport and the government on this subject over a long period, unemployment at the port of North Sydney continues to increase, due in part to the granting of subsidies by the government to private shipping firms resulting in competition with a government-owned corporation. I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That an immediate investigation be carried out to the end that public moneys not be provided to private shipping firms enabling them to compete against CN Marine and thus creating more employment because, as a result, goods are being shipped through the ports of Halifax and Montreal.
I have no doubt that if remedial action is not taken by the government, North Sydney will become a ghost-town-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will, I am sure, realize he has now gone beyond presenting the motion: he has started to argue it.
Presentation of such a motion, under the provisions of the Standing Order, can be done only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on June 23 this House passed a motion under Standing Order 43 conveying its deep concern to the government of the Soviet Union with respect to the severe sentences imposed on Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak for expressing their belief in the preservation of human rights in that country and, specifically, for expressing their desire for free emigration.
In view of the information now received that Mrs. Nudel is ill and is about to be moved by train in conditions which could have serious repercussions on her health, and in view of the fact that the wife of Vladimir Slepak is also in hospital, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson):
That the Parliament of Canada urges the government of the Soviet Union, a co-signatory with Canada of the Helsinki Final Act, to take into account the humanitarian factors involved in these cases and allow Mrs. Nudel and the Slepak family to emigrate to Israel.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of this motion can be made only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. Since this is the eve of remission for wide-flange steel beam importers, since Algoma Steel cannot supply the needs of B.C. steel fabricators within practical time limits, in light of the fact that a just society would allow all steel fabricators in Canada to purchase steel at the same price, since the $377 formula announced by the Minister of National Revenue will injure and discriminate against B.C. steel fabricators, and since the records of exporting steel countries are now closed to the Canadian government, I ask leave to move, for the sake of regional equity, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That ministerial prescription under section 11 of the anti-dumping legislation sets the Algoma-Toronto delivery price as the basis upon which the margin of dump will be determined.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed under Standing Order 43. Presentation of such a motion can be made only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-COMMENT BY MINISTER OF STATE FOR URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) concerning a statement made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Perhaps I might deal with it now, since both parties are in the House and it seems to me there is some chance that questions might be put by the hon. member and answered by the minister. I will make the necessary adjustments in the length of the question period later, but I thought it proper to take up this matter at the beginning rather than at the end of the question period.
[ Translation]
The hon. member for Central Nova (M. MacKay) rose on a question of privilege stemming from some of the observations made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), as reported on page 6859 of yesterday's Hansard.
The hon. member objected most specifically to the fact that the Minister had accused him of being somehow hostile to the interests of Canadians of French descent. First of all, I want to point out that, traditionally, such incidents are not considered questions of privilege. They are rather remarks that are not germane to the matter before the House at the time.
June 30, 1978

[DOT] din)

The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) made reference to citation 155(1) of Beauschesne's in support of his question of privilege. That citation is well known to hon. members. Again I say that this has not traditionally been dealt with by way of question of privilege but, rather, if it is a valid point, in my opinion it is a point of disorder or a point of order with respect to the proceedings of the chamber, because for one member to accuse another of motives in the carrying out of work, or to say something which has an overtone of a bigoted attitude toward any one group of people in the country is either unparliamentary and, therefore, out of order or, of course, an imputation of motives which is equally out of order.
Elaving regard to the words which were spoken by the minister yesterday-of course, in the heat of the exchange-I cannot come to any other conclusion than that the words had, as their effect, an imputation of motives of the hon. member for Central Nova and that in his questions about Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere he was aiming some criticism at a group of Canadians of French origin. I, therefore, feel that in the heat of the moment the minister overstepped the line and was out of order in making that imputation against the hon. member for Central Nova, and I am sure that the minister would want, before proceeding further with the question period this morning, to withdraw that allegation.


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, you yourself mentioned that during the debate I may have said certain things, on the spur of the moment, which went beyond what I really meant, giving those remarks a connotation that was not parliamentary.
I should like to recall exactly what I said yesterday, that is, that it seemed obvious to me, first, that the hon. member was trying to discover scandals where none exist, and secondly, that in so doing he was slinging mud in the face of French Canadians. That is what is reported word for word on page 6855 of yesterday's Hansard. That is what I said. And you are now asking me to withdraw what 1 said, which resulted in imputing motives to the hon. member which he does not have.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of attributing these motives to the hon. member if he says he did not want to launch a deliberate attack against French Canadians.
I am referring to his own words, to what he said in his question of privilege in spite of the fact that he states he never meant, in his various interventions in the House, to attack anybody, whatever his origin may be. He also mentioned a number of persons of various origins, as we can read at page 6859.


Mr. Beatty:: This is pretty shabby, Ouellet.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.
Privilege-Mr. MacKay


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker made a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may have occasion at other times to argue whether any member of the House of Commons has done anything at any time which in any way is out of order. The minister has spoken some words. He said yesterday that the hon. member for Central Nova finds scandal where none exists. There is nothing wrong with saying that. However, the minister went on to say that that was in some way a criticism directed at French Canadians. That remark has to be withdrawn. If there are other arguments about what other members have done at other times, they will have to be raised by other ministers or other members at the specific times they occur, and in that context.


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


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, you are asking me to say that the hon. member did not want to attack French Canadians and to withdraw my remarks. I am prepared to do it, but I submit to the House that the hon. member questions the actions of people, whatever their origin may be, be it Polish or Lithuanian or whatever. Their origin has no importance whatsoever. Of course, the fact that in reading again the hon. member's numerous interventions in Hansard in recent months-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Mr. Trudeau:: You don't like to hear the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to remind the minister that yesterday, when argument was made on this question of privilege, he was in the House and did not take that occasion to argue the merits of the case. Now that the Chair has made a ruling on the language and on the arguments that were made yesterday, it is no longer open to debate or discussion. It seems to me that the minister must either obey the direction of the Chair to withdraw the offending remark and allow us to get on to other business, or presumably some other course will have to be taken. The minister has said to me that he is ready to withdraw the remark: that is different from withdrawing it. I want the remark withdrawn before we proceed with any other business.

June 30, 1978
Privilege-Mr. MacKay


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if it is only accidentally that the hon. member asks questions about people such as Gauthier, Perrier, Marchand, Lapointe, Giguere, Pratte, Menard, Cam-peau, Joanisse-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Harvie Andre: Give us a talk about unity.


An hon. Member:: Sick Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will see the minister one more time to withdraw his remark, as the Chair has directed, and permit us to get on to other business. Otherwise, I have to follow another course.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if it is true that the hon. member did so accidentally, then I of course withdraw my remarks because he is the most inconsequential and petty individual this parliament has ever known. It is without realizing it that the hon. member discredits and casts doubt on French Canadians. So I am forced to withdraw my remarks but I think he is a petty individual whose actions are dangerous.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has clearly and unequivocally withdrawn the remark that he made about the hon. member for Central Nova. Therefore, I am required, in parliamentary terms, to accept that withdrawal. However, I cannot overlook the fact that repeatedly the minister rose to his feet to continue to argue a point when I had indicated that the only reason he had the floor at the time was to withdraw that remark.
I want to remind the minister and hon. members that on previous occasions when members have used unparliamentary language, they have understood that if they wished to argue the merits of what they had to say, they have had always an opportunity, then and at other times, to do so in parliamentary language. Therefore, at this moment it is not open to the minister to carry this argument forward. If he wishes to do so, he will do so at the proper time and in proper parliamentary terms. At the moment, he has withdrawn the remark that was offending the order of the House and we may now proceed to the question period.
It now being 11.25 a.m., the question period will terminate at 12.10 p.m.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. It also involves individuals with questionable practices who are part of the Prime Minister's cabinet. This time it relates to the activities of Mr. Donald Macdonald, formerly minister of finance, who, as everyone knows, is now on the board of directors of the McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Corporation.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the practice of the government to allow backbench members of parliament to chair meetings involving senior officials and ministers concerning industrial assistance? If it is not, will he tell the House why the Hon. Donald Macdonald, while still a backbench member of parliament, was allowed to chair meetings involving the minister of industry, trade and commerce, the minister of state for small business, as well as senior officials and executives of Douglas Aircraft, the subject of which was an appeal for industrial assistance of that company?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret missing the beginning of the hon. member's question. If my answer is not relevant, I will apologize and ask the hon. member to repeat his question. If the question was whether a backbencher can chair a committee, the answer is, sure, they are welcome to. I hope they chair many committees.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. I was not asking whether backbenchers could chair committee meetings. My question was, can a backbencher of the government chair meetings behind closed doors involving industrial assistance to companies in Canada where other cabinet ministers and senior officials are included?
My supplementary question is as follows. Based on government documents, my information is that until Mr. Macdonald became director of Douglas Aircraft last May, the company's bid for assistance received a predominantly negative response from Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce officials. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the written advice of officials to consider assistance only up to a maximum of 20 per cent was overruled, as shown by Treasury Board document IT and C No. 53/513c-120-1, wherein a full 30 per cent, or over $16 million, was approved by the department only after Mr. Macdonald's appointment to the board of directors of that company?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing of these documents or the facts supposedly alleged by the hon. member.
June 30, 1978


An hon. Member:: They are not supposedly alleged; they are alleged.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since he has quoted the names of the companies, I will look into it and attempt to find that out. Very frequently there are applications made by companies for something and we say. "No." Then they improve their offer and we improve our answer. This is a process which goes down constantly in front of FIRA and DREE agencies. Naturally, the government attempts to get the best possible deal for the Canadian public in any series of negotiations. If McDonnell-Douglas has done something which permits Canadians to get a better deal, that is good.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange to me that the bid by McDonnell-Douglas lasted over a year, received a negative response and was not approved until after Mr. Macdonald became a director. Can the Prime Minister explain the change in the attitude of the government toward Douglas Aircraft following Mr. Macdonald's appointment to the board, as compared to a statement implicit in a memorandum of December 19, 1977, from Mr. H. P. Horne, a senior official of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to his superiors which stressed the following:
We should impress on the company that the Canadian government does not respond to threats by McDonnell-Douglas.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether Mr. Macdonald, who obviously knew of this relationship between the company and the government, complied with the ethical standards of the government when he accepted the appointment to the board of McDonnell-Douglas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member, by way of his question, is suggesting there must be something wrong here. If he has a case to make, I would appreciate his making it.


An hon. Member:: He has made it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then we will look into it. I know of no wrongdoing. I am not surprised that Mr. Macdonald's presence on the board has improved the quality of that board. He is a very intelligent human being and also a very honest person. What is wrong with that?


An hon. Member:: He did not do much for the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member has a justified suspicion, he can tell me, tell the government or tell the police. We would be happy to look into it.


Mr. Paproski:: We would not tell you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: May I be recognized later, Mr. Speaker?
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. The Anti-Inflation Board report on food prices which was released yesterday revealed an additional 1 per cent increase in food prices which, when added to the 1 per cent increase that will come with tomorrow's increase in the price of gas and oil, will mean that Canadians this month will be confronted with an inflation rate of 11 per cent.
Considering that when the Prime Minister announced last month we would not have an election, he said in that context the government would busy itself with bringing forward new economic policies to deal with such things as inflation, will he tell us what the government is doing to head off this re-emergence of double-digit inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in terms of government policy-perhaps the hon. member has not been listening-in the past five or six weeks we have made many policy announcements which will have the effect of creating jobs in Canada relating to small business and science and technology. A whole series of proposals has been put before this House, including legislation which was passed yesterday that I am sure escaped the notice of the Leader of the NDP. In so far as the specific area of food is concerned, there is to be a meeting of the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture late next week or the week after. They will be attempting, together, to come to grips with the very difficult problem of increasing food prices without penalizing the producer. In some areas the producer is merely catching up with the fallback he has suffered in the past two years-as in the case of beef, for instance. There are indications that the price of food products will ease in the next few weeks and that any advances during the balance of 1978 will be moderate, relative to trends since the start of the year. Beef prices appear to have peaked for the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Are you interested?


An hon. Member:: Give us the facts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Fresh produce prices are-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought they might like to have the facts.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister is reading from a two-year old script. Considering that an allparty committee of the Ontario legislature, which includes members of the Liberal party in that province, reported that as a result of discounting and rebate purchase policies there may be substantial profiteering by major supermarket chains, and
6908

June 30, 1978
Oral Questions
considering that this report comes on top of a similar one produced in British Columbia, will the Prime Minister undertake right away to have this aspect of food chain operations investigated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that I am reading from a two-year old script. I tell him I am reading from an AIB report dated yesterday, June 29.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The trouble is that he bases his question on the AIB release except, as usual, he just looks for the bad things. I would not impute motives to the hon. member, but it is strange that he can always find only the bad things. That is why he is sitting where he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Prime Minister's miasma is bothering him again today. I would like him now, aside from his rhetoric, to take the time to answer the question. I pointed out to him that an all-party committee of the Ontario legislature found good evidence to believe there is profiteering among food chains, which comes on top of a similar finding in the province of British Columbia. Increasing food prices may not bother the Prime Minister, but they bother a lot of Canadians. Will he now undertake to have these practices investigated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, rather than looking only at what his party is doing at Queen's Park, the hon. member should listen to what the minister has been telling him in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: And your party.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And my party, of course. We set up the AIB some years ago to control inflation, but it never received the support of the hon. member's party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It never received the support of the hon. member's party. The Minister of Finance asked that board to look into this very matter, I think last week, regarding accusations of possible profiteering. We will probably have a report on it before the friends of the hon. member in Toronto get theirs.

[ Translation]


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr, Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: 
Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that most of those houses were financed and insured by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has a policy been established for reconstruction of those houses at a reasonable cost to the owners?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that question is under study. The hon. member for Gatineau is representing me on those discussions. He himself has undertaken a series of consultations with the concerned citizens to examine what the Government of Canada could do to bring about additional assistance, and the hon. member for Gatineau in the House of Commons is to report to me in the next few days on the measures we could take in addition to those the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has already confirmed having taken.


STUDY OF RATE OF INFLATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question supplementary to the one put to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. We now have the matter of food prices under study by the AIB or, at least, charges of profiteering and price gouging. We have a study under way by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture with regard to alleviating some of the consequences of increasing food prices-at least, that is what the minister said a couple of days ago in the House-in addition to which we have the study undertaken by the Economic Council of Canada.
Are these three separate studies being carried on in concert, one with another, and who is taking the over-all co-ordinating responsibility? While I am on my feet I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we can expect an announcement in respect of the studies of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, co-ordination will be done at the moment the report is handed
June 30, 1978

to the government: that is where co-ordination will take place. The study of the AIB is not under the direction of the government. It is doing the study at the request of the Minister of Finance. Of course, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is having, as I understand it, a departmental study made and we will be anxious to make the facts known to the House as soon as possible. Obviously, if there is a finding of profiteering, that will involve action by the government to prevent such profiteering.


EFFECT OF INFLATION ON LOW INCOME EARNERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if she will undertake a study, having regard to her responsibilities and because of the impact food price inflation is having on people of fixed and low incomes. I am thinking especially of the plight of old age pensioners in Canada who are finding it very difficult to afford an adequately nutritious diet. Is she taking a look at this problem, in light of the current round of food price inflation?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House some weeks ago that the department had started, not really a study in the scientific sense but a gathering of the facts and an exploration to determine whether a more systematic study is required to assess the allegation of the hon. member. We have put the emphasis on northern regions of the country where I have a direct responsibility and where we want to see the people provided with a proper diet.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with a Panamanian citizen, so I hope I will not be accused of being anti-Panamanian. On May 19, 42 days or six weeks ago, 1 wrote the Prime Minister, sent him a memorandum and asked him to hold a public inquiry into whether the tax laws were fairly and equitably administered in this country, particularly with reference to the case of Mr. John C. Doyle. Since writing to the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Revenue confirmed that for the years 1950, 1953 and 1954 Mr. Doyle owes the government $5,014,000 in income tax and interest, that the government has no adequate security and is having great difficulty collecting, despite judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. The minister will not give me information on what else he owes for other years since 1950 and 1954.
My question to the Prime Minister is: Will he order a public Inquiry, under the Inquiries Act, into this particular case and the administration of the tax laws with reference to this case,
Oral Questions
since the taxpayers of Canada have to pay up? What went wrong, who is responsible, and can we have a full, public inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there must be many dozens, if not hundreds, of cases of uncollected taxes by National Revenue.


An hon. Member:: Five million dollars?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure that in each and every case the department is doing its best to collect the money. I do not know what the hon. member suggests should be inquired into. If he could be more precise and indicate that he suspects negligence or some desire on the part of the government not to collect the money, I would very much like to hear it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister will get briefed, he will discover that these tax years were reassessed in 1959 and that this taxpayer was not made to put up adequate security or to pay the taxes, as is the normal method of dealing with taxpayers who dispute their income tax. He did not have to put up a guarantee or a bond: he has had to put up nothing. He controls a major Canadian company and owns 18.4 per cent of the shares of Canadian Javelin Limited, from which he has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: My question to the Prime Minister, and I could fill him in on much more detail if he would give me the time to see him, and my allegations are that there is something very, very wrong, something very corrupt, about this situation. My question again to the Prime Minister is, will he order a public inquiry as my memorandum requests, and as I now request, having given him these other details?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to 1959. He will remember that the Liberal party did not form the government then, and it is a rule that I cannot look into the papers of previous administrations; nor will 1 attempt to do so. Perhaps if he asks the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Stop playing games.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -what happened in 1959, he might get the beginning of an answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in 1959 the reassessment took place for the years 1950 and 1954 by the Diefenbaker government. In 1963, during the hon. gentleman's government- which did nothing from then on-there was an income tax appeal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member have a question?


John Carnell Crosbie: Would the hon. Prime Minister tell me why the government was so courageous in its activities to get these taxes that it allowed eight years to go by before it pursued the
80045-70%

June 30, 1978
Oral Questions
matter to the Income Tax Appeal Board, and allowed another eight years to go by before they drove the appeal on to the Supreme Court of Canada? Why did the government wait 16 years before attempting to take any measures until I brought it up in this House? It has nothing to do with the previous government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, presumably because of the difficulty in collecting the money it took some time. If I understand the situation correctly, it began in 1959. I wonder why the government of the day did not ask for securities, rather than wait until he had thrown them off.


John Carnell Crosbie: Read my memorandum.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The Yukon Territory Council has voted by a six to five margin to request Arthur Pearson's removal as Yukon territorial commissioner. In view of these circumstances, and in the absence of the minister of northern affairs, I wonder whether it is the intention of the government to request or to obtain the resignation of Mr. Pearson as commissioner of the Yukon territory?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the facts alleged by the hon. member. I will take note of them, for the minister's benefit, and he will provide a reply. I seem to recollect that the commissioner of the Yukon, like the commissioner of the territories, is named by orders in council and it probably is at pleasure. I would want to see if, indeed, the suggestion made by the hon. member is borne out by the facts.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there was a resignation a few days ago-I am sure it must have come to the attention of the Prime Minister, who pays some attention to domestic matters-of Mr. Lang, the minister of education, on the basis of the activities of the commissioner of the Yukon, would the Prime Minister tell us whether it is the policy of this government to disregard the wishes of the elected representatives of the Yukon territory, or whether he is in a position to say that the government will support the decision of the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon territory?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just told the House that I was not aware of the fact alleged by the hon. member. I took note of it, for the benefit of the minister. If the hon. member wanted an answer today, he might have given me notice and I would have tried to find out what happened. I did not know, either, that Mr. Lang had resigned. I see that he is not in his seat, but I would be very surprised if he has.
[Mr. Crosbie.)


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In the three years since the government agreed with my motion to establish a military medal for recognizing NATO service, I have asked in the House three times about the progress of this bill and the establishment of the medal. I would like to ask the minister, for the fourth time, when will this medal, to which the government is committed, see the light of day?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I expect it will be very soon. I will be making recommendations on this, not in the form of a NATO medal but in the form of a general service medal to recognize service in NATO, NORAD and other service in the armed forces. I should have all the information, because our criteria for medals is serious and is to be treated seriously, within the next month or so.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to address to the President of the Treasury Board with reference to the status of nurses in the federal employ. Would the minister indicate the response the government has taken or intends to take with respect to the request of the Professional Institute of the Public Service to come back to the negotiating table, if not the bargaining table?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I answered questions on this matter yesterday. I cannot add very much except to confirm publicly in the House that we would welcome and would respond immediately to a request for consultation with the professional institute or representatives of the bargaining agent. In fact, such discussions have been taking place.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the reply of the minister, but it may be that my information is not correct. I will put the question in this form. It is my understanding that PIPS has in fact directed to Treasury Board a request for further negotiations and my understanding from the minister is that he has not had this request. I wonder if he would have his officials double-check this because, quite clearly, the nurses are seeking to come back at least to a table where they can talk. Also, would the minister take appropriate steps to respond to what I understand to be a very formal and proper request to Treasury Board for further negotiations?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I said that discussions are taking place. We will most certainly confirm, formally, a response to
June 30, 1978

any new or later requests from the professional institute. We would like to get back to the bargaining table, too.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I call to his attention what I am sure he knows already, that is, that the disarmament conference, after a special session of the United Nations which took place in New York and after 51/2 weeks of study and speeches, has made a declaration of principle calling for a radically new approach to the elimination of the $400 billion a year world expenditure on armaments, giving new emphasis to development and calling for reorganization of the disarmament committee so that France may take a full part in the plans for disarmament.
I ask the Prime Minister-I am sure he will give a positive answer-whether he will undertake, on behalf of the Government of Canada, that the government will do all within its power to have this declaration carried into effect so that the world may survive.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have been busy with domestic affairs since I was at the United Nations conference on disarmament.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not in the Yukon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not followed the details of the debate. Certainly, several of the points that I made in my statement there are in line with the wishes expressed by the hon. member, including France rejoining the debate. As to the position which the government has been instructed to take at this particular time, I would have to refer the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if the hon. member would allow.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question, then, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I add the question whether it would be the policy of the government to approve the committee on external affairs and national defence of this House taking a special reference to study the question of disarmament.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as to the original part of the hon. member's question, I can say that Canada and, I am sure, this House, welcomes the outcome of the UNSSOD-United Nations special session on disarmament. All of the initiatives were ones which, as the Prime Minister has said, we supported, and indeed some which he advocated in his speech. In addition to that, I think we were particularly happy to note that France, as the hon. member mentioned, is prepared now to rejoin the discussions. In that connection, I have started a new mech-
Oral Questions
anism within Canada and the department to deal with disarmament questions.
In addition to that, the hon. member has asked about a reference to the committee. I see absolutely no reason why that should not be done at the appropriate time. We would welcome the support of members on both sides of the House for pressing on with this very crucial and key matter.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
MECHANICAL PROBLEMS WITH DC-9s
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the acting minister. I would like to bring to the attention of the minister another Air Canada mechanical problem which occurred on flight 176 out of Winnipeg on June 20. In this connection, the plane had to return twice to the Winnipeg airport due to a malfunction of the oil indicator light. After the second return, Air Canada had to transfer the passengers to a CP Air flight.
I ask the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary whether they will personally contact the president of Air Canada to find out if these DC-9s are being properly serviced and maintained and, as well, will they inquire why these incidents are not being reported to the proper authorities within MOT?
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Transport, like all members of the House, regrets all the air incidents which may happen like the one in Toronto. Yesterday, however, the hon. member informed us of an accident which occurred in Winnipeg on Monday June 19, so we contacted the authorities of Air Canada, who have never heard anything about it. Today he is talking about another incident, and we shall inquire with the authorities of Air Canada again, but it seems to me that members should refrain from arousing unfounded fears and check their sources of information carefully before mentioning air accidents.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that these incidents have been confirmed to the CBC in Winnipeg, which is an indication-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: -that there is an internal problem. I suggest you ask for further-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mackenzie.

June 30, 1978
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister indicate why his department is withholding the signing of an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan so that projects can be undertaken during ideal weather conditions instead of waiting, as I understand it, to sign the agreement some time in the fall when weather conditions make it unfavourable and the costs invariably increase, not only because of the rain and snow but due to other factors as well?
The province of Saskatchewan has already expended its intended share and is now withholding further development of any projects, awaiting some kind of an agreement with the federal government. Is it due to lack of funds, or is there some other reason?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that it is true that in the coming weeks we should sign and ratify that agreement which follows, I think, the one that was under negotiation to continue the development of the northern lands of northern Saskatchewan. The delays have been caused by the need to consult further certain groups concerned by the contents of that agreement, particularly the native people, and to make sure that the necessary mechanisms will be put in place so that the projects that will be implemented under the agreement to be signed are those that meet the needs and recommendations of the groups representing those people.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, is the minister confirming that he has had consultations with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians or the Metis Association of Saskatchewan and that because of the negotiations he is holding his position regarding certain funds being directed to these organizations, disregarding the province of Saskatchewan, the department of Northern Saskatchewan, that the funds will be funnelled to these particular organizations? Is this the new policy that is being followed by the government?


Marcel Lessard: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly the situation, but we did have meetings and discussions with the various groups representing the natives, the Metis and the Indians who live within or outside reserves. Having listened to their representations and their claims we had to make some concessions regarding certain delays. In fact, to some extent, we are going to take their interests and their recommendations into account, but I can assure the hon. member that we should now proceed as soon as possible to the signature of that agreement.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the WHA and the NHL have not merged, I would like to put my question to the Secretary of State, who is in charge of the CBC. Would the minister see to it that the CBC at least broadcasts some WHA hockey games, particularly the games played by the Edmonton Oilers and the Quebec Nordiques, to show national unity and at least show us some games that are worthy of watching, instead of those played by the Washington Capitals and the Colorado Rockies?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I realize this is a representation, but I hope the Secretary of State will do something about the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am flattered that the hon. member has recognized the vast array of sports expertise that I have which enables me to make that kind of judgment to be directed to the CBC. I find that extremely flattering. Apart from that, all I can say is that I will transfer his representation to the proper authorities.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You can do it much better than Iona.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport, but I will refer it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has committed his department to developments at Hamilton airport for a regional airport, can he inform me whether we can expect any announcement in the summer concerning the time-frame within which he will bring about these developments?


An hon. Member:: Only if an election is called.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the minister and department officials are very much aware of the continuing representations made by the hon. member and the great interest he has in the development of this airport.
The minister has committed himself to ensure the develop-men of a regional airport. This commitment is still valid; however, at this time, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the precise dates when the next announcements will be made on this matter.
June 30, 1978


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister: it relates to the threat by the city of Ottawa to cut off water to the federal government if it does not pay fair taxes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 24 Sussex.


An hon. Member:: Drain the pool.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Lots of hot air, but no water.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: -instead of the puny sums referred to as grants in lieu thereof. Will the Prime Minister tell the House the contingency plans he has in the event that this September the entire public service is cut off from city water supplies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not consider this a matter of urgent necessity. This discussion about taxes and grants in lieu of taxes has been going on with the city of Ottawa for many years. Indeed, every city in which there are federal buildings would like to have more grants. The Minister of Finance, and other ministers, have been in discussion with Ottawa in particular and have improved the situation there. I am sure the mayor would like to have more money. So would we, Mr. Speaker. I can say that discussions will go on during the course of the summer on a courteous basis. I do not think the citizens have to fill their bathtubs yet.


TAKEOVER OF HUSKY OIL COMPANY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the shenanigans going on with Husky Oil shares? In view of the fact that the stock has been parlayed up to an increase of nearly $200 million which Canadian consumers and taxpayers will have to pay, and in view of the fact that Alberta Gas Trunk Line, which was not a declared group desirous of becoming principal shareholders, has become so, I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has asked the Toronto Stock Exchange to look into the events that have taken place over the last two weeks. If they have not done so, is the government giving any consideration to so doing?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes some allegation, which I cannot see substantiated, to the effect that Canadian taxpayers will have to pay $200 million more because of something going on in the stock market. I do not understand on what basis I could accept that statement and on what basis it would permit the government to go to the Toronto Stock Exchange. If there are some complaints of irregularities, I hope they will be made, and I will make sure they are heard by the proper authorities.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that if $200 million more is paid for Husky than it is worth, the people who buy the oil will have to foot the bill. Some ten days ago the energy minister for Alberta, Mr. Getty, said on television that in view of his government's political philosophy they do not want Petro-Canada in the oil business.
In view of the fact that Alberta Gas Trunk Line, in which the Alberta government has a direct interest, has representatives on the board of directors, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether quarterback Don Getty has passed the ball to Alberta Gas Trunk Line to make an end run around Petro-Canada in order to keep the Canadian government out of its declared intention of having some public participation in oil development. If that is the case, does the federal government intend to do anything about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, once again 1 do not think the hon. member really believes that the price of oil on international markets is determined by stock transactions between companies which exploit that oil. Unfortunately, the price is not set on the international markets by Canada or Canadian stock market actions. The suspicion which lurks behind the hon. member's question is one which catches me by surprise and gives me some concern. Indeed, it seems illogical, if the Alberta government has members on the board of Alberta Gas Trunk Line, that it should condone interference in some way of their directors in an operation such as this-if they do, indeed, object to Petro-Canada.
However, it seems to me this is at least one area where the hon. member and this government-and, indeed, the Saskatchewan government-are in agreement that it would have been good if Petro-Canada had been successful in taking over. If it is not successful, at least it is important that the aim which is ours and that of the Saskatchewan government, of getting heavy oils into exploitation, will be reached in some other way. In so far as asking us if we can do anything about a resource which exists in two provinces, this is an interesting suggestion but I do not think the provinces, in the constitutional debate, will want to transfer to the federal government jurisdiction over their resources.

June 30, 1978
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POLITICAL ASYLUM FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with whom I have briefly discussed the case of Mr. Yung Man Yang, vice-consul of the Korean Consulate General in Toronto who defected and applied for political asylum and then was granted political status in Canada on completely different grounds than those applied for.
In his application, as the minister knows, Mr. Yang made some very serious allegations about subverting and disunity being sown in the Canadian-Korean community, utilizing agents of the Korean CIA disguised as diplomats or consular officials and, as well, the payment of fairly large sums of Korean government money in Canada. This is a matter which has been the subject of very serious consideration by an American congressional committee in the United States over the last year.
My question to the minister is simply this. The subcommittee of the United States Congress investing Korean-American relations has applied, through the State Department of the United States to the Department of External Affairs, to interview Mr. Yang. This request was made some weeks ago. For the first time in living memory, that request was denied. My question to the minister is, why was the request denied by the Department of External Affairs?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, let me, in all candour, tell the hon. member that with regard to the last part of his question, I was not aware of it. If there was a denial, it must have been on some grounds that did not require to be brought to my attention. I will look into that part of it. I think he will agree that it was the other parts of the issue that he consulted me on, and I am grateful for that. I will look into that last part. I suspect we had good grounds for doing so, but I do not wish to go beyond that at this time.
On the general question, we have looked into the allegations and claims of Mr. Yang. At the same time, we have provided for him sanctuary in Canada under appropriate circumstances. In a general way, without taking the time of the House for a very detailed answer, the situation is that it is obvious there are certain tensions between various groups in the Korean community in Canada. The RCMP and others who have looked into this have advised that there is no basis on which legal action can be taken or nothing that is unmistakably and without qualification beyond what would be acceptable or diplomatically proper.
I repeat now what I said to the party before and to others who have made these claims: we will be glad to look into any other further allegations or charges. However, the very detailed analysis which has been made so far in the course of the investigation made reveals that there are tensions, but not of a nature that would permit or justify government action at this moment.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General, who I am sure monitored the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs considering the mail interception bill. He will be aware that the deliberations, or the wisdom thereof, would be inhibited if the evidence before the McDonald commission on this issue-some 2,000 pages of testimony-was withheld from that standing committee on this House.
In order to assist the standing committee to reach the very best available legislation in this very important area, and in view of the fact that some weeks now are available before the committee will resume its deliberations, will the Solicitor General reconsider his position and, through his counsel on the McDonald commission, request that that commission on that one issue of postal interception provide the committee with an interim report?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recognize, of course, that the evidence being brought before the McDonald inquiry was brought before the inquiry at its behest and for its purposes. Therefore, they have individual purposes which they are addressing.
As for the use the committee might make of that evidence, I have done everything in my power to make available to the hon. gentleman evidence the committee felt was relevant to the study of the bill. I am disappointed that the bill did not progress further, though I recognize-and the hon. gentleman seemed to recognize in his question-that the work has been very constructive and that the witnesses have been very helpful. It is to be hoped we shall make more substantial progress after the resumption of the sitting in the fall.


PRIVILEGE
Harvie Andre: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State for Urban Affairs on a question of privilege.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, on page 6859 of Hansard for Thursday, June 29, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) asked me the following question:
I would move that if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has any tangible evidence whatsoever that I have ever been adverse to the interests of Quebeckers or Canadians of French descent, he should bring it forward ...

June 30, 1978

I take this first opportunity provided to me to rise on a question of privilege since the hon member put a question to me yesterday and I wanted before giving him specific examples to take a few hours to check copies of Hansard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may wish to pursue that matter in other ways. I know he will realize, upon reflection, that it would be against all our procedures to allow him to proceed as he is doing at this time on a question of privilege. With proper notice, or at some other time, his purpose might be accomplished but I cannot allow him to continue now.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss your ruling, but I think that yesterday you opened the door to our point of order or question of privilege, whatever may be the proper remedy, in connection with the comments made yesterday by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) about the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, on page 6860 of Hansard, you mentioned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I can clarify this situation. If matters of privilege which arise from yesterday's discussion are to be raised today, they will have to be raised upon notice. I have received no notice from any member of any intention to raise questions of privilege today as a result of events which took place yesterday. In addition, as far as the merits of the events of yesterday are concerned, interventions were made yesterday with respect to the question of privilege, and completed. There were no arguments raised in opposition to the suggestion that the matter was one of privilege. Therefore, on the basis of the arguments put forward, I had to look at the precedents and make my determination.
If there are other matters which are to be raised they will have to be dealt with in accordance with our normal procedures as they arise. If questions arose yesterday which relate to any matters of order or privilege, they can be taken up in the ordinary way. But I have no authority to take up matters of privilege on a Friday resulting from Thursday's proceedings unless I have first been given notice in accordance with the standing orders. Again, I say I have received no notice.
Tabling of Documents mr. mckenzie-air Canada


A. Daniel McKenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to inform the House that a member of this House, the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk), was on that Air Canada flight on June 19 and has explained all the details of the accident which occurred on that date.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, is not a point of order. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I had clearly understood yesterday that you had reserved the rights of hon. members to make sound interventions in full knowledge of the facts. Your decision which I have not commented on has taken us a little by surprise, for you have made it known in a somewhat unusual fashion before the question period. With your permission, we should like to comment on this, not for the purpose of trying to convince you to reverse your decision, but on the basis of a precise point of order raised by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) concerning remarks which the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and the Leader of the Opposition have made in the House, and this is what we should like to deal with today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary is mistaken. What I said yesterday was that when arguments have been raised on the subject of whether an unparliamentary remark has been made, I listen to the arguments and examine the transcript. After I examine the transcript I can make a decision. That is what I said I would do yesterday. I made it clear I would reserve my decision until after I had examined the transcript. I have finalized the matter and it should now remain closed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act I wish to table, in the two official languages, copies of three reports sent to the Administrator by the Anti-Inflation Board.

June 30, 1978
Northern Pipeline Agency PRIVILEGE


MR. CROSB1E-ANSWER GIVEN BY PRIME MINISTER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has to do with the question I addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today as head of the government and head of the administration of justice.
On May 19 I sent him a six-page memorandum bringing to his attention some alarming matters in connection with the administration of the income tax law. The taxpayer I have in mind owes the government more than $5 million at this time, after appeals to the supreme court and after 25 years have expired. Today we see in the papers that the same taxpayer, who controls a Canadian company, is having that company pay him $2.7 million in reimbursement for disbursements he said he made in retaining control of the company. He is a former Canadian citizen now living in Panama and this money is coming from a Canadian company and will be paid to him, although he owes the government $5 million-money which the government has spent ten years doing nothing to collect.
I brought this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister six weeks ago by way of a memorandum, and I have also done so by way of questions in this House. His response has been to laugh it off, to pretend he knows nothing about it, and to pretend it is a matter of no interest to the taxpayers of this country, to the 10 million or 12 million people who pay their taxes every year.
You might be wondering what my question of privilege is, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: My submission is that the Prime Minister is infringing on the privilege of this House by not having an investigation conducted into a scandalous matter brought to his attention concerning the administration of the tax laws.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) wishes to be critical of the action or inaction of any other hon. member of the House, avenues are open to him, but he surely understands that he cannot proceed on a question of privilege in this way.


NORTHERN PIPELINE AGENCY
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: With consent, Mr. Speaker, and referring to the questions which were raised earlier in the week about the Northern Pipeline Agency, I should like to move:
That the members of the Standing Committee on the Northern Pipeline Agency be Messrs. Ailard, Breau, Dawson, Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands), Foster, Goodale, Lawrence, Lee, Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich), Neil, Nielsen, Oberle, Penner, Railton and Watson.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires consent if it is to be introduced at this time. Does the House give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Then I so move.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: That when the House adjourns on Friday, June 30, 1978, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 10, 1978, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for ail purposes of this order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on this motion for a few moments I am bound to say that, judging by what occurred in the House yesterday and today, perhaps there comes a time when parliament should close and that to keep parliament here might do the institution damage. I see that Your Honour is nodding in agreement. I am happy to see that, because notwithstanding that from time to time there can be difficulties and feelings that perhaps all sides of the House might not agree with Your Honour's rulings, I am going to say to you, sir, that I think you have endeavoured to be fair. This institution demands that of you, but it also demands fairness from all hon. members in terms not only of how they behave but also of what they say.
If the adjournment could mean anything at all, it could mean that perhaps the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who was involved in an incident yesterday which I could charitably describe only as disgraceful, would go home. Perhaps the minister might be better to stay there, for the purposes of this institution, until he has cooled off and understands that, as we approach a holiday to celebrate our country tomorrow, it might be better if certain things were not said, let alone thought, especially in this institution.
I can only attribute the concern of the parliamentary secretary to the fact that he is overtired from a long session. I want to be as charitable as I can with respect to the parliamentary secretary, with whom it is my pleasure to deal regarding the
June 30, 1978

intricacies of the House of Commons. There is no place in this institution, which has evolved and which has been strengthened over the course of 500 years, for the kind of incident which occurred yesterday and which there seemed to be some desire to pursue today, because this institution will suffer and the country will suffer. Therefore I say to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) that there comes a time when parliament should adjourn, and perhaps this is the time. It is in this context that I want to reflect back for a few moments on why we are here in the first place.
Your Honour will recall that as a result of the actions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) some time ago, in the month of May, the whole country was gripped with the expectation of an election. That was the expectation, and that expectation was fueled not only by statements uttered by the Prime Minister from his place here but also by his activities. Appointments were made. Statements were made at his press conferences, and the country fully expected that there would be an election.
The Prime Minister conducts himself and makes his decisions based on a number of gospels. I am sure of at least two- the gospels of Goldfarb and Gallup. Having conferred with those characters-and I use that term in its most charitable sense-the Prime Minister decided that perhaps it would be better to switch than fight. So parliament stayed on for a while. But why? What was the reason the Prime Minister gave? The House will recall that the Prime Minister was asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) whether he intended to dissolve parliament and call an immediate election.
I think I am paraphrasing that question correctly. The answer of the Prime Minister was as it appears at page 5307 of Hansard. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I think it has been apparent in the House that we are all concerned with the issues with which the Canadian people are concerned, and they want solutions to these problems at this time.
That was an indication that we were staying for some purpose. The purpose was to find solutions to some of the problems affecting the country. What kinds of problems was the Prime Minister talking about at that time? The Leader of the Opposition asked if the Prime Minister would be introducing a new package of economic measures. The Prime Minister's answer was as it appears at page 5307 of Hansard, as follows:
I do not take it that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting another budget, but other types of economic measures. I can assure him that they will be forthcoming-
Notwithstanding the words of the Prime Minister, since that time there has not been one item of legislation which would give Canadians any reason to believe that the problems referred to by the Prime Minister would be addressed, let alone solved.
The government introduced Bank Act revisions. That legislation was about three years late. Every ten years there is a revision of the Bank Act. The government knew that as early as 1967, when the Bank Act was last revised, yet it could not
Summer Recess
plan its affairs to have the revisions presented to this House on time to pass them into law by 1977.
The Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) introduced a package of measures for small business. That package was passed perfunctorily last night by the House of Commons.
It was passed perfunctorily, not because we are at the end of a session but because the measures were so much of motherhood that there was very little difficulty passing them. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) made suggestions as to how the measures could be improved. Those suggestions had been made before by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).
Hon. members will recall that at the press conference of the Minister of State (Small Business) the minister sat beside the leader of his party in the National Press Building as he announced those small business measures. The members of the press, who are not businessmen, regarded the announcement as a great yawn. That was their reaction. I looked into the face of the Prime Minister that day on my television tube, and I saw embarrassment over such picayune, minuscule measures being presented to address such a real problem in this country. There has been nothing else since the Prime Minister declined to face up to the electorate. He and his advisers had to face the reality that all Canadians now realize that this is the most inept, the most incompetent, and there are suspicions abroad that it is the most corrupt government in the history of Canada.
Our country has some severe economic problems, and the Prime Minister refuses to recognize that fact. He blithely continues to tinker with the Constitution, on the premise that economic problems will take care of themselves if they are left alone. I have something to say to the Prime Minister with respect to that. Those economic problems will not go away unless there is some affirmative action by this government, which is now here for however long. Unless there is some economic action and some initiatives taken by this government, those economic problems which plague this country, concern its people, affect its future and can alienate its young people, will not be taken away.
Hon. members opposite who shout across this chamber had better take that into account when they go back later today to their ridings because the people of this country want some answers from the government, and those answers are not forthcoming. Our economic malaise can only become worse if no answers are given and if there is no leadership on the part of the government of the day. This government continues to ignore the realities, and one of those realities is that we have become, to the distress of our citizens, business people and working men and women, a second class economy among western economies, and perhaps that is a reflection of the fact that we have a second class government.
The Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers like to use international comparisons to explain away the country's economic problems. Here are some facts that the Prime Minister

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
does not like to quote. For the past two years Canada has had the highest unemployment rate among the industrialized countries and the worst inflation rate in the world. The Economic Council of Canada says that our economy is capable of growing by at least 5 per cent a year. Under this government we have only obtained that 5 per cent rate once in the last five years. When the Prime Minister took office, Canada had the second highest standard of living in the world. Today, under his leadership, it has fallen to the seventh in the world. During the time the Prime Minister has led his government, the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar has fallen to 50 cents. Last year, the government collected $33 billion in taxes, an increase of 350 per cent since the Prime Minister took office.


An hon. Member:: What did they spend?


Walter David Baker: When the Prime Minister took office, the federal government was spending $10 billion a year. That is now the size of our deficit in Canada. It is an indication of the spending of this government. If it were not wasted, if we had not pursued the Les Terrasses de la Chau-diere project, which is a symbol of waste and mismanagement in this country-


André Ouellet: That is totally untrue.


Walter David Baker: -that would be one thing. If we had not built the white elephant at Mirabel, that would be one thing. If we had addressed the problems of senior citizens in this country, who are fighting inflation, and used that money appropriately, that would be one thing. But this government has piled waste upon waste, poor management upon poor management, until now it is not only the distress of its citizens it is becoming the laughing stock of every thinking Canadian.
The unemployment rate is over 8 per cent. Over one million Canadians are out of work. Ten years ago the unemployment rate among young people was 7.4 per cent. Now the rate among young people is 14 per cent.


Mr. Philbrook:: It is the same all over the world.


Walter David Baker: The backbencher of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook)-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Today is his last day in parliament.


Walter David Baker: -says it is the same all over the world. This government is inclined to take credit when things are going well. But let things go badly, and the ministers scuttle for cover and blame world conditions, they blame the provinces, they blame the weather, or indeed they even blame the opposition.
Those are the facts. If backbenchers of the Liberal party are speaking up, it is because I think I am beginning to get to them. They are reacting to my comments.
Over the past year Canada lost 100,000 jobs in its manufacturing sector. Yet, in real terms, during the past five years our

imports have been growing twice as fast as our exports. In the last three years our trade deficit totalled $13 billion. That is more than our total trade deficit for the previous 20 years. I am trying to put the figures on the record so hon. members on the other side, from whose comments it is apparent they do not understand the dilemma facing our country and therefore the challenge facing the government, will understand them. I am having some difficulty in getting through to some of them, but I can tell you that there is not much difficulty outside this place, and if any member over there, particularly the hon. member for Halton who is so outspoken from his seat in the backbenches of his party, thinks his constituents do not understand the record of his government, he has another think coming.
A moment ago I said this government was incompetent. Incompetence has become their hallmark. They used to pride themselves on being the great technocrats in the days of C. D. Howe, Gardiner, the lion of Saskatchewan-I see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) sitting over there- Stuart Garson, the giants of Canadian liberalism, and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, in times when that party stood for something. I did not agree with what they stood for then as I watched them from the gallery of the House of Commons, but I agreed more with what they stood for then than I agree with what they stand for today. That party stood for something, and one of the things they were supposed to stand for was competence, the ability to manage, the ability to get things done in a reasonable sort of way. All was not perfect, and they would admit that, but they prided themselves on their competence.
Well, in terms of competence, the bottom line expectation of people for their government, how else could one describe the ability of this cabinet when one has to acknowledge that it cannot even deliver the mail? The hon. member for Halton knows that too.


André Ouellet: It is one of the best services in the world.


Walter David Baker: During the past ten years the cost of mailing a first class letter has increased from 6 cents to 14 cents. The government has invested several hundred million dollars in automated equipment for the Post Office to make it more efficient, and yet the number of employees in the Post Office has risen from 36,000 to 61,000, and a letter posted in the west end of Toronto has to be sent to Cornwall for processing before it can be delivered to the east end of Toronto.
What has been the government's answer to the Post Office problems? Their answer has been to appoint seven postmasters general in ten years. One of them has become the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Blais). He sits in the House today and he is as distinguished in that post as he was as postmaster general.
The federal government now spends $6 million on telegrams. That just shows how reliable they find the mail. Last night I was trying to find the statistics to point out to the government just how much they have spent on courier service, but I must



June 30, 1978

confess I did not find them. The amounts are tremendous, including the cost of courier service used by the Post Office. This is the measure of confidence that even the casual observer understands. The public is no longer the casual observer with respect to the competence of this government.
The government has about 400 Crown corporations. I say "about 400" because nobody knows for sure. There may have been 387 two months ago, and 1 do not know how many Crown agencies have been created since that time, so I think it is fair to say there are about 400. The list of statistics could go on and on. Surely it must be apparent to the Prime Minister and to everyone that the Prime Minister can no longer ignore reality. The country's economy is in dreadful shape and it requires immediate medicine in order to avoid making the problems even more dangerous, and perhaps in some sectors incurable.
Now I come back to the first point that I made. The Prime Minister has kept parliament here and has stayed away from meeting the people. But the people expected to meet their government on the hustings. The Prime Minister did it because he promised economic legislation on May 11. He has not kept that promise.


An hon. Member:: Has he kept any promise?


Walter David Baker: That is a judgment that will be made by the public of Canada fairly soon.
Since parliament is in its last day, I will be charitable in my comments respecting the government. Hon. members opposite are beginning to realize that the government, with all its incompetence and questionable practices, is being led by an aging Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The Prime Minister has a government to match him-aging, spiritless, tired, and directionless.


Henry Perrin Beatty: And on its way out.


Walter David Baker: Yes, on its way out. In the Speech from the Throne the government gave lip service to tremendous principles and indicated that great things were to happen. It has given lip service to aiding the private sector. Really it has done more to damage the private sector than any other government in our history.
The government said that it would grapple with and solve the problems of regional disparity. It has done nothing of the kind. If anything, it has exacerbated the problems of regional disparity. The government said that it would make efforts to develop the secondary manufacturing sector of our community where jobs can be found. Instead, we received short-term, make-work programs in place of long-term, permanent jobs. It told the agricultural community that they would be provided
Summer Recess
with a real opportunity. Despite the rising prices of food, the closing of cheese factories and other things, the farmers who work the land still receive a static amount for their produce.
I see the hon. member for Assiniboia is shaking his head. I would like to hear him participate in the debate later. I suppose he can put his case from behind the curtains, if he wants to, but I would prefer to hear him rise and participate at that time. If he feels that milk, pork, lamb, strawberry, apple and tender fruit producers have received a fair shake, in terms of the rising cost of food, then let him present his facts and statistics. They would not be in accordance with the actual facts.
Since 1974, whatever the government has put its hand to, including integrity, has been a failure. During the election campaign in 1974 the government said that it would not touch wage and price controls with a ten-foot pole. Then the government decided otherwise, and that it might be advantageous to do exactly what it said it would not do. That was the beginning of the end of the government's credibility. The government has failed the traditions of its party. It has failed the people it represents, this parliament, in terms of things which are important, and this country. The sooner hon. members opposite are removed from office, the better this country and the world will be.


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


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak to this adjournment motion, I cannot but note that it is time members of parliament took a well-deserved rest. It is obvious that the work of a member of parliament has become through the years a full-time job and in many respects a most thankless one for those who have to cover long distances to come each week to sit in the Canadian parliament. It is also a thankless job as it is enormously demanding physically for the elected representatives of the Canadian people. It seems obvious to me that in these times of great disruption it would be essential to amend extensively our obsolete parliamentary procedures which were perhaps adequate at the beginning of the Canadian parliament but which no longer meet our present needs nor allow the members of this House to perform as effectively as they would like.
It is obvious that the advent of television in the House has brought to some extent the people closer to what is going on in parliament, since they can see for themselves parliamentarians in action. However when the Canadian people are asked or surveyed about the performance of parliamentarians, at least their performance as seen on television, it is really quite a small part of the daily life of a member. It is unfortunately in many cases a mutilated and unreal image of the enormous responsibilities assumed by parliamentarians, especially on the government side. The question period is telecast mostly throughout the country. Now, you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, to what extent the oral question period enables members of

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
parliament to ask questions and get information on the activities of the government, and especially on the responsibilities of the various government departments. In principle, under our rules, this oral question period should be at the disposal of all parliamentarians on both sides of the House.
Often, for practical, acceptable and understandable reasons, members of the opposition have a much greater share of the oral question period than government members, and in my opinion, this gives a deformed picture of parliamentary life to the Canadian people who are not aware of our parliamentary practice. This is unfair in many respects to the members on this side of the House who cannot ask questions in the House as often as they would like. Second, the duties of a member of parliament go far beyond what happens in the House. For those who work with parliamentarians, and I say this for members of the opposition as well as for the government members, this work goes on for hours and hours in parliamentary committees, in the members' offices, on Parliament Hill, in phone calls to constituents in the various regions of the country, in daily correspondence with many Canadians who ask members of parliament for advice, and of course, in the duty of parliamentarians to return frequently, every week, to their own constituency to meet their constituents, to work at their riding office and better serve the people who have sent us to parliament. Of course, none of this work is shown during the televising of our proceedings. Unfortunately, the Canadian public is not aware of this work, even though it is very important. Now that we are on the point of adjourning for the summer, I feel it is important that the men and women of good will who sit in this parliament take on the responsibility of upgrading our parliamentary procedures and make once and for all parliamentary procedure truly effective.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would have the people believe that there was not much parliamentary work done in the House and that the government did not proceed as expeditiously as it should with its bills. The facts are quite simple. The truth is that in many cases our procedures are much too slow, we progress at a snail's pace when considering the bills that are introduced and take weeks and even months to pass the bills needed by the people to provide them with immediate services. Parliamentary procedures are such that we can spend many days discussing the principle of a bill. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the second reading stage should be drastically shortened as it is in the British parliament. A bill simply tabled in the House of Commons to determine whether or not it should be further considered by a parliamentary committee should not give rise to more than two or three speeches by each political party represented in the House. There is no need for dozens of opposition members to repeat the same speech. To know if a bill is good or not, if it should be referred to a committee for a clause-by-clause study and to be amended if needed, our procedure should be changed. But the fact that we spend days, months in some

cases, on the second reading of a bill is unacceptable in our modern context. I listened to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who used the adjournment motion to indulge in rhetoric and blame the government for its performance. Of course, I agree that this adjournment motion might give us the opportunity to raise a general discussion on parliamentary activities and particularly on what happens in the House of Commons.
I wish to point out to hon. members a trend that coincides curiously with the advent of television in the House where more and more hon. members feel free to season their questions with lengthy gratuitous statements, half-truths and ludicrous allegations in some cases. And through an abusive use of motions under Standing Order 43, a member can rise at the beginning of the business of the House to make a long statement asking for unanimous consent, to say anything that pops into his mind knowing perfectly well that the motion will not be accepted and that the government will have no opportunity to reply immediately to those gratuitous allegations.
I think that the summer recess should give us the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to review that issue so that hon. members will not be allowed to abuse systematically the parliamentary procedure. I believe it is essential that hon. members on both sides of the House rise only with regard for objectivity and truth which is essential not only for the orderly operation of the House of Commons but also for the people who have now the opportunity to follow our parliamentary proceedings via television and who often hear gratuitous statements that cannot get a forthright answer because of a weakness in our parliamentary procedure. And I believe it is essential in the best interest of public information that we should have a parliamentary procedure ensuring a principle considered essential by the British parliament at the time of its creation, that is fair and equal balance. That check and balance concept is essential in a good parliamentary system. And the check and balance was obviously introduced in the British parliamentary system to encourage to some extent the smaller number of opposition members who, in some cases, at the beginning of British parliamentarianism might have been the victims of an abuse of power by the parliamentary majority. Obviously that check and balance system was established at a time when there were only two political parties. The initiators of that system had in mind the government made up of a political formation and the opposition gathered in another political formation.
Now, with the evolution of the political situation and customs in Canada, there is a proliferation of political parties, so that the checks and balances designed to help the official opposition is also helping the third parties unduly, in my opinion, the small parties which benefit from the same advantages as the official opposition and cumulatively hold an undue and unacceptable margin which had not been intended by those who brought in the checks and balances in parliamentary practice. That is why, as I was saying earlier, our parliamen-
June 30, 1978

tary procedures must be reviewed at all costs, because they are now clearly detrimental to government backbenchers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.02 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills without any amendment.
Bill C-36, an act to amend the Export Development Act;
Bill C-54, an act to provide a maritime code for Canada and to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in consequence thereof; and
Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act in matters relating to the ownership and operation of small businesses.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That when the House adjourns on Friday, June 30, 1978, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 10, 1978, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment I recalled the necessity for a reform in the parliamentary procedure, such a reform being necessary not only to enable the backbenchers on the government side to play a greater role in the House of Commons but to reorganize working hours of parliament.
As you know, those working hours are distributed over small time periods in the afternoon and scarcely a few hours in the evening five days a week whereas they could be reorganized and concentrated over four days a week only so that we could
Summer Recess
work longer hours in a four-day week whereas presently we have a five-day week. Of course, this would enable hon. members who come from the ends of the country to go back to their constituency every weekend, they would not be forced, as is now the case for some hon. members from British Columbia, to travel all day long on Saturday to arrive late in the evening in their constituency and to leave on Sunday to come back for Monday for parliamentary business. This is an unacceptable situation which should be revised as soon as possible. Parliamentary procedure should also be amended in order to limit the length of speeches in certain debates.
There is no question of preventing members from expressing their views in this House when they feel they should do so, but in the U.S. Congress there is provision for congressmen, where they are prevented by certain procedures there from delivering their speeches, for tabling them with the clerk of the House, and they are printed in the U.S. congressional record. Such an approach, such a procedure of course would have clear benefits in this House.
Further, parliamentary procedure should be reorganized to establish a reasonable legislative timetable under which the government could have its legislation go through within a justifiable and adequate time frame. It is totally unacceptable that we should live with the current parliamentary procedure wherein legislation sometimes takes two or three years to go through parliament. Such a situation cannot be tolerated. It is mostly, if not entirely, due to the opposition constantly abusing parliamentary procedure to cause undue delays. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it should be provided under a legislative timetable that a bill could not be debated for periods over four months, whether in this House or in committee. Once that period was over we, as legislators charged with the clear duty of enacting statutes, should stop discussing, divide on and pass them.
Finally, I would like to say that apart from and beyond parliamentary reform, the parliamentary spirit needs to be improved. There is matter for concern in the attitude of some members in terms of parliamentary spirit. It will be remembered that some years ago, when I was an hon. member's assistant rather than a member in this House, because I worked in Canadian parliament not on the floor but for a minister of the Crown, I remember very well what happened. I remember the insidious, reviling and malicious attacks against two ministers from Quebec, the hon. Mr. Tremblay and the hon. Mr. Favreau, and I must say that most certainly those cowardly, invidious and unfair attacks mainly contributed to the premature deaths of those two former French-Canadian ministers, highly competent and perfectly honest men. I thought that time was over and that we would not hear any more of that kind of insidious, mischievous and unacceptable attacks in the House of Commons.

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
Yet I cannot help but deplore the fact that we have seen reappearing some kind of Don Quixote who, mischievously and insidiously . .. Perhaps not in certain cases, because we are not supposed to impute motives to members in the Elouse, and this I do not want to do, but I am wondering very seriously about the attitude shown by some hon. members who are trying to spot big black clouds in the Canadian political sky and who, by coincidence, launch unfortunate attacks against certain senior officials, certain cabinet ministers and certain Canadian businessmen in a systematic and deplorable way in my opinion; under the guise of questions, they make gratuitous statements, uttering half truths and odious insinuations in trying to prove that there has been or could have been scandals surrounding the government. Again a few moments ago, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rose to make a speech: he is the one who, before the lunch break, spoke and said that this government was, and 1 quote, a corrupt government. That is a gratuitous statement without any substance-


Mr. Boulanger:: Shame!


André Ouellet: This government in power under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for ten years has had none of its senior members convicted of corruption or involved in scandals. An attempt was made to have us believe there were scandals in certains cases; all sorts of questions were put in an effort to stir doubts in the minds of the people. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the ruling given yesterday by a Quebec court acquitting Senator Giguere was an eloquent example of the unfortunate insinuations made by some hon. member of this House of Commons against the authorities of the Canadian government, to try and destroy them in the public opinion, and that without basis, without reason.
I cannot imagine what torment Mr. Louis Lapointe, a Montreal businessman, went through; he was held in high esteem and respected by his peers and he died suddenly as a result of the backwash of the Sky Shop incident. I have no idea to what extent his health was affected by it, but obviously no parliamentarian can or must at any time use his parliamentary immunity to make insinuations or statements lightly, without basis then to hide behind his parliamentary immunity, the privilege of members of parliament, and argue his good faith and simple wish to know a bit more about government operations. That is hypocrisy or irresponsibility of the most serious nature. And I think that as members of this House of Commons, we have a duty to have the highest standard of integrity and the deepest concern for objectivity and impartiality when we are asked insidious questions which may eventually endanger people's reputations and reflects adversely upon their integrity.
Mr. Speaker, earlier the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has charged the government with bad management or incompetence. Well, I shall tell him this: I listened to him very carefully and when he was asked to bring in facts,

the only two cases which came to his mind were les Terrasses de la Chaudiere and the Mirabel Airport, those are the only two cases he mentioned, and they are, through coincidence of course, both located in the province of Quebec.
I know that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton does not like the fact that the Canadian governmnt has erected federal buildings on the Hull side, that the Canadian government is respectably and honorably present on both sides of the Ottawa river, that the National Capital Commission, for the sake of Canadian unity, made sure that federal civil servants would work on both sides of the river, on the Ottawa as well as the Hull side, whatever objections the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton may have, that decision of the Canadian government is irrefutable, it is there and we shall stay on both sides. What is at stake is the unity of the country and an equitable representation of federal civil servants who may work in the national capital and who may serve the Canadian government as well if they work in Hull as if they work in Ottawa. I am not impressed by the big eyeglasses or the big artificial smile of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, his comments cannot be erased, they are very clear and they do not deceive us. He does not like the fact that les Terrasses de la Chaudiere are built on the Hull side, he does not like the fact that there are federal buildings in Hull and he is nit-picking to try to find a so-called scandal which does not exist. And yesterday, when the hon. member for Central Nova asked questions about this matter, les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, he once again, as he has often done in this House, quoted papers he had in his possession heaven knows why, internal confidential papers of departments, government bodies, confidential documents he uses in this House by referring to only a very small portion and leaving the impression that improper transactions took place between the Campeau corporation and the government of Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that those transactions were duly examined and approved by the National Capital Commission on August 12, 1975, and if the hon. member had not quoted those papers only in part, if he had quoted them in their totality, he would see that the design committee of the National Capital Commission approved that project in a letter dated August 12, 1975. The hon. member is wrong in suggesting, as he did, that this project was rejected on several occasions in the months of May, June, July, September and November 1975. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) is wrong, and it is also untrue, as some opposition members seemed to suggest, that the chairman of the National Capital Commission threatened to resign if that project was accepted. That is absolutely false. I personally telephoned the former chairman, Mr. Gallant, to check up on that story and he confirmed that at no time had he threatened to resign, on the contrary, that the Government of Canada had considered that project, recognized the usefulness of having another federal building on the present site of les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
June 30, 1978

and that private contractor had been asked to submit bids that were acceptable and competitive, which was done.
It is rather odd to see, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. member for Central Nova or other opposition members talk about federal buildings in the national capital they do not talk about those that are already in existence, that were built by other private contractors-Olympia York, for example, or Cadillac Fairview-who like Campeau corporation have what is called a lease purchase plan which was negotiated in all good faith, all honesty, with the government of Canada, just like Campeau corporation negotiated with the government of Canada. And I do not accept that members should under the cover of parliamentary immunity try to imply that there was an injustice, that there was a scandal in that business. It is absolutely unacceptable.


Mr. Chretien:: Repeat it in English so they will understand!
Say it to them in English.


André Ouellet: Yes, I think I should repeat this in English. It is an unacceptable situation when members on the other side are not responsible enough to lay a charge and completely explain their accusations. Instead, they take advantage of the immunity of this House to make irresponsible charges and allegations, citing unrelated events, telling half truths, presenting only portions of documents, and distorting the real facts.
It is unacceptable that in some cases they endeavour to fabricate scandals not in existence. In so doing they are not only being extremely unfair to those directly involved, but to the Canadian people who get a distorted view of the facts. This unacceptable situation has been going on for too long with some members of the opposition. It should cease.
If we take an adjournment period this summer, we should take advantage of it to redraft our parliamentary procedures no longer to allow those members who have no courage to abuse the rules of this House and its immunity to make all kind of unfounded charges and accusations.

I think that the Terrasses de la Chaudiere issue, which was raised earlier in today's debate by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was dealt with extensively by a Senate committee which examined all transactions. Moreover, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that representatives of both the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties participated in these Senate discussions and it was clearly established by the Senate committee that nothing improper was done in that situation, that it was a 100 per cent regular transaction which did not deserve the kind of muck-raking that some members of this House enjoy doing to arouse the interest of the population by raising inappropriate questions on this issue. I would like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by going over some of the criticisms voiced against the efficiency of this government by
Summer Recess
the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, who says that the government has a poor economic record to show. It seems obvious to me that his speech was written along the lines of a certain electoral platform that the Progressive Conservative party could defend during an election campaign. To me, it sounded more like an electoral speech than a speech on an adjournment motion.
1 think some of my colleagues in this House who will be dealing more thoroughly with those issues after me this afternoon will elaborate on the exceptional achievements of this government in recent years. There is no doubt that this government took whatever steps were necessary to curb the kind of galloping inflation we had in this country. There is no doubt that this government through its Minister of Employment and Immigration, the hon. Jack Sydney George Cullen, created a considerable number of jobs in Canada in recent years, a record number of job opportunities well above the number of jobs created in any industrialized country in the world. The government introduced in recent weeks a series of measures dealing with the support the Government of Canada wants to give small businesses in this country.
We know how necessary and essential small businesses are to the smooth operation of this country's economy, to the creation of jobs not only in large centres but especially in the more isolated areas of Canada. And small businesses are undoubtedly the way to ensure that constant reserve of job opportunities that the people of this country need in order to keep on living even in the remotest areas of this country, and to stem that continuing shift towards larger cities. The government has managed to introduce a whole series of measures to help small and medium-size businesses. We also recently announced a series of measures to help research in Canada, to help industries and universities, particularly those doing scientific research in Canada, create jobs for researchers in this country, to allow our society to progress in the area of research and allow the people of this country to have an even better standard of living.
And, finally, one cannot help but point out the recent efforts made by the Canadian government to have a Canadian constitution written by Canadians for Canadians and a constitution that would truly be ours, that would be patriated and would be a truly Canadian constitution that would fully meet the aspirations of the people of this country. So there you have in the little time I have at my disposal what the government has done as we get ready to adjourn for the summer. We have an extremely enviable record and the people of this country, in spite of the difficulties they might come up against, have one of the highest standards of living in the world. And the people of this country, despite the sombre, negative, pessimistic feelings of the opposition, are very happy to have the opportunity to live in a country called Canada.
Mr. Speaker, during the present session, we have witnessed a pitiful performance by the official opposition, a performance

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
totally inacceptable and unqualifiable by the Progressive Conservative party, a party which has associated itself with phony bugging, with the appointment of private detectives to keep the activities of members and ministers of the government under watch. It is an attitude absolutely intolerable from a supposedly responsible Canadian party. When by-elections were held in the province of Quebec, that party also attempted to make a cozy deal with the Parti Quebecois in order to beat the liberals in Quebec province.
The Progressive Conservative party, which represents the official opposition, has, through its irresponsible actions done more for the destruction of Canada than its unity. Their attitude is wrong, Mr. Speaker, since, as I have said before, the abuse the parliamentary procedure to make allegations and declarations of all kinds, which are not even always correct, hoping through this strategy to cast doubt and confusion in the public mind, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that despite all the sordid stories made up by the official opposition, the Canadian people will make the right assessment when the time comes, of the positive and practical measures toward national unity and prosperity taken by this government, headed by the right hon. Prime Minister Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of trying to match the oratory or the rhetoric we have listened to for the last little while. I must say I marvel at the latitude which seems to be provided by a simple motion calling for the adjournment of the House from June 30 to October 10. I would think that this was what we should be discussing, but the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) apparently feels he can raise any matter he wishes to deal with.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What about Baker's speech?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no intention of getting into this quarrel between the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and members of the official opposition, but I suspect we have not heard the last of this discussion. In fact I begin to wonder whether we shall adjourn today after all.
Neither do I intend to use this motion as an occasion for discussing parliamentary procedure but I should like to make a few brief comments on what the minister had to say in this area. I take second place to no one in being concerned about reforming the procedures of this House. I have taken part in many of those reforms, some of which I am proud but others of which we cannot be so proud. There are still improvements which we must make, but I reject completely the suggestion that reform of parliament means reducing debate and reducing the amount of time we spend here so that members will not lose their health serving their constituents for so long in Ottawa.

At election time every candidate promises he will give all he has got to serve the people. Then we hear speeches here such as we just heard suggesting we should limit the amount of time we spend here. There are reforms in our procedure which must be achieved, and we must take this question seriously, but I suggest the speech we have just heard is no blueprint for proper reform.
Having said that I deplore this time being used to discuss matters which are far from the terms of the motion, I shall use the few minutes I wish to take to say something about that motion. The proposal is that we adjourn today, Friday, June 30, until Tuesday, October 10. I quite agree that it is time for this House to adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That has been true for quite a while, particularly since May 11. The debates which have gone on in the House since that date have not been a credit to the institution. Indeed, the things which have gone on during the last few days make it clear we ought to get out of here. I think we should do so not only because of the tone of debate in the last little while but because it does make sense for us to have a break from work here, for personal reasons, and so that we can do some thinking about what we ought to put our minds to when we come back. But though I support the idea of a recess I say quite frankly that a recess of 100 days is unreasonable.
We were told on May 11 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that there are many problems which must be resolved-that is the reason the election was put off; it was because parliament could serve the country better by staying here and dealing with legislation. I find it quite inconsistent for the government of the same Prime Minister to propose now that we take a recess of three months and 10 days, or a total of something over 100 days. I believe that at the very least we should be coming back in September to try to cope with the problems facing this country.
I realize we do not know what is in the mind of the Prime Minister. There are all sorts of rumours and guesses about an election. I suspect he has not made up his own mind yet. I realize that the proposal that we come back on October 10 might be set aside by the calling of an election. Then again, the Prime Minister might put off calling an election until some time in 1979.


Mr. Baldwin:: He might invoke the War Measures Act and not have an election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, that is a suspicion not to be dismissed out of hand. One of the rules of this House is that we are supposed to take each other's word. On the assumption that this motion means what it says and that we shall be coming back on October 10, I should like to make a few suggestions as to what I think the government should be putting its mind to while we are away.
June 30, 1978

I assume that if we carry out the terms of this motion and come back on October 10, that will probably be the date upon which the third session of this Thirtieth Parliament will be prorogued, with the new one being commenced later that day or on Wednesday, October 11.
I shall not take the time of the House to review the past session. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did a bit of that this morning, and if my leader had not got involved in something else this afternoon he might be doing it right now. But I must say I find the accomplishments of this parliament under the government in the past session very disappointing. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs blames this on the length of time it takes to debate certain matters. He says there are services which the government is prepared to offer to the people which the people are not getting because we debate legislation for so long. What services, Mr. Speaker? The things the people are not getting from this parliament are the things which are not placed before parliament by the government which has the authority to bring in the appropriate legislation.
No one will be surprised by the kind of legislation about which I am concerned. I mentioned one aspect this morning in a motion I sought to move under Standing Order 43. I say seriously to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and to the government: resolve this problem during the 100 days of the recess. I refer to the pension rights of veterans' widows especially in cases where the veteran's pension was below 48 per cent. This issue has been around long enough. The number of those who might have benefited from proper legislation and who have died, is considerable, and as time goes by more and more veterans whose pensions are below 48 per cent must face the fact that they are growing older and that if they die first there will be no pension for their widows. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of our veterans on disability pensions have pensions below 48 per cent, and they are affected by this rule.
This may not be a subject for the kind of rhetoric and oratory we have had thus far, but I suggest it is a serious issue, and I plead that in this 100-day recess which we are being asked to agree to this afternoon the government give its attention to the problem of providing pro rata pensions for the widows of veterans where the veterans' pensions were below 48 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have also had assurance of the Minister of Veterans Affairs that a thorough study is being made of the War Veterans Allowance Act. This is a piece of legislation which has done a lot of good. It has been around for 47 or 48 years, but times have changed. It was introduced in the days when the old age pension was payable only at age 70-a very small amount and on a means test- and the war veterans allowance was something a little better than that for veterans. Surely the same principle should apply
Summer Recess
now. There should be something a little better for veterans than is available generally under old age legislation today.
I find it difficult to accept the proposition that this kind of study takes months and months and years and years. The matter has been studied already in the department, says the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Now there is this 100-day period.
I think that in the fall the minister should bring in not only a report of that study but also revisions to the War Veterans Allowance Act, making it something much closer to a guaranteed annual income for our older veterans.
I want also to urge that serious attention be given by the government during the next 100 days to a number of other pension matters. I find it unacceptable, to use a word we heard a while ago a number of times, for the government to think that it has done all it should for our senior citizens simply because it has the pension up to a certain point and indexes it in accordance with the rise in the consumer price index. The fact is that with that rise always behind, with the base not having been high enough to begin with, and other conditions which I need not take the time to spell out, the conditions faced by our senior citizens are getting relatively more difficult.
We have watched with interest the sittings of the Royal Commission on Pensions which have been held in the province of Ontario, and I think the interesting thing has been the number of briefs which have been presented to that commission pointing to the difficulties and problems being faced by older people. It is not enough for the government to sit there, complacently saying it has done this and that and that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should hold his peace. Not so. 1 plead that something be done and that it be done during this 100-day period particularly about the position of persons between 60 and 65 years of age, particularly women in that age bracket.
It becomes more and more clear that one of the most cruel and unfair pieces of legislation we ever passed was the spouse's allowance. It is fine for those who get it, a limited number, but in terms of discriminating against women and men, but mostly women, of single status, whether they be widows, spinsters, divorced or separated, I know of nothing which has been worse. The government is finally admitting-the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has said this in public speeches-that it does seem unfair where a person is getting the spouse's allowance-because she is a spouse-and loses her husband before she is 65, that her allowance and her pension are cut off.
I gather from things which have been attributed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her speeches outside this House that the government is disposed to correct that situation. That is not enough. The whole position of persons between 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market, who do not meet the marital test and so forth, is a difficult one, and this is not something to be left to a campaign issue for the next election. This is not something to be left for the government which takes over after the next election. This is something to be dealt with now.

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
I am taking this motion at its face value. I am taking it for what it says, namely, that we are coming back on October 10, and if we are coming back on October 10 that means there will be another session of this thirtieth parliament. I say that the time to deal with this problem which faces women in particular between the ages of 60 and 65 is early in that fourth session of this thirtieth parliament.
Having made reference to the spouse's allowance and its unfairness to women of single status between the ages of 60 and 65, I want to stress, as I have tried to do on every possible occasion, the unfairness of our pension rules generally as they affect women. There is discrimination against veterans' widows where the 48 per cent rule applies. There is discrimination under the spouse's allowance. There is discrimination under the Canada Pension Plan in that the woman who works outside the home can be part of the Canada Pension Plan and get the benefits of it, but the woman who works in the home gets no such benefit, even though we received a report from Statistics Canada a few days ago which told us that the work which is done in the homes of Canada by the housewives of this nation is worth $80 billion a year, roughly 40 per cent of the gross national product. Yet for most of them there is nothing in terms of the Canada Pension Plan. They get old age security the same as others, but we keep hearing talk about equality.
We get into the question of regions. We get into the question of languages. There are two languages in this country, so we have to treat them equally, and I agree, but there are also two sexes in this country, and I think there should be equality of treatment. If we are not yet prepared to establish that equality all along the line, at least we should establish it when it comes time for retirement and pension.
I am making this short speech directly in relation to the motion. The motion calls for a 100-day recess. I think 60 or 70 days would be plenty. It would be better for us to come back in September, but just as we are being given 100 days to think about these things and to attend to our responsibilities here, in our constituencies and about the country, I contend that the government has a responsibility to look at the things which ought to be done in the next session of parliament.
I think that this last session has been a failure. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs can argue this and take opposite views and all the rest of it. I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is much closer to the facts than the Minister of State for Urban Affairs because this has been a disappointing session. Let us not have another one before an election.
I do not think that parliaments which go five years are very successful. I was here in one of them some years ago, and I remember how useless that fifth year was. After four years have gone by it is time to get a fresh mandate, but let us not be hamstrung by that tradition and by that convention. If we are going to come back and have a new session, let us deal with some of these urgent problems.
I press very strongly that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare use these

100 days to the best possible advantage, and that when we come back in October and start a new session they bring in legislation to provide better conditions for our veterans, their families and all our older people, but especially for the section of our older community which suffers the most, namely, our older women.
There are many other issues which must be of concern to us in the new session which, supposedly, we will have when we come back. My leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), and others of my colleagues have been pressing these points time and time again. These other issues underline the pension issues I am talking about. Something must be done soon to cope with the serious problem of the unemployment of over one million of our people who are not able to find jobs. Unless something is done about this problem, as well as about rising prices which now give us figures of 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent a year, the possibility of this country maintaining its unity, its integrity, and the confidence of our people becomes very slim. So, as I have called on the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to use these 100 days to advantage in their areas, I call on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), and others who have to do with economic policy, and ultimately on the Prime Minister, to regard these 100 days not just as a holiday, not just as a time when they are rid of parliament and all the nasty questions and debates they have to face here, but as a time to do something about creating jobs and coping with inflation so that the economy of this country does not get completely out of hand.
I say again, sir, that we are prepared to support the motion in the sense that it says parliament should take a recess. There is just no argument about that, and the debate today is probably proving the point, but I insist that it ought not to be for 100 days, it ought to be until some time in September after the school term commences. I think that might be a good time for us to come back. But since that is not the case, and if it has to be the 100 days, let the government come back in the fall ready to go into a session on a serious-minded basis, and in particular to have legislation ready to cope with the problems of our veterans, the problems of our senior citizens, the problem of unemployment, and the problem of runaway prices. These things must be done.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to mention that, in spite of the undue length of certain debates which took place in the course of the current session, we were still able to pass several bills. We can indeed look at the relatively positive record of this session and realize that nearly 40 bills were adopted over the last nine months. Some of them of course were of social and judicial nature, for instance the
June 30, 1978

important legislation which will allow every Canadian to be judged before the courts of this country in the language of his choice, whichever official language he uses. We need only to remind hon. members of the legislation we have passed, to promote the basic right of Canadians to work in sanitary conditions, and the many amendments we have brought to the Criminal Code, in particular those which clarify the definition of rape and sexual assault in order to prevent abuses in these kinds of crime.
However, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will remember that in the Speech from the Throne last October, the government established two main lines of priorities, economic and constitutional. As far as economic priorities are concerned, we have of course taken an approach which is different from the one we took on constitutional issues. We have taken several economic measures by passing a large number of bills. I am thinking more particularly of Bills C-l 1, C-15, C-16, C-18, C-19, C-23, C-25, C-29, C-30, C-31, C-38 and C-56, to name only a few, which related to economic measures and which have been considered, passed and received royal assent.
When we discussed constitutional matters, the government showed its leadership in a different way. The government has tabled two bills and a white paper and has set up a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, in the hope of meeting two specific objectives. First, to allow for a complete, valid and serious consultation of all interested parties, and second to proceed with a constitutional reform, which would lead to a new federalism within a predetermined and reasonable period. The government's approach on constitutional matters as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, is to tabling the bill respecting referendums, which provides for public consultation of Canadians on constitutional matters. Still more recently, we have tabled a momentous bill, Bill C-60, which aims at a major reform of our federal institutions such as the Senate, which would become a House of the Federation, the Supreme Court of Canada, the authority of the Governor General of Canada and so on.
Moreover, we have tabled a white paper entitled A Time for Action, which contains the major principles for the renewal of the constitution, the real milestones for a renewed federation with a well defined time frame: July 1, 1979 for reforms dealing with strictly federal matters. Of course, this will not prevent consultations with the provinces or other interested parties. We all know that the ministers for federal-provincial relations will have the opportunity to meet during the summer and that subsequently the provincial premiers will meet with the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada for an important conference on constitutional matters. As far as the second term, July 1, 1981, is concerned that is the time we shall need to enter into agreements on distribution of powers, and on the patriation of the constitution and the amendment formula thereto.
Summer Recess
That is in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a very reasonable approach taken by the government during this session to deal with constitutional priorities. Whereas on the one hand, we have on the economic level, adopted a very large number of programs to boost the economy in this country, we have on the other hand, on the constitutional level, tabled legislation and a white paper to ensure that this reform be made by way of valid and serious consultation and within a specific and reasonable time. And this summer, this joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons will seek the views of the public and all those concerned and look fully into the proposals contained in Bill C-60 as well as in the white paper, A Time for Action, and hopefully, report to parliament as early as next fall so that we can bring about the constitutional reform and provide Canadians with a renewed federalism within the time-frame specified in the white paper.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as can be seen, this is a positive record for a session that has lasted for some nine months and during which, as I said earlier, about 40 bills were passed. What I find unfortunate is that bills which were introduced before Christmas, including at least eight which were very important, and other bills introduced before Easter, of which seven were very important in our opinion, could not go through the three readings and receive royal assent. 1 am thinking particularly about Bill C-6, concerning Canadian ports, Bill C-7, which would have removed a lot of bothersome red tape for small businesses, Bill C-l3, concerning combines investigations, Bill C-l4, which concerns nuclear controls, Bill C-20, concerning the disposition and development of oil and gas rights, Bill C-24, concerning telecommunications in Canada, and there are many more, Mr. Speaker. I find it unfortunate that the present parliamentary system, under our present rules, has not allowed us to pass bills such as those I have just listed and, which could have been very useful to the Canadian people. I fully agree with the previous speaker, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), when he advocated an early parliamentary reform.
Mr. Speaker, when we see the grievances of hon. members, and I am referring not only to government members but also to members of the opposition, I believe that the main grievances can be summarized in seven particular areas. Members generally complain about the unwarranted repetition in the House of the same arguments; they complain about speeches that often smack of political partisanship instead of being valid or constructive criticism, which results in too many speakers straying from the main subject; the third most frequent grievance, Mr. Speaker, concerns the abusive use made by the opposition of the time and the means at its disposal during the various stages of the bill in an often admitted attempt to prevent or delay unduly the passage of these bills by the government even though it has a majority. The fourth grievance, Mr. Speaker, is the aberrant constraint of a constant

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
attendance which is too often useless in the House of Commons and which prevents the sound planning and carrying out of the various duties of a member of parliament.
The fifth most frequent grievance is that we have an unmanageable and overly extensive parliamentary program which actually prevents a member from spending valuable time with his constituents and family. Mr. Speaker, we could list other grievances, but I believe that those I have mentioned give a good idea of the state of mind of most members who seek some changes in order to make this House more efficient, more relevant and better able to meet the aspirations of Canadians.
Under the type of reform that we favour, we are of course willing to respect certain principles which boil down to three points that are fundamental in my opinion. Obviously, the opposition has the right to express its views fully but without filibustering, Mr. Speaker. Filibustering has no place in the Canadian parliament. The opposition should be entitled to put forward its views fully without resorting to filibustering tactics, which would remove any opportunity for repetition at the various stages of the legislative process and make for relevant and better speeches. The second principle to be recognized in any parliamentary reform would be to rationalize the attendance of the member in the House of Commons so as to enable him to plan his work and use his time more sensibly. And finally, the third principle to follow in any parliamentary reform would be to set up an orderly parliamentary schedule which would allow a member more time to attend to his parliamentary duties outside Parliament Hill and lead a more normal family life.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to deal with the grievances voiced by most members about parliamentary procedure while abiding by the above-mentioned principles, it would be possible to amend our rules to the satisfaction of all parties.
Of course, it is very difficult to effect major changes with the unanimous consent of all members of a House such as ours, and at times we have to be realistic and make important changes through government bills. I make no secret of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that for my part, I am willing to continue negotiating those necessary changes, to modernize our parliament and make it more efficient with members of the opposition, but I am also willing, if needs be, if such negotiations fail after a reasonable period of time, to urge the government, after recommending and suggesting it, to legislate the matter and allow a reasonable debate in the House of Commons and so allow the Canadian people who, through television, can now watch us, to see a production that is far more decent than that we have been giving them for the last nine months, when we discuss bills and various other topics. A while ago, we heard remarks concerning the attitude of opposition members towards the motions presented pursuant to Standing Order 43, for instance; in that case, the procedure is abused, as we have seen during this session; an attempt is made, above all else, to put forth long partisan and political preambles rather than to

bring the government to state its views on serious matters for the benefit of the Canadian public.
Well, Mr. Speaker, such abuses should be checked and stopped. During the question period, we often see members of the opposition-who indeed have the right to inquire and criticize the government on its administration-abuse this right and attempt to disparage others constantly and systematically, whether parliamentarians, high officials or ordinary citizens involved in public affairs. I suggest that they should not take advantage of their immunity to attack Anglophone or Francophone ministers, members of parliament, businessmen, judges and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that such abuses are unacceptable. The atmosphere of this House must change if we want to set an example for the Canadian people. We have been saying for many years that attitudes should be changed in this country in order to promote a better understanding between our two main linguistic and cultural communities and true equality between our two communities, and I feel that the best example we can set is by changing our own attitude here in the House of Commons. If hon. members showed one another more mutual respect, Mr. Speaker, if they were more honest, if their speeches were not so partisan, if their criticisms were aimed more at policies than at individuals, I think we would be setting for the rest of Canada a fine example of a possible understanding between people of different opinion.
This would be a great change to show through television to our Canadian fellow citizens who watch us and who very often think, and rightly so, that we act like buffoons in this House, Mr. Speaker. We have 40 minutes to talk about various subjects. Most often members have 40 minutes to talk about a bill, and this for nearly all stages of consideration of a bill. This is unacceptable. It is a ridiculous loss of time in 1978. If we have something intelligent to say, if we have a point to make, it seems to me that we could very well do so in 15 or 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker, and the first major change that I would suggest for practical purposes would be to limit the length of speeches to 15 or 20 minutes. Even this would help restrict the debates to the subjects being discussed and ensure more effectiveness in parliament, and it would also be fairer and more equitable. A greater number of the 285 members that we will have after the next election would have the opportunity to speak about various subjects and express their views.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to place my intervention on parliamentary reform in the context of Canadian unity. I have talked about the constitutional legislation that we have presented during this session. I have just talked about the need to set an example by our attitude to promote better understanding and true equality between our two major communities, and I believe that it is important and timely to emphasize this aspect during the debate on a motion to adjourn the House.
June 30, 1978

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that, in general, my experience as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has been interesting. It has enabled me to see to what extent I was right to complain about our rules and it is urgent to make these changes. It has enabled me to see also to what extent in negotiations to expedite the proceedings of the House, certain people can sometimes be petty and prevent us hypocritically to reach valid and honest objectives for the people of Canada. I cannot congratulate everyone with whom I have discussed or negotiated. However, several of them, and I want to make this clear, have acted in good faith and in a climate of honest co-operation. In the same spirit, I want to thank sincerely-I shall name only one so that some people do not feel uncomfortable-but I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, given his knowledge of our Standing Orders, has always been frank and honest with me and has helped us go forward in a progressive way. I think his advice has been judicious and we should pay tribute to him in this debate. I would like it if in the future, when we schedule the legislative program of a session, we were able to depend on and believe in the word we are given.
I would be happy if we were always in a position to plan our legislative work in such a way that, when we go back to the people during recess, we do not have anything to say about our opponents' parliamentary spirit. I complained about our Standing Orders, my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) complained about the parliamentary spirit in this House. Unfortunately in some cases I have witnessed, I must also regret that certain members of the opposition abused, as I said earlier, some procedures. I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to rise on a question of privilege in my concluding remarks, but comments like those made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who just came into the House, are in my opinion unacceptable in a place like this. It seems to me that the House leader of the official opposition could have refrained today from describing this government as the most corrupt he and Canada have ever seen. He said absolutely nothing to prove his statement which is, obviously, not only unparliamentary but unworthy of a good citizen.
Mr. Speaker, the greatest authority in parliamentary procedure, Erskine May, mentions in the 19th edition, at page 445, that among the most unparliamentary terms, and he lists about thirty, are the words "corrupt" and "corruption". Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, also a well known authority in the matter, states in the fourth edition, at page 130, citation 155 of the English version, that the term "corrupt" is also quite unparliamentary. And again yesterday, when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was saying, and I quote from page 6860 of Hansard:

Mr. Speaker, the acts of the minister and the words of the minister have been described as despicable. They could be described as being beneath contempt, they could be described as being vicious and vulgar-
Summer Recess
This expression is forbidden also by Beauchesne's and it is clearly established that "vicious" and "vulgar" are unparliamentary words.

Mr. Speaker, these words of despicable government, of vicious and vulgar words, were spoken by the House leader of the official opposition and are a poor example for the Canadian people who are observing us on television, of the attitude which should prevail in this chamber where we should not criticize individuals and tarnish reputations but rather criticize specific measures and discuss ideas. We should bring the debates in this House to a respectable level, Mr. Speaker, and I think that the attitude of the House leader of the official opposition has not contributed to raising the level of debates during the present session, and I truly regret it. That is the saddest aspect of my experiences as Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate that I should have to say it, and I purposely waited for the hon. House leader of the opposition to be present so that I could tell him to his face.
I noticed that when the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was laying blame on him that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton left the chamber. I waited for his return to tell him to his face that I am saddened by his attitude. I regret that kind of attitude and I hope that in the future we will be able to work in a more professional way for the good of all Canadians, in a renewed parliament, in a parliament whose procedure will have been amended in good faith in order to be more dignified, more efficient and more adapted to our 1979 life style.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, having listened to most of the speeches made since noon today, I have come to the conclusion that we should have adjourned as early as last night. I see that everything that has been said today was not very useful. Usually we wait until much later in the summer before adjourning for the recess, and I think that June 30 is either too soon or too late.
I noticed while listening to the speech of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs that he was very agitated, probably because he has been considerably irritated by the incidents of a few moments before, but whatever the reason, I think that his remarks were somewhat out of place. The minister complained about the proliferation of third parties or of political parties in Canada.
Well, for the minister's information, this is no novel thing in this House, and if third parties sprung up in Canada, it was precisely because of the failure of the older political parties. If they had given Canadians the kind of administration they were expecting from a good government, there would have been no need to create new political parties.

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
The hon. member also suggested that third parties enjoy the same privileges in this House as does the official opposition. I submit this is totally untrue. Time allocations for debates in this House afford much ampler scope to the official opposition, with their greater number of members, than to third parties. On this also I therefore feel the minister twisted the facts when he indicated that third parties enjoyed the same privileges as opposition parties to make their views known. My feeling is that this proportion is "maintained", if not overly "maintained".
The minister also complained that government back-benchers do ask too few questions during question periods, before orders of the day. What he meant in my view was that government members did not participate as much as the opposition parties in that period, considering we are now on television. And my answer to the minister is this: when an opposition member asks a question, he or she gets an answer forthwith or at least the minister tries to answer, and therefore suggest that the ratio is very well maintained because as many government members appear on the screen as opposition members. I note that before TV came into this House, no government members ever rose to ask questions. So, Mr. Speaker, my feeling is the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in his remarks showed much more anger at what happened earlier today than a positive attitude toward improving the debates in this House.
Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members, I have had the opportunity of working under our able Speaker of the House of Commons within a committee which set up the organization for broadcasting and telecasting our debates in the House. This is a new experience which we lived through during this past session, and after having observed the public at least in the area I am representing, and the persons I chanced to meet,
I clearly have the impression that this undertaking is well taken by public. It creates a closer relationship between the Parliament of Canada and the public it represents. It also enables the Canadian public to better understand what goes on in its national parliament.
However, that does not mean that any improvement in the administration is necessarily visible. The performance of the government during the past session is not so much laudable, and I think that the concerns expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there were possibilities of an election in the fall are unjustified because at that time the government would have to go before the people empty-handed. Personally, I rather think that they will try to restore their fortunes during the coming winter months in order to be able to go before the people of Canada with a better image of their administration.
What we have particularly deplored in the last few months is the devaluation of the dollar. In my opinion, this is detrimental for business in Canada, for industry, trade, employment and the cost of living. The whole Canadian economic
[Mr. Laprise.l
system has suffered from the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. And when I look at the present situation in Canada, that is the devaluation of the dollar, an employment level lower than we have seen in a long time, unemployment around 9 or 10 per cent, and even higher in certain areas of the country, a rate of inflation that the government has not succeeded in controlling in spite of all its efforts, when I see these things, Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the situation which existed in 1960 and 1961 when another administration governed Canada and was defeated because of this. I am talking about the Progressive Conservative government of 1958 to 1962. The same situation existed in 1962 at the time of the general election. The dollar had been devaluated. There was very high unemployment and uncontrollable inflation. We now have the same situation, and perhaps even worse this year, after about 15 years of a Liberal administration.
The government talks about taking all sorts of initiatives to fight against inflation while it takes action which increases the cost of living. It has also taken action to increase every six months, for instance, the cost of oil, gasoline and heating oil in Canada. This increases significantly production and transportation costs and has disastrous effects right down to the level of the distribution of goods and services, and the Canadian consumer must pay for it. The oil price increase serves only to fill the pockets of the multinational companies.
Mr. Speaker, when the government claims it is taking steps to fight inflation, I feel it takes them to increase the cost of living. There is also widespread discontent in the field of agriculture. Dairy producers, be it industrial or raw milk, are clearly dissatisfied with the policy of our government. Nothing has been done to improve and stabilize the Canadian dairy industry. That is sadly lacking and the government should bring forward a long-term policy to stabilize production and especially farm incomes.
In the beef industry, we have erratic fluctuations between highs and lows. Farmers always have a hard time to follow those fluctuations when beef goes through crises such as those we have witnessed in the last two or three years. Instead of suffering terrible losses, farmers get rid of their herds. The herds having been decimated, we see the higher prices we are now experiencing. Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that once again the government has failed to give leadership by not introducing a policy to stabilize production in those sectors.
Another area on which I want to dwell before concluding my comments-and on this I entirely agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-is that of senior citizens. We have been working and fighting for a long time to obtain from the government more satisfactory pensions for older persons and I refuse to admit more particularly what happens in the case of persons from 60 to 65 years of age, for example, whether they are widows or unmarried persons, but especially widows. Again recently there was in my riding a couple of senior citizens, the wife being under 65 when
June 30, 1978

her husband died. She lost her pension because she was not 65 years old. She became a widow and consequently, under the legislation, she lost her pension. 1 think it is at that time that a person between 60 and 65 badly needs the assistance of the government, because at her age she cannot go back to work. I think that the legislation should be amended as quickly as possible to give justice in such specific cases. I think that the same goes for unmarried persons between 60 and 65 years of age.
Another point too is that of the unfinished business. We might come back in October to continue this session but it might be a new one. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to consider a draft constitution this summer and parliament will be asked to debate that draft when we come back in the fall.
I think this draft constitution was prepared in a bad approach by the budget debate, mainly as regards the debate on the sales tax. I think the verbal row between the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Quebec minister of finance in particular and other ministers at both levels of government did not help at all that attempt at constitutional amendment. I think that instead of trying to pick a fight all the time, we should try to negotiate in good faith on both sides with a view to arriving at a real constitution that will give satisfaction not only to the province of Quebec, not only to the federal government but also to any and all provinces and nationalities in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, during this holiday period, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested, I think we should rather try to find ways of coming back in the fall better prepared to introduce and pass legislation more in line with the requirements of the people of Canada. As far as I am concerned, I believe, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this holiday period could have been shorter. We could come back in early September but adjourn a little more often. Instead of adjourning for long periods of three and one third months as is the case now we should adjourn for shorter periods but more often so members would have more opportunities to visit their ridings, meet their voters and know their opinions to be able to represent them better in this House.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I wish all my colleagues of every political party in this House a good holiday and I hope after listening to certain speeches that during that summer period they will be able to have a healthy rest and come back in a better disposition toward agreement than is the case today as we prepare to part.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Young).
Summer Recess


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, there has only been one member of this party who has been allowed to participate in this debate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Chair recognized the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice. I thought he was rising on a point of order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Leeds.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it is very tempting, after sitting here and listening to the sanctimonious twaddle that originated from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and also to the remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that this has been a positive session-in other words, that we have accomplished something-to take them up on their remarks. But rather than fall for their red herrings that they have tried to place before this House today, it is better to deal with the real issues that face this country.
It is a sad day indeed that we are adjourning this House at a time when the Canadian people need help more than they ever needed it before. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) drew to the attention of the House this morning, and I think it bears repetition, this fact in the form of a question asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Would the member from somewhere out west, I think it is Vancouver-Kingsway, who I hear in the background, cool down? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had asked the Prime Minister whether he could tell us when he will announce significant new economic measures to deal with the serious economic problems facing this country. The reply is well worth repeating because nothing has happened. It is obvious nothing will happen and it is obvious that this government is incapable of making anything happen. The Prime Minister made this reply at page 5307 of Hansard:
-the Canadian people are concerned, and they want solutions to these problems at this time. The question arises as to whether these issues can best be dealt with during a general election, or by continuing the work in the House. I have reached the conclusion, because, I must say, of the co-operation of hon. members opposite and their anxiety to get on with the work, that we should stay in this House and deal with these issues.
We stayed and we did not deal with any of these issues.


Simma Holt: You should deal with them.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: We still have one million people unemployed in this country. We still have the highest inflation that we have ever had in the history of Canada. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we have the saddest dollar that Canada has ever seen. It reflects on the opinion that others in this world have of this country when the Canadian dollar, even though it has been propped up by billions of dollars by this government over a period of time, still cannot stay at a proper level.
6932

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
It seems to me that the Prime Minister and the government do not care. The backbenchers on the other side obviously do not care either, or they are too scared to do anything about it. The government do not care about the person who is on a pension who goes to the grocery store and cannot afford to pay the prices asked for food today. They do not care about the man without a job who is sitting at home and going out and looking for things that are not there in the way of work, and they do not care about the dollar and the fact that it is a joke in the eyes of the world.
In 1968 we had all of these problems to some extent. Ten years have now gone by since this Prime Minister and this government have been in office, and we still have the same problems. We were told in 1968 that we were going to get a "just society".


An hon. Member:: Just for Grits.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Our problems became worse. And as has just been said by an hon. member, it is "just for Grits". That is about what it became. Instead of a just society, it has become an unjust society. We were told we would have participatory democracy. What have we had? We have had a Prime Minister who in effect says to this country: "I will allow you to kiss the emperor's feet". We remember too that the Prime Minister said, "Inflation has been licked". At another time he said, "I will wrestle inflation to the ground". It has been a darn poor wrestling match without any results in the interests of the Canadian people. I believe the Prime Minister has been the worst forecaster and the worst prophet in the history of Canada. He has been followed by a bunch of derelict cabinet disciples who do not have the guts to stand up to him and do something about it.
Thank goodness for men like James Richardson-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would like to remind the hon. member that he should refer to a member of this House by his riding and not by his name.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank goodness for men like the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), for those who came before him and for those who I hope will come after him, who have enough sense to get away from a disintegrating, bumbling bunch of people who are incapable of running this country and. are apparently interested in putting ahead of the welfare of this country-


An hon. Member:: It is despicable.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It is despicable, an hon. member says. The truth hurts, does it not? These people are prepared to put their own political skins ahead of running this country properly.
I remember the Prime Minister making a speech somewhere in western Ontario not many months ago in which he said that Canadians are too concerned with two cars in the yard and a house in the country, and they should pull in their belts. I say what about the two $85,000 Cadillacs and the summer home at Harrington Lake that the taxpayers of this country are

paying for? Is the Prime Minister pulling in his belt as an example? Is he doing away with one of his two Cadillacs? Is he closing Harrington Lake for the duration of the economic crisis of this country? No, he is carrying on saying "Do what I say, but I will do what I want for myself'. What concern for the Canadian people and what an example of practising what is preached. The emperor and his court jesters must go. They must go while there is at least time for something to be left of this country. This heartless piece of stone and his puppets must be and will be disposed of by the Canadian people at the ballot box as soon as there is an opportunity.


Simma Holt: Phony.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: We have had ten years of failure. Phony, the hon. member says. I reply to her, Mr. Speaker, that the whole record of the government has been phony; it has done nothing for this country in ten years of failure. They deserve a very final reward and that is the judgment of banishment from the treasury benches of this country by the Canadian people.
Speaking of this would-be emperor, for two years he has wiggled and waggled with regard to questions on the order paper, using citations from Beauchesne as though he were the Speaker of the House of Commons. Some of his ministers have taken up the same practice with the result that we get back an answer saying, "See Beauchesne citation number" this or that.
In actual fact, he has no right to usurp the functions of the Speaker, as he is doing. I know he thinks he is important and that he is everything. Once he did say that he was very close to the Almighty. I cannot judge that because none of us is in the position to be that high up the ladder to know whether that is true or not. However, I certainly can say that the Prime Minister is not the Speaker of this House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Commons is to be commended on the fact that questions are being allowed to be returned to the order paper where the Prime Minister has used Beauchesne's citations to get out of giving an answer.
I do not need to go into the arrogance and disdain for parliament shown by the government. That has often been pointed out by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in such adequate fashion that it would be redundant for me today to go any further in that direction.
I would like to say a word about the Quebec language legislation and the lack of federal government response in a responsible way to such legislation. Next Monday, businesses in Quebec must have French only signs and names. What has our Messiah of the House of Commons, the self-proclaimed protector of minorities, done about it all? He stood in the shadows and whimpered like a scared goat instead of standing up and saying with more than just a few brief words to Rene Levesque that any Canadian has the right to use the language of his choice. He has roared with a whisper. He has wielded nothing but a feather.
Why did he not refer bill 101 to the Supreme Court of Canada for judgment as to whether it was within the rights of
June 30, 1978

the province of Quebec to pass certain sections of that act? Why has he not considered disallowance of such an act? We know why. The obvious answer is a political answer. The answer is politics and votes, which mean more to this government than the supposed protection of the minority rights of any group in this country, whether they be French, English or some other ethnic minority.
Recently the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) spoke across the river in Hull at the opening of a new building. As someone pointed out earlier, they are moving all the departments over there. In any event, he said that when public servants are over there, they should always be sure and speak French. He was telling English Canadians who work in Hull they should not use their own language when they are over there. We do not say to people over there that when they come here they cannot use their language. That would be utterly ridiculous, abominable and a disgrace. Likewise, the words of the Minister of Supply and Services were reprehensible, disgraceful and disgusting. He sounded more like Rene Levesque than a federal member of parliament. He completely illustrated the farce of this government's bilingual program.
When we are told to co-operate, to bend over for the unity of this country, that is what we must do. However, how do the government expect to get an enthusiastic response from the rest of Canada to these sorts of statements when they do not stand up to a government which seeks to separate this country, the government of one particular province which thumbs its nose at the Government of Canada and the Canadian people and everyone who does not speak one particular language? I say that bilingualism "Trudeau style" has become nothing more than two-faced idiocy.
Personally, I am sick and tired of the anti-British and anti-American attitude of this government. Britain gave us our House of Commons. We are modelled on the British parliamentary system.
I found it a bit sickening to listen to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) a while ago saying some things about the British parliamentary tradition. After all, the Prime Minister certainly does not indicate very often that he has very much belief in it. However, when things looked rough in 1972, he rushed over to have tea with the Queen. That was because he almost lost an election, and it looked good to sit on her coat-tails in order to save his own political hide. He has always found time for disrespect for British institutions. He found time to slide down a bannister some years ago. More recently he did a little pirouette behind the Queen, that disrespectful little dance that we saw in all the papers.
This government and the Prime Minister are the greatest manipulators of the century. They are the Houdini of all Houdinis. When it comes to being a Houdini, they attempt to intimidate and manage the press. The Prime Minister managed to grab one of the press members by the coat or the neck a few months ago and started to shake him. He does not want to have much to do with the press until he needs them. When things look a bit shaky for him, they are called in for drinks and interviews. Everything is on the House. He says to
Summer Recess
himself that he needs them and their publicity for election purposes.
I spoke of anti-Americanism. In this regard I wish to refer to a book which I think is well worth reading for all Canadians, "Trudeau Revealed" by David Sommerville. In particular, I refer to page 208. It contains a statement which I recall being made at the time. It was well publicized, although perhaps not well enough. I think it bears repetition now. This is what he said when speaking in the Soviet Union:
We have a great deal to learn from the Soviet Union, a country from which we have a great deal to benefit.
He went on to refer to the United States of America, which purchases more of our goods than any country in the world, which means more to us economically than any country in the world. He said that we should be friendly with the Soviet Union-and this is an exact quote:
-to protect our identity from the cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view.
Is he trying to insinuate to this country that the Americans are coming over the border with military forces? That is absolutely ridiculous. There were also the words in 1977 of the famous Russian dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky:
I was in prison when Mr. Trudeau arrived in Moscow. He declared that we would like to have an exchange of experience, to use Soviet experience of development in northern territories. It was awful for us, for everybody in the Soviet Union. Everybody knew quite well how many millions of prisoners perished when developing those territories. It was awful.
When he was in London, a student asked him: "What society would you choose to make Canada, socialist or capitalist?" He replied-and this appeared at the time in the British press-"Labour party socialism or Cuban socialism or Chinese socialism, socialism from each according to his means." That is the man who talks about maintaining-supposedly-the British parliamentary system. He talks about maintaining the rights of parliament.
I find it very hard to follow when men like the Prime Minister say things like that. It illustrates the complete hypocrisy of this government when it comes to the statements they make about Russian dissidents and the problems from which they suffer. There was the famous "Viva Castro" statement. I suggest to this government it is about time someone on the other side of the House said "Viva Canada" and did something about it.
Recently the Prime Minister and the government introduced a proposed new constitution for Canada. Just the other day some person in the gallery-I do not know who it was, but that is irrelevant-held one of these booklets aloft and yelled "This is a lot of bunk".
Truer words were never spoken even though they may have been uttered from a place from which no one is supposed to speak. Mr. Speaker, in many ways it is nothing but a load of bunk. It might be called a horrendous monster, an election red herring which the Prime Minister feels he can use to benefit his campaign-everyone will forget about inflation and the
8004 5-71 Vi

June 30, 1978
Royal Assent
decline in the value of the dollar. But I do not think the Canadian people are so much worried about where the British North America Act is. They are worried about putting food into their stomachs, about unemployment and about the economy.
I see the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), who kept saying something about national security, has left the House. I will say something on that subject now. I will refer specifically to the Peter Worthington case which is now before the courts in Toronto. Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that this government chose to prosecute the Toronto Sun while ignoring the CTV. Mind you, I do not think the CTV should have been prosecuted either-


John (Moody) Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the hon. member for Leeds is proposing to comment now on a case which is sub judice. Is it in order for him to refer to matters which are the subject of court proceedings?


Mr. Speaker:: There are, obviously, things which the hon. member might say which would be out of order. Equally, there are some things which would be in order. Perhaps, with the indulgence of hon. members, I might read a communication to the House.



ROYAL ASSENT

['Order. Perhaps the hon. member should continue his remarks after we have returned from the other place.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
discussion on the motion until five o'clock. After that we shall see what step we may have to take.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed. [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered that the private members' hour be suspended so that the House may continue addressing itself to this motion until five o'clock this evening.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this may be somewhat important. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the presentation of reports, in order to table a report from the standing and special committees. If I obtain the unanimous consent of the House, I should like to table the first report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest the hon. member wait until the hon. member for Leeds has finished his speech.
Government House Ottawa
June 30, 1978 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 30th day of June, at 3.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
I might also indicate to the House that we were rapidly, during the course of the hon. member's remarks, approaching four o'clock, which is a critical time, and I think we should settle the course our proceedings should take before he concludes his remarks.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At this stage, I think I can say there is unanimous consent to cancel private members' hour from four to five and to continue the
[Mr. Cossitt.)



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That when the House adjourns on Friday, June 30, 1978, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 10, 1978, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, these various interruptions have left me somewhat confused about how much time remains to me. Is it in order to inquire?


An hon. Member:: Three minutes.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I was not asking hon. members opposite, I was asking the Chair.
June 30, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: According to our records there are two minutes left.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Two minutes? 1 shall have to cut short my remarks on national unity. I will merely say I find it inconceivable that the Sun should have been picked upon-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but 1 am told now that he began his speech at 3.35 p.m. He would therefore be entitled to continue until 4.15 p.m.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Thank you. In regard to the Worthington case, I am not referring to any aspect of that case which is before the courts but to the fact that he was charged, that the Sun was charged, but CTV and several other columnists were not charged for doing substantially the same thing as Worthington was accused of. One can only draw the conclusion, as many Canadians have, that because the Toronto Sun continually criticizes the government in its editorials it has been singled out for prosecution. To my mind this is truly reprehensible. It interferes with freedom of the press. When any member of the House or any news service or branch of the media finds something wrong-in this case it concerns matters of national security of which the government is aware and with regard to which the government is taking no action-it becomes the duty of those concerned to do something about it.
That is why, as an individual member of parliament, I said what I did say about national security and was prepared to take the consequences, whatever they might have been. I think the Toronto Sun is to be commended for having stood up for Canada. I find it strange that a man like Patrick O'Callaghan, publisher of the Edmonton Journal, should write articles as recently as June of this year showing a complete lack of knowledge of the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member should continue his remarks after we have returned from the other place.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the honourable the Deputy Governor General requires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable The Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[ Translation]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills.
Summer Recess
Bill C-61, An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1979-Chapter 31.
Bill C-56, An act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions-Chapter 32.
Bill C-10, An act to amend the Financial Administration Act-Chapter 33.
Bill C-17, An act to amend the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act and the Railway Act and to amend and repeal certain other statutes in consequence thereof-Chapter 34.
Bill C-39, An act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act-Chapter 35.
Bill C-42, An act to amend the Criminal Code-Chapter 36.
Bill C-58, An act to amend the Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act-Chapter 37.
Bill C-36, An act to amend the Export Development Act- Chapter 38.
Bill C-12, An act to require the reporting of certain financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of certain petroleum companies carrying on business in Canada-Chapter 39.
Bill C-48, An act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend An Act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter 40.
Bill C-54, An act to provide a maritime code for Canada and to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter 41.
Bill C-59, An act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act in matters relating to the ownership and operation of small businesses-Chapter 42.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That when the House adjourns on Friday, June 30, 1978, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 10, 1978, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, when we took our short break for royal assent I was talking about Patrick O'Callaghan, the publisher of the Edmonton Journal, and his comments on the matter of the Toronto Sun and the Peter Worthington case. All that remains to be said in this regard is that his article of June 28 was, to me, a classic example of irresponsible journalism. He showed complete lack of knowledge of the facts and he certainly showed no interest in discovering what really happened before he wrote what he did.
I would like to refer to only two parts of that article where he deals with certain remarks about myself that are not accurate and not true, and I believe he should stand corrected. He said that I hid behind parliamentary privilege. Mr. Speaker, I hide behind nothing on the matter of national security. I was not aware whether or not 1 had privilege. That was a matter that was judged by the law officers of the Crown and subsequently announced in the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I had no advance knowledge of what that judgment would be, and I made up my mind that I would go ahead in the interests of what I thought was right for Canada, regardless of what the judgment might be, and in that regard Mr. O'Callaghan is quite incorrect. Then he says:
Mr. Basford chose not to notice that Mr. Cossitt had also referred to the information in his possession outside the Commons where he has no such protection.
The Minister of Justice did not ignore that fact, and while I do not have his statement in front of me, I recall his saying that he or his law officers had examined what had been said outside the House, that it was substantially and exactly the same as what had been said inside the House. Therefore, again the remarks made by the publisher of the Edmonton Journal are incorrect.
Of course, there are many, many other things in this article that are incorrect, and I suggest that a responsible journalist and publisher should act more in keeping with the position he holds than this man has done, not only in this article but in another one reprinted by the Canadian Daily Newspapers Publishers' Association a few weeks ago.
A few days ago a question put by me on the order paper was answered. It dealt with the Canadian National Railways. I was refused an answer on the grounds "it was not the practice of CN to reveal. .." CNR is owned by the people of Canada. The CBC is owned by the people of Canada. The Canada Council is owned by the people of Canada. As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) pointed out this morning, there might be around 400 Crown corporations owned by the people of Canada. Why does this parliament not have the right to ask questions about the activities of those corporations and receive answers to them? We are being continually blocked with the expression "it is not the practice to reveal".
Whoever set up these practices should withdraw them and allow democracy to flourish in this country, and freedom of

information, which is being so eloquently espoused by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), should be first and foremost before this parliament. Because when the day comes that a member is not allowed to ask questions as to why we spend, for example, $60,000 of the taxpayers' money on the Factory Theatre Lab in Toronto where they staged a play in which Adolf Eichmann spends some time wiping human excrement on his face, there is something wrong; when we cannot get an answer to a question like that, there is something wrong. When we give public money to people who publish Strike, the tabloid in Toronto, and the Pulp Press of Vancouver who support groups in Italy, such as the terrorists who have been so prominent recently, or those who published a manual called The Urban Guerilla, as was done in Vancouver, there is something wrong. When public money goes to institutions which advocate murder, kidnapping and other acts of a similar nature, and we wish to question that in this parliament but cannot get an answer from the minister responsible for the Crown corporation involved, then something is seriously amiss.
Today we will be going home with the country in a mess, and I think it is shameful. I recall the words spoken by the right hon. member for Prince Albert at the nomination meeting held in my constituency some months ago for the coming election. The theme of his address was, "Where are we going?" That is what every Canadian is asking today. Where are we going? We have not gone anywhere for ten years under this government; our problems have been getting continually worse. The government promised to do something about them before we went home, but it has done nothing, and today all the ministers, with one or two exceptions, have left the House and have probably already gone home. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister has climbed aboard a jet somewhere to fly to some exotic, far-off country, leaving far behind one million unemployed, the poor who suffer from inflation, and the sagging dollar.
The hon. gentleman opposite shakes his head. I know that in all sincerity he must be trying to restrain himself from admitting the truth. But in any event the truth is apparent to the Canadian people. The Prime Minister and his government, who have given us the highest unemployment since the great depression, must go. The Prime Minister and his government, who have permitted the highest inflation in our history, must go. The Prime Minister and his government, whose actions have destroyed the values of the Canadian dollar, must go. Canada needs a breath of fresh air, and if this government calls an election-if it dares or has the nerve to call an election-Canada will get a new government. I am sure no one on the Progressive Conservative side of the House is prepared to say that we will solve all problems, because that would be ridiculous. But at least we know that we will try, and that is more than the government can say. It has not tried for the past ten years.
I am glad the hon. member for Vancouver South has come back. Now she is going out again. She is having a hard time to contain herself.
June 30, 1978


Simma Holt: It is Vancouver-Kingsway.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: You have referred to the wrong hon. member, the wrong constituency, and you are using the wrong words.


Simma Holt: You have not been right once today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I meant to refer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). While we will not be able to solve all the problems, we will attempt to, and I am sure we will succeed in many ways.
Successive polls which have been taken indicate that Canadians are fed up. Hon. members opposite know this, when they feel fire on the seats of their pants in their constituencies. The Trudeau era is over in this country. The curtain has to fall for the good of the country. Let him as quickly as possible call a general election so that this sad chapter in Canadian history will be closed, and a brighter day will dawn for Canada and the future of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this motion to adjourn the House today, at the beginning I should like to indicate that I am dismayed, but certainly not surprised, at the type of comments which have been voiced by the Tory opposition today, particularly by its House leader and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt).
In as short a fashion as I can, and in the small amount of time which they deserve, I should like to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Leeds. I can refer back to a statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in this House and in public, which fully explained the reasons that charges were proceeded with against the Toronto Sun, its editor and publisher. That was completely and fully explained in the House. At the same time, the reasons for not proceeding with the charges against other parties were explained. The hon. member for Leeds was one of those people.
The hon. member for Leeds, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and several others on that side of the House, have expressed from time to time in this place an interest in the welfare of the RCMP and the security of this nation. At the very least one would expect one of those members might have appeared recently at the sittings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which investigated the estimates of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), the RCMP and the security directorate of this country. In the year I have sat on that committee as Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice, I have not seen the right hon. member for Prince Albert or the hon. member for Leeds.


Mr. Dick:: Because they could not receive answers to their questions.
Summer Recess


Roger Carl Young: Perhaps once or twice in 30 or 40 sittings of that committee I have seen the hon. member for Central Nova. If there is this professed interest in the RCMP and the security of this nation, why did we not see some of these members present at public and in camera hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs? They are never there. One begins to wonder whether their interest is more in pandering to television cameras and hit and run headline gathering than it is in the real essence of the questions about what the RCMP is doing and the security of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: The kinds of comments we have heard today coming from the Tory opposition are typical of the innuendo, unsubstantiated allegation, distortion and subterfuge which we have become all too accustomed to expect from the Conservative ranks of late.
A few days ago a time allocation measure was described by them as being a guillotine, closure, and a throttling of debate. This throttling or preventing of debate apparently occurred in relation to the budget and its associated measures, which debate occurred over four weeks, and upon which many members of the House had spoken. After that passage of time and who knows how many words, the leader of the Tory opposition had the effrontery to attempt to make the case that they had been muzzled and not allowed full comment. Those arguments and the ones we have heard today are about as worthy of credibility as the allegation that certain offices around here had been bugged. They are about as worthy of belief as the unsubstantiated rumours and stories which were floated around the House by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) indicating that members on this side had participated and engaged in a speculation against the dollar.


Paul Wyatt Dick: How about the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner)?


An hon. Member:: Yes, how about that hon. member?


Roger Carl Young: We all know that those words could not be backed up.


Paul Wyatt Dick: He did not even apologize.


Roger Carl Young: I suggest hon. members opposite should relax and sit back. They will not enjoy what I have to say, but I can assure them that we will be here for a few minutes yet.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The truth would be interesting.


Roger Carl Young: We know that the allegations by the hon. member for York-Simcoe could not be substantiated. We know how much those people who bugged offices were known on that side of the House. Those comments were about as genuine as the rest of the rumours and bad mouthings on numerous occasions by people of that ilk. As it turned out later, none of them could be substantiated. Similarly I suggest the comments in the vein the Tory opposition have made today cannot be substantiated.

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
I should like to refer back to the budget for a moment. My information is that something over 40 members participated in that debate. We on this side of the House, as the government, were accused of throttling debate when we brought in a time allocation measure in order to get on with the business of the House. There were a goodly number of other speakers, mainly opposition members, who spoke on another item, Bill C-48, the measure respecting amendments to the Customs Tariff. That was not the case painted by the Tory party. That was not the case they would have Canadians believe. It was not the case painted by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Continually they make these allegations and indulge in innuendos which are unsubstantiated by fact.
Recently, I am sure by mistake, a pamphlet was delivered to my office. It was a broadsheet entitled: "Leader's Report, Some News From Joe Clark". It was dated May 26, 1978. It referred to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) being "obliged to get on with the governing of the country". It accused the Prime Minister of "political manoeuvring". Also it indicated that the hon. Leader of the Opposition exacted from the Prime Minister a "promise that the government would immediately bring forward specific proposals to deal with the very serious problems now affecting us". In fact, that was repeated by the Tory House leader today.
I should like to continue referring to this despicable little broadsheet. It suggested that the promise was unfulfilled. Supposedly it reprinted the order paper for the House of Commons of May 16. The statement referring to that reads as follows:
"The order paper for the House of Commons of May 16 speaks for itself."
Then it contained the following heading: "Business Disposed of this Week". Following that was a reprint of the portion of the order paper showing specific subject headings and the business conducted. That little pamphlet, which 1 so despise, conveniently left out the fact that May 16 was a Tuesday. No matter what the Tory opposition attempts to do, it cannot change the fact that May 16, 1978 was a Tuesday. In the pamphlet they attempted to make the case that no business was disposed of that week, according to the order paper. They conveniently left out the fact that the business disposed of that "week" does not refer to a five-day week but to a Monday. They very conveniently dropped the fact from that little pamphlet that the statement which is printed in the order paper on May 16 could refer to one day and one day only, Monday. They are trying to sell Monday as the whole of the week, and trying to sell the idea that the government had conducted no business that week because it had done nothing on Monday.
Let us look a little further, Mr. Speaker. It would seem to some that the dropping of the reference to Tuesday, and thus giving the impression that the word "week" meant the whole week rather than just one day, might have been an oversight. That could have been an oversight, but others might just as easily feel that such a slip was more coolly calculated to

deceive. That latter impression might be given some substance by a closer look at the facts.
When one turns to Hansard of May 15 one finds that on that day this House began second reading consideration of Bill C-48. When one looks a little further and makes a little closer examination, one finds there were nine speakers that day on that measure, and of those nine speakers there was one from this side of the House, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), there were six Tories, one NDP member and one Creditiste. We have this case of the Tory opposition in their leader's pamphlet trying to sell to the Canadian public and those who buy this sort of garbage that there was nothing done all week, when that reference was to one day. When you look at what was done that one day you find that six Tories spoke, one Liberal, one New Democrat and one Creditiste. One finds in essence, if you look at the facts, that they conveniently overlooked that if there was nothing completed that day, and nothing done in finality, it was not because the government did not put forward any measures, but because the Tories would not or could not stop talking.
Some hon. [Members: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: Based on all the facts, when everything is looked at, the comments in this report of the Leader of the Opposition fall nothing short of being misleading, distorted and deceiving. One might hope that the Leader of the Opposition would feel some capacity for embarrassment by that happening; that he might stand and withdraw or retract that kind of statement, or at the very least might come clean and correct the erroneous impression that it creates. After all, let us be frank, the Leader of the Opposition in Canada is presumed to have a somewhat higher station in life, and one would not expect from him the kind of statement that is more akin to the kind of thing one expects from some fly by night, door to door huckster.
The reprint from Hansard is, of course, accurate as far as it goes, but the deception arises in what is not said and what is conveniently left out. The Leader of the Opposition acts like a salesman who tells an unsuspecting purchaser of his goods that they are written up in Consumer Affairs, or in Good Housekeeping magazine. That unsuspecting purchaser relies on that statement and buys those goods only to find out that the article in the magazine was a warning not to buy, or that it was one pointing out defects in the product. I hope the people of this country will look hard and long at the kind of statements opposition members have made over the past few months in debate in this House, and at the kind of things being sent to them through the mails. One might ask whether that kind of distorted impression of what goes on in the House went out under the frank of the Leader of the Opposition.
One would hope that the Leader of the Opposition, since he is expected to be an honourable man, is not responsible for that kind of report as it is written. Yet I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is his report and that in fact at the bottom on the reverse side it is personally signed by him. One presumes, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition accepts and
June 30, 1978

subscribes to that kind of shabby practice and deceit. If one came to expect nothing more, one is getting nothing more from that kind of cavilling cabal that puts these things together in the Tory back rooms, but one at least would expect something better from the Leader of the Opposition himself.
One expects better today from the House Leader of the Opposition who voiced the empty platitudes of respect for parliament, who decried violations of parliament and who spoke about competence, the ability to manage, and his allegations of corruption. Let him and his fellow members exercise some planning. Let them do some time allocation of their own and try not to stall and drag out interminably the measures and programs put forward by this government before parliament and this country. Let them go home at this adjournment time, let them look to themselves and start to clean up some of their own acts before making the unsubstantiated allegations they have made. Let the opposition House leader, the Leader of the Opposition and his members learn to speak with one face rather than two or three, with one policy rather than the duplicity we have seen recently.
Last week we saw and heard their claims of support for Bill C-42, to amend the Criminal Code in respect of the choice of language at trial. We heard them claiming that they were in support and wanted to pass that bill. We on this side know of the delays we went through waiting for them to get their act together so we could get on with that bill. I know personally of the three or four days I sat here ready, willing and able to proceed with that debate while opposition members could not make up their minds and get their party together on the approach they were going to take.


Walter David Baker: You mislead the House, as usual.


Roger Carl Young: I do not mislead the House. The hon. House leader for the opposition has my invitation to stand up and make an allegation if he wants to do that.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misleading the House. I do not suggest it is deliberate, I think it is inadvertent, but the parliamentary secretary is misleading the House, as usual, in respect of that piece of legislation.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. Rather, it is an affirmation or a point of debate by the House leader of the Tory party. 1 know, and a lot of my colleagues on this side know, that as a result of an intimation from that side of the House I was here present on a Thursday afternoon, a Thursday evening, a Friday, a Monday afternoon, a Monday evening and a Tuesday. I gave up four days of events and functions in my own constituency waiting to begin that debate which we finally got to after a four or five day wait. I have not quite forgotten about that, and neither have some of the folks back in my constituency.
Let me return to the duplicity I spoke of that occurred last week when we had Tory spokesmen claiming they were in support of this choice of language at trial measure. At the time
Summer Recess
those words were being said in this House we find it reported in the press that they were privately boasting and bragging among themselves that they had put one over on the government; that they had emasculated the bill and the bill was ineffectual. This was reported in the Ottawa papers this past week. The opposition party House leader shakes his head.


Walter David Baker: They were wrong too.


Roger Carl Young: The opposition House leader can take that up with the press if he wants. He can tell members of the press they were wrong and that the memo they supposedly got their hands on was not correct. That is an argument between that hon. member and the press. I am taking from the press what l have read, in the same way as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) put forward comments appearing in the press as a statement of fact. If it can be done on that side it can be done on this side.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.I am sure the parliamentary secretary is giving the House his interpretation of the press report. I am merely stating that the story in the press was quite misleading. However, I defend the right of the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) to be wrong, if he wishes.


An hon. Member:: And he frequently is.


Roger Carl Young: All I am saying is that last week we heard opposition members claim support for Bill C-42 regarding the choice of language at trial, while at the same time there was rampant duplicity and deception going on. At the same time that they were saying they were in support of that bill, they were patting themselves on the back because they had supposedly scuppered and emasculated the bill and made it ineffectual. They were privately boasting about this among themselves.


William Herbert Jarvis: That's absolute garbage.


Roger Carl Young: All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that if they are embarrassed about that they are going to be more embarrassed about the fact-


William Herbert Jarvis: That is absolute garbage.


Roger Carl Young: If the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) would be polite enough


William Herbert Jarvis: I am not going to get up on my feet for that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor. We can stay here all night if you are prepared to sit.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, back where I come from they say "If the shoe fits you know where it pinches", and all the rest of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
6940

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess


Roger Carl Young: If the hon. members opposite would be polite enough to allow me to continue my speech, I would appreciate it because I did not interrupt them. Could I just have a little courtesy from the other side, please?


William Herbert Jarvis: You don't deserve it, it is such a bad speech.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, they were privately congratulating themselves, but what is going to embarrass them-


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, we have had memos from members on the opposite side preaching to us about the decorum of this House, and yet today we have had disruption after disruption whenever one of our members has risen to speak. I just wish that they would sit back, relax and listen to a darned good speech.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members opposite are hurt by what I am saying, if they are stung by some of my criticisms, if they are embarrassed by what happened with regard to the memo which got loose on that side of the House, let me embarrass them just a little bit more. It is our firm belief on this side that the advice given in that memo was totally useless and incorrect, and we are really not hurt or worried about it at all. However, they may be doubly embarrassed over the private boasting that went on about our being ineffectual when they find out that it was rather ineffectual and incorrect on their own part.
I suggest that that is proof adequate for anyone that the Tory party speaks with two faces, if not three.


An hon. Member:: Two tongues.


Roger Carl Young: Or it speaks, as my hon. friend says, with two tongues, so long as they are not bilingual ones.
The opposition House leader today painted a picture of gloom and doom in Canada and how disastrous things are. We have not gone from riches to rags in this country; we are rich. We are not as rich as we hoped we might be at this time, but we are richer than we were. We have had a recession in this country as has almost every other country in the world of late, but the effect of that recession has not been felt in Canada as hard as it has been felt elsewhere. We have managed to cushion the effect of the shock of the recession in this country better than any other country.
No one is going to deny that we have high unemployment in this country today and that it is too high. However, we have not had a decline in the number of people working in this country, as has been seen in the United States, West Germany and Japan. The growth rates in Canada are among the highest of any country in the world and the inflation rates are among the lowest. Canada stands thirty-first in population among the countries of the world. There are only a handful of countries that are more powerful than we are, but they all have twice the population we have. We are an under-populated country yet we have that same power which is relative to those countries that are twice as densely populated as we are.

The most recent World Bank atlas states that Canada has the eighth largest economy in the world and that we are the seventh most productive in the world. It is true that there are some nations like Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar that are ahead of us on this scale, but when people ask why, they find out that those three countries hold that position because they pump a great deal of oil out of the ground. That is the totality of their economy. We stand seventh on that list of countries which are most productive in this world, and the sixth country in the United States. While the attempt on the part of the Tory opposition today was to paint a bad, black and gloomy picture, we are still in good stead as far as the World Bank atlas is concerned.
In the first five months of this year we have created new jobs at an annual rate of 439,000. The profit picture in Canada is improving substantially, as reported to the Conference Board of Canada recently. Our merchandise trade balance is now rolling up healthy surpluses, largely due to the fact that we have a devalued dollar. I do not know any businessman in this country today that is objecting too much to the fact that we have a devalued dollar.
What we have sitting opposite in the House is not an opposition, a group which provides healthy and constructive criticism, but a random cluster of individualists, a cabal of hit and run headline hunters, slippery-tongued salesmen who would be more fitted to selling snake oil medicine at a fly-bynight show. Their talk is all bark and no substance. The fog they throw out to confuse and disillusion the Canadian public disperses with sunlight and a close inspection and examination of the true facts.
I welcome this break. I hope that the opposition will go home, review their mistakes of this past year and come back with an improved performance. I am sure that if we had an improved performance from the opposition, we could also hope to have an improved performance from the government. But let us see it come from that side. We on this side are not afraid of criticism. A good, strong opposition that has something constructive to say will be of benefit to us. We do not mind being prodded or told that we have got work to do; that is fair game and fair comment in this House. Instead of the carping and constant criticism which comes from that side of the House, let us have something of substance, something concrete, something that moves forward and that gets on with doing the job in this House.
Before I close I would like to move-and I understand that this motion may be seconded by a member opposite:
That this sitting continue beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the motion of adjournment before the House in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is seconded by me, sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will those members who object please rise in their places.

June 30, 1978

Less than ten members having risen to object pursuant to Standing Order 6(5)(a), the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) presented the first report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That when the House adjourns on Friday, June 30, 1978, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 10, 1978, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this adjournment debate because I have a grievance. Before getting to my grievance I want to say that it has been a cruel and an unusual punishment to have to listen to some of the speeches 1 have listened to here today since 12 o'clock. As far as the last speaker is concerned, I am not going to bother taking up any of the points he intended to make, because as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said some years ago when listening to a member of the Liberal party, "When a big game hunter is out after big game, he does not get distracted by rabbit tracks". And that is what the hon. gentleman is. While I was listening to him, I was looking at the Newfoundland paper which says "Still no explanation for slub in the fishing nets". I thought to myself that there is no explanation for slub in the House either.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, this may be our last session. I thought it was to be our last sitting some months ago. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will get the courage to put his government to the test, to go to meet his maker, the Canadian voter, in the next several months before we reassemble on October 10. I certainly hope he does because it is time for him and gentlemen opposite to meet their makers and
Summer Recess
they have been avoiding that long enough. The last election was four years ago. Since it may be my last speech in this House-


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: You won't be back.


John Carnell Crosbie: I promise you I will be back for the next one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not going to the other place, are you?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not going to any other place. But I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Speaker on the fine job he has done during the months I have been in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I think he has done a masterful job and I admire the way in which he has conducted himself and I wanted to say that before getting on to the other things in my remarks.
I want to point out another grievance that I have. I was told something a few days ago by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). In the last 18 months since I came to this House I have been attempting to get some progress made in the drydock owned by the government of Canada and operated by the CN, in St. John's, Newfoundland. For 18 months I have been working, first to get the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) to agree to allow our ports to be used by foreign fishing vessels for repair purposes, and secondly, now that we are on the verge of obtaining a contract with the U.S.S.R. to repair up to 60 Russian fishing vessels a year, that some $8 million be spent to put in a synchrolift in that federally owned dockyard so that they will have the capacity to do the work. We have been waiting now since March for a decision. The minister told me three or four days ago that that matter was before the Treasury Board and he expected an answer from the Treasury Board this Thursday. Not today, yesterday he expected the answer. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, that when I checked with one of his executive assistants today I found out that the minister's story was complete poppycock, that the matter was not before Treasury Board, that the matter has never gone to the Treasury Board, that there is some question of security for Russian crewmen. If the Russian ships are being repaired in those numbers there is some question being raised by some department as to security with the transfer of crews in St. John's harbour, and that this is holding them up and that no decision will be made until July 31. There is a grievance, Mr. Speaker, that I want to expand on this afternoon. When you cannot believe what a minister tells you, what are you to believe? Someone is wrong there. Either that matter is before the Treasury Board this Thursday and has been before them for the last several weeks, or it has not been before them. Either we are going to have a decision this week as the minister intimated, or we are not going to have one until the end of July. It is despicable, Mr. Speaker, and there should be an explanation from the minister. There is more to parliament
80045-72Vi

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
than passing legislation, Mr. Speaker. One of the main purposes of parliament is to try to get information from the government, to try to keep the government on its toes and to try to expose what the government is doing wrong. Yet, we have heard the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) suggest here today that there is something deficient in this parliament because we have not passed a huge barrel of legislation. That hon. minister was braying like a quagga, Mr. Speaker, here today in his speech. A quagga, for those who do not know what it is, is a wild jackass.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He had the audacity and the gall to suggest yesterday to the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) that when he questioned this minister about something that had gone on in his ministry, he was, and I quote "continuing to sling mud in the face of the French Canadians". This, on the eve of the great July 1 Canada Day holiday, and on which millions are being spent outside of this building. The great celebration of the French-English partnership in Canada tomorrow led by this great government that are such great nationalists and national unity proponents. And one of their members stands in this House and makes that kind of racist remark yesterday, Mr. Speaker. His implication was that if we asked a question of any of the ministers of French-Canadian descent, if we question any of them or doubt that everything they have done is on the up and up or suggest that some mistake has been made in their department or that something is wrong in their department that we are racist and anti-French because we dare question them. If that thesis is to be accepted, Mr. Speaker, the government is immune-


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: It is your thesis.


John Carnell Crosbie: Our Prime Minister is a Canadian of French descent, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is a minister of French descent and so is the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve). Is the opposition to stop questioning the Prime Minister and all those ministers because some people opposite are going to suggest that when we question them it is anti-French or that we are throwing or slinging mud in the faces of French-Canadians? Are not the English-speaking ministers also entitled to say that if we question them that by golly we are racist and throwing mud in the faces of the English-speaking Canadians? Have you ever heard the like of the depravity and lowness and the utter inappropriateness of any suggestion by a minister of that kind on the eve of July 1, Mr. Speaker? Just to analyse it is to show how low that gentleman has sunk and how low his government has sunk that they will go to those means to try to stay in power. I can assure you that we will not be put off by those kinds of suggestions or the kind of act that we saw here from the minister today. He is going to be questioned if this

government comes back without going to an election, he is going to be questioned, he is going to be grilled, we are going to find out what went on in Hull and we are going to find out what went on in the Campeau heap. The Campeau heap is what it is, Mr. Speaker. It is boiling and steaming and we are going to find out, no matter if it is a French-Canadian, an English-Canadian, a Ukrainian-Canadian, a Lithuanian-Canadian, we do not care what kind of a Canadian it is. The government is responsible and the minister is responsible for everything that happens in their departments. We have that obligation and we are going to carry it out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: If patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel, that kind of defence of racial tendency or racial suggestion is certainly the last refuge of a scoundrel. It is not only a red herring, it is a Liberal herring, it is a rouge herring. It is a herring that is not going to work. This government does not deserve to be in power a day more. I wish they would call the election now and get it over with. Do not think that the government is going to be back here on the government side after the next election when it is called.
And the minister suggests there should not be parliamentary immunity. Why should there not be, Mr. Speaker? It was found necessary 400 years ago to protect members from being harassed by scoundrels and rascals and no-goods who had lots of money and if you opened your mouth they could slap you with slander and libel suits.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The whip of the Liberal party who is now hiding behind newspapers is interjecting every few moments, loud enough for the Hansard reporter to hear but for no one else in the House to hear exactly what he is saying. It he does not have the intestinal fortitude to rise to his feet and reply to the hon. member who is speaking, or criticize him or say something about him, would Your Honour ask him to remain seated on what little brains he has and then later if he has anything to say, let him say it.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were enjoying a very fine exchange, my close brother from Newfoundland and I. I do not know why anyone from Cape Breton would interject into a good Scottish exchange. We were having a very good time until he appeared on the scene.


Robert Muir: I love a good fight but I have guts enough-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West has the floor. I suggest we all listen to him.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be deterred by any gusts from the honourable Gus. He may as well subside. Come down from the mountain and subside. I want to get on with my real grievance, the reason I stayed here all day.
My grievance is this. It is on behalf of nine million to ten million taxpayers. In my younger days I had the mistaken and
June 30, 1978

foolish belief that the tax laws of Canada were administered impartially, with equality to all, fairly, and that we were all treated alike in the administration of the tax laws of Canada. In the last two years I have discovered that is not the case.
I have unearthed a scandal of gigantic dimensions involving income tax in Canada. I have managed to piece it together. On May 19 I wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a six page memorandum outlining the situation in connection with John Christopher Doyle. He was a Canadian citizen up to two years ago, when he became a Panamanian citizen in order to avoid extradition to Canada. I sent that memorandum to the Prime Minister on May 19. It sets out what happened in the income tax treatment of Mr. Doyle. It points out that for 1950, 1953 and 1954, the only years made public, that gentleman was re-assessed in the years 1955 and 1959. The Crown added income to his income. In one case, 1950, it was $200,000. In the second case, 1959, it was $1,800,000 and some odd dollars. He was re-assessed like taxpayers are from time to time.
In the normal course of events, as set out in the manuals of the Department of National Revenue, when you are reassessed and tax is found against you in the re-assessment, you have to pay your tax within so many days. Before you appeal, you either have to pay the tax or put up satisfactory security such as a bank guarantee or a bond. In the case of Mr. Doyle, this was not insisted upon. He did not have to put up any security. Because of that, it did not matter to him whether he ever paid the income tax or whether the case ever went to court.
Mr. Doyle put in his notice of appeal. These two cases where he was re-assessed, in 1954 and 1959, were not heard by the Income Tax Appeal Board until 1967, eight years after the re-assessment in the case of the major re-assessment. The Crown did not do anything to move it forward. Therefore it was heard in 1967. An ordinary taxpayer's appeal would have been heard long before that because he would have paid the tax or put up security which was costing him money. It was not costing Doyle anything, and the Crown did not do anything.
Eight years later, the Income Tax Appeal Board heard his appeal. It dismissed the appeal. He appealed to the Exchequer Court of Canada on June 29, 1970. Mr. Justice Gibson dismissed his appeal and reaffirmed the re-assessment for millions of dollars.
On October 15, 1970, Mr. Doyle gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Crown did nothing for the next seven years to bring that appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Naturally Doyle did nothing, because he did not pay his tax. Doyle was not paying for a bond or a bank guarantee. They had not even received any satisfactory security from Doyle. He did not care if it was ever heard.
This man was treated better than all the other taxpayers of Canada. When I raised this matter in the House of Commons a year and a half ago, action finally commenced. One appeal was heard in the fall of 1977. It was dismissed from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada. They did not have to consider their judgment.
Summer Recess
The second appeal, a major appeal, was heard May 3 and 4, 1978. Twenty-four years after the income tax year in question, it was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, and dismissed from the bench. They did not hold back their judgment one second. As soon as the lawyers finished, they dismissed the appeal, involving several millions of dollars, with costs to the Crown. There were no unusual points of law involved. There was no unusual difficulty. Why this kind of treatment?
We now discover that $5,014,281.13 is owed by Mr. Doyle for the years 1950, 1953, and 1954. It has not been paid 28 years after 1950, and 24 years after 1954. These amounts still have not been paid. The Crown has not got security. The Crown is now unable to collect on the few shares and share certificates it has because Mr. Doyle and his lawyers are challenging their security. They have not been able to sell or realize a cent.
Mr. Doyle no longer lives in Canada. The same Mr. Doyle has control of 18.4 per cent of the shares of Canadian Javelin Limited, a Canadian company incorporated under the Canadian Companies Act. There are 12,000 shareholders, 75 per cent of them American, and he is denuding that company of its assets without anyone apparently being able to do anything about it.
The Canadian government claims it cannot collect the taxes. When we look at today's paper, what do we see? Canadian Javelin Limited had a meeting yesterday to elect directors. The notice of meeting said that Mr. Doyle had a significant role in the company's management in forming its policies and selecting nominees for election as directors. He controls it because his 18.4 per cent gives him control, there being widely scattered shareholders.
It said that Javelin has offered Mr. Doyle $2.7 million in reimbursement for disbursements he spent in maintaining control of the company. Imagine, his personal expenses of $2.7 million for trying to keep that company under his control are coming out of the assets of that company under this plan of Mr. Doyle and his captive board of directors.
Mr. Doyle is attempting to get an option on 4.2 million shares at $1 each, and they are going to pay him interest on the money he spends to take up the option. In other words, Mr. Speaker, that is the same as a rape victim advancing the person who raped her money to cover his expenses, and giving him a chance to do it over again! It is the most extraordinary proposal ever put to a company. This company is controlled by Mr. Doyle and his tame board. That is what this Canadian company is doing. And this government stands by and does nothing.
Not only is that going ahead, but on January 26 of this year Canadian Javelin announced that it was turning over control of four of its subsidiaries to Pavonia SA, a wholly-owned subsidiary based in Panama City, Panama, where Mr. Doyle lives and has control of the situation.
Javelin is to cancel $17.9 million owed to it by its subsidiaries in exchange for further shares in Pavonia, already a wholly-owned subsidiary of Javelin. This is fraud. Pavonia is a wholly-

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
owned subsidiary of Javelin, and Javelin is going to cancel $17.9 million in debts owed to it by Pavonia and other subsidiaries in exchange for more shares of Pavonia.
If you own 100 per cent of the company, you cannot own any more of it. How can you cancel what the company owes you in exchange for more shares in that company? However, that is what is happening to Canadian Javelin Limited to get the assets of that company in a company in Panama where Mr. Doyle and his cohorts can complete the despoilation of the company.
Since late 1977, in response to pressure from me, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) has had the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission appoint an investigator into fraudulent acts in Canadian Javelin Limited. On May 17, 1977, an order was obtained from the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission appointing Mr. Fred Sparling as an inspector to inquire into allegations of fraud in connection with the operations of Javelin. There is still no report from Mr. Sparling, mainly because Mr. Doyle and his cohorts in Canadian Javelin Limited are taking legal action to attempt to stop Mr. Sparling from completing his work.
Are the Canadian government and Canadian law helpless? Will the government stand by helpless while this company and its shareholders are despoiled of their assets like this? There have been no dividends paid by that company in the last ten years despite various substantial revenues going into it from Wabash mines royalties. Millions of dollars a year are being taken out for the benefit of Mr. Doyle, and the shareholders receive nothing. This is the person with whom we are dealing.
Some people might say that perhaps Mr. Doyle was such an exemplary citizen that the government wanted to give him every chance in connection with his tax problem, that he was such a great builder of Canada, such a man of character and probity, that the government wanted to bend over backwards to treat him better than all the other taxpayers of Canada. That is not so, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Doyle has been a fugitive from justice in the United States since 1965. He fled the United States because he was convicted of wrongfully sending share certificates through the mails there. The judge sentenced him to three months in jail. He fled the country and has not been back there since.
Since 1965 the government has known that this man was a fugitive from justice in the United States. That year he left Canada. He was on bail, having been charged with certain fraudulent acts, he has since been charged on 408 other counts of wash-trading, and he is now in Panama. He will not come back to Canada. He has changed his citizenship and is now a Panamanian citizen.
The government knew that this taxpayer is not an exemplary Canadian citizen. I have been bringing this matter for a year and a half, now, to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), the Minister of National Revenue, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Finally I wrote to the Prime Minister, the head of the government, a man who

had been minister of justice, and I drew all these facts to his attention and asked him to establish a commission of inquiry. Forty-two days ago I wrote to him. It was on May 19-six weeks ago today. I had a perfunctory acknowledgment from someone in his office, and today I asked the right hon. gentleman a question in this House. I was treated with contempt. The Canadian people were treated with contempt. He did not care whether there was a scandal going on in connection with the administration of the tax laws in Canada. He attempted to pass it off as a mere nothing.
Why should I pay my taxes? Why should the other ten million taxpayers in Canada pay taxes, when people like John C. Doyle do not have to pay, simply because they have influence with the government? What is the explanation for that? The Prime Minister was minister of justice in 1967 and 1968 and this matter was not pursued then, either. There have been seven or eight other ministers in that portfolio since then and still nothing has been done. I have now brought the matter directly to the right hon. gentleman's attention.
Any head of government interested in the equal, impartial and fair administration of the tax laws, any prime minister interested in doing away with any hint or breath of scandal connected with the administration of the tax laws, would appoint a commission immediately to get to the bottom of the affair. At least he would authorize the public accounts committee to investigate the matter, or would authorize some other authority to do it. It is necessary to call witnesses to delve into the matter to find out what has happened and why it happened.
Shares of the Canadian Javelin Company held as security by the Crown were worth $18 in September of 1973. Now they are worth $1.70. The stock of that company is off the Montreal Exchange. It is not allowed on the American exchanges. It has been delisted all over the world. There has been action after action taken against it. It has been scandalously used and misused by Mr. Doyle and his cohorts for 20 years. And the Canadian government appears to be powerless. No one raises a voice against it, except myself and a few others. When we do so we are ignored.
What is wrong with Canada, with the administrators of the law in Canada, and the public conscience of Canada, Mr. Speaker? Something like this goes on, and you cannot even get anyone to take an interest. The press is not interested, the media are not interested, the Prime Minister, the head of the country, is not interested. What is wrong? There is $5 million owed by this one taxpayer, it has been owed since 1954, and nobody gives a hoot. Why should the ladies and gentlemen listening to me now pay their taxes? I suggest we all go on a tax strike if the government fails to act with the utmost rigour.
Another thing I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is about the other tax years. The years I refer to are 1954 to 1977. The Minister of National Revenue refuses to give me any information on these years. I am told that is privileged information. What about the fact that in 1964 an attachment was put against Canadian Javelin, the effect of which was to have anything owed to Mr. Doyle paid over to the government?
June 30, 1978

Then they stood by until the fall of 1977, and ignored the fact that Canadian Javelin failed to comply with the attachment and paid out to Mr. Doyle a million and a half dollars through a company in the Bahamas. They paid the money to Javelin Exports Limited in the Bahamas and Javelin Exports would pay Doyle-all the money coming from Canadian Javelin. This was done in defiance of the government's attachment of 1964, and nothing was done about it. Nothing was done in the ensuing 13 years until I got after them.
The whole thing reeks of influence, of political skullduggery and corruption. We want to see an inquiry established and to know how this happened. What instructions were given to ministers? When were reports of these matters made to ministers? What did those ministers say when it was reported to them down through the years?
As I say, I wrote the Prime Minister a memorandum. It was six pages in length, and I do not have time to read it all into the record. To put this matter in its best light, Mr. Speaker, is to call it willful and wanton misconduct. But I suspect it is really much worse than that. Mr. Doyle has been a Liberal and has been involved on the fringes of the Liberal party for many, many years. He was an intimate of Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland who interceded on his behalf in Ottawa many times. If we ever get a look at those files we shall see that Doyle was an intimate of Mr. Smallwood, an intimate of Mr. Pickersgill. I believe even the Prime Minister knows him. He was involved in Quebec politics for years.
Some books-and I might mention volume III of the memoirs of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert- referred to certain activities which took place in 1963 when a change of government took place in this country. There is a lot under the surface in connection with this matter, Mr. Speaker. We will never know, of course, just what is behind it until the government agrees to hold a proper investigation. I really hope that if an investigation is held it will find there is no corruption, that there is nothing to be discovered and that it is all above board. But I must say that, even if there is no corruption, there is monumental incompetence, the worst kind of negligence, and the worst kind of malfeasance in office.
I asked a question of the Minister of National Revenue the other day and in his reply he told me that there are 14 people in Canada who owe over one million dollars in income tax, as at March 31. One of them owes over $5 million. That is brother Doyle. I am told that the average amount owed by some 613,000 taxpayers is $846. I guess Mr. Doyle really brings that average up with his debt of over $5 million. That is the kind of information I can get from the department, but no information is available to me for the years 1954 to 1977.
Other information I have been unable to obtain concerns how many people put up bank guarantees when they appeal, how many have to pay their taxes, and so on. But in the annual report which comes before this House it is said that the taxpayer has to pay up every time he is reassessed. I quote from that report:
Summer Recess
It has been the practice of National Revenue that taxes assessed against a taxpayer must be paid whether or not there is an objection or an appeal by the taxpayer.
In this connection I refer to the Annual Report of the Department of National Revenue entitled "Inside Taxation", page 40. It states:
During appeal periods the amount assessed must be paid whether or not there is an objection or appeal outstanding. In certain circumstances the department may accept collateral security for the amount of the debt until the issue is resolved.
As a member of this House, I brought this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister thinking, in my foolish innocence, that the Prime Minister of the country would be interested in the fair and proper administration of the tax laws. I thought he would be interested in making sure that any allegation I have set out in my memorandum is wrong. As can be seen from a glance at the right hon. gentleman's answers in Hansard today, he does not care, just as he does not care, in my opinion, about national unity except in a partisan sense; just as the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) does not care about national unity but will use any kind of skullduggery, thuggery and skuggery to try to keep in office, even to the extent of suggesting that members of this House are racially biased.
Are the people of Canada prepared to tolerate this kind of stinking mess the government will not make any attempt to find out about? If there was one thing I always thought, Mr. Speaker, it was that taxpayers were always treated alike. Yet here we have definite proof, beyond any doubt, that taxpayers are not treated equally. One powerful taxpayer with dozens of lawyers in his employ has been able to go for 28 years without paying his taxes. For the last 15 of those years the party opposite has been in power, and for the last ten of them the government has been headed by the Prime Minister. Why is this so? The whole matter cries for a complete public investigation of our tax system, how our taxes are imposed, how they are collected, what security is taken when the Crown reassesses you. The whole thing has to come under the most open kind of scrutiny. There is something wrong with our laws when a company such as Javelin can be raped and raped again, its assets taken out of the country and given over to Mr. John C. Doyle in the Bahamas, in Panama, in Costa Rica, and its shareholders helpless to do anything about it. Twelve thousand shareholders own a few hundred shares each, and there are no major shareholders. It has a captive and subservient board.
Our laws have got to be changed, Mr. Speaker. We can do better than this. A year ago last May the inspector was appointed, and Mr. Doyle has him tied up in court. I have one of the judgments here today, and Mr. Doyle has got other actions going on in Montreal to prevent the government from selling the few scrawny shares they have got in Canadian Javelin, that he owns, to try to collect some of the tax that he owes. Mr. Speaker, that's why I wanted to speak on the adjournment debate, because when we adjourn this is the time to bring forward grievances, and I would like the parliamen-

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
tary secretary or whoever is there from the government to get on to the Prime Minister and say to him, whether this gets much publicity now or doesn't get much publicity now, that the member who is speaking here today is going to keep at it for the next 50 years, if necessary. So it is going to get publicity.
It is going to be in the history books. It is going to be on the record. It is going to come out, and it is better for the Prime Minister to get at it now and appoint an investigation and cut out this canker and this sore.
I am surprised that the national press and media care nothing about it. I sent them copies of all this stuff, and there wasn't a word. The crusading press, the investigatory press, they don't care. They don't care about something like this. Nobody has taken the time and effort to try to go further. I haven't got the resources, Mr. Speaker, to go any further than I have gone. I have done all I can with the resources I have at my command.
And then there is the suggestion about parliamentary immunity. That is a silly argument that was brought forward that we shouldn't have parliamentary immunity. Why, Mr. Speaker, do you think I would dare say anything about these things if we didn't have parliamentary immunity? The people I am dealing with would have me sued from one end of the country to the other. They would be throwing suits-false ones-but I would have to defend myself. I would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees even to mention these things. That is what they are doing now with the government. It is going to cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars to deal with Doyle and his lawyers, preventing them from selling the bit of security they've got, preventing this Mr. Sparling from doing his job. They have got suit after suit.
They are appealing the judgment they just lost against Mr. Sparling in Montreal, now. Lask week the judge found in favour of the government, and the Javelin forces are now appealing that. There is a second case they have taken. Harassment after harassment! He is taking the money from Canadian Javelin, from the other shareholders, from the other 82 per cent. Their money is being used to finance these suits in the hundreds of thousands and millions all over the world, and we are powerless to do anything. So I am glad I have parliamentary immunity, Mr. Speaker. I need it, or I would be frightened to death to open my mouth about this because it would be costing me hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
Don't say that we should take away parliamentary immunity. How are we going to raise the things, Mr. Speaker, if we do not have some kind of immunity? It is not whether you can prove it or not. It is whether you have got the financial assets to go into court on the harassing lawsuits that they would have against you all over the world. I know whereof I am speaking with this gentleman, and I know the tactics they are capable of, and I know the lengths to which they will stoop. But I am dedicated, Mr. Speaker, to getting this resolved one way or the other.
I have lots of other things I am going to do, too, but I have been in this now for the last two years, and as long as I am returned to this House, if we don't have the government-if we have the government there will be a fantastic investigation, you can bet your bottom dollar-if we don't have the government, I will be back at it next year and the year after that, and the year after that. I will be at it as long as I am returned, and that may be a long time. And then if I am not returned, I will still be at it some other way, because, Mr. Speaker, this cries out for investigation.
Why should the little taxpayer of Canada, the man who pays the thousand, the man who pays five thousand, the man who pays ten-and as a lawyer I have come across many cases where they have reassessed you, and they have come in without any compunction, and you pay up what they have reassessed or they put the sheriff right on your assets. They grab your bank account. They put attachments with your employer. Yet there is this rogue and scoundrel, not only despoiling a Canadian company and its 12,000 shareholders, Mr. Speaker, but being treated with kid gloves. He doesn't have to pay the tax, doesn't have to put up adequate security, yet everybody else does. I have seen cases myself where there are tens of thousands of dollars involved, and you had to get a bank guarantee and pay the bank a fee to get the bank guarantee before you were allowed to put in your appeal.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong here, and I wouldn't be speaking on the adjournment today if the Prime Minister hadn't tried to treat this so lightly. If he knew nothing about it he should have said, "I know nothing about this." Well, it is a serious question here of our income tax, and I am certainly going to get to the bottom of this.
This is the kind of thing you would expect. This is a man I voted for in 1968 to become leader of the Liberal party. My God, how I have been disillusioned, Mr. Speaker. When I first got elected here 20 months ago, I still had a good regard for the man, but from what I have seen in here in the last few months, my regard for him is diminishing quickly, and today put the kibosh on it all together. I thought he was using this national unity bit and so on in a non-partisan manner. I now have got other observations on that, and when we get into the constitutional debate, you bet I am going to lay on the line what I think about that grabbag of constitutional proposals that the Prime Minister has put before us, what I think of them, and what he is up to there. I could give him the benefit of the doubt on that, but now, Mr. Speaker, on this I can't give him the benefit of the doubt.
The man knows better than that. The man has to know better, if he is the Prime Minister. He has been minister of justice of this country, but he tries to cover up and slough me off with his foolish comments on a question like this. So I just leave, Mr. Speaker, and I hope this is the last session of this House. I hope we get to the electorate in the fall or whenever, before we come back here on October 10, but if we don't, I'll be back to ask the Prime Minister about this case, in case my letter is not answered. It is six weeks now. October 10 will be another three or four months, but on October 11, I'll be here
[Mr. Crosbie.l
June 30, 1978

putting down an order 43, asking a question, getting down to the finance committee. I am not going to let it drop, so the Prime Minister better get on the job and find out just why, for the last ten years, this case has been treated so partially and why one John Christopher Doyle, now a Panamanian citizen, has been given every possible leeway that the human mind could imagine while the rest of the Canadian taxpayers are being bled to death, and stamped on, and seized in the tax, and their assets taken to pay for the debts of this government.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this adjournment debate. I do not know that I have enjoyed the last year or so as much as I would have hoped. There has been much discussion about the RCMP and the Official Secrets Act. There have been scandals here and there, but they all seemed to amount to rather small things. I do not think the public is particularly taken. I think the public has faith in its institutions and will continue to do so.
I was rather pleased today when at the beginning of this debate the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) spoke about economic matters. I do not feel that these matters have been given the attention they should be given. I do not find myself in agreement with the substance of the remarks of the hon. member, but I am certainly pleased that he raised the matter of our economic problems.
One of our economic problems has to do with unemployment. I do not think there is any question that in Canada we have a serious unemployment problem. The hon. member stated that we have the worst unemployment rate of any of the industrial countries. This may be true. I am not sure that I entirely agree with him, but it is probably true on the basis of some of the figures we have, although I have seen some work done about Sweden and other countries and I saw a report last year, which I think was seriously done, which showed that the Swedish unemployment rate at the end of last year was something in the order of 11 per cent.
This comes about partly because people do different things with their unemployed. I am told, for example, that the Japanese unemployment rate, if the Japanese dealt with their unemployed the way we do, would also be very high. Apparently in Japan you do not fire redundant employees, you keep them on. These are some of the things we have to take into consideration. So 1 do not agree entirely with what the hon. member said. I think the unemployment rate is far too high, but I think we should go into it in a little more depth than did the hon. member, and this is what I would like to do for the next three or four minutes. I will keep my remarks very short.
The basic reason we have such a high unemployment rate in this country, maybe higher than in many other countries, has to do with the growth of the labour force. I have a chart here prepared by Statistics Canada which was produced in the last couple of weeks in a publication on this matter. I would like to refer to this chart to give some indication of the increase in the labour force in Canada which has given rise to this very high
Summer Recess
unemployment rate. If you take the base figure of 100 in 1965, we see that in West Germany for every 100 people employed in 1965 there are now only 96 people employed. If we look at Italy, for every 100 people employed in 1965, there are still 100 employed. If we go to the United Kingdom, the figure is now 104 people. In France it is 110, in Sweden it is about 112, in Japan it is about 114. If we go to the United States, for every 100 people on the labour force in 1965 there are now 129. In Australia the number is 130. If we go to Canada, on the other hand, for every 100 people in the labour force in 1965, in 1977 there were 146. This is a very significant figure. Our labour force has grown at a much faster rate than anyone else's.
This is a selection of countries, but I do not know of any other country which would change this picture in the industrialized world. I am giving all of the countries that were listed in this chart; I am not taking one out and adding another one. This is the way this information is produced by Statistics Canada. I think it is extremely important to note that we have 146 people in the labour force today for every 100 we had in 1965, and nobody else comes close to that, not even Australia with 130.
Let us compare Canada with the United States. This is a comparison which we should be looking at partly because 70 per cent of our imports come from the United States and the United States is our major trading nation, so what happens in the United States also happens to us. I think it is important that we look at the United States to see how they fare in this situation. As I indicated, they had 128 people in the labour force in 1977 as opposed to 100 in 1965. If we had the same growth in the labour force as the United States has had, we would have far more jobs than we have people to fill the jobs. I think that is a very important point to remember.
I have other figures which I do not have here, but I would like to give some indication of why this came about. From 1951 to 1971-these are the only figures I have-the school population from grade one to university increased by 240 per cent, two and a half times. At the same time, the population of this country went up by only 30 per cent. There is a factor of eight; the school population grew eight times as fast as the general population. Part of the reason is that people stay in school longer, but one of the other major factors is that we have far more people going into school. I do not have the figures for the United States, but they are much lower than this.
When one condemns the economic situation in this country, it is important to understand how extremely difficult it has been to solve this problem. Admittedly, at a growth rate of 8.5 per cent, an unemployment rate of 8.6 per cent is not desirable; it is far too much. But on the other hand, there are some very strong reasons why we have this problem and we have done a remarkable job in job creation. As one hon. member mentioned earlier, in the first five months of this year the rate was over 450,000 jobs created put on a yearly basis. So we have done a superb job in this situation though we still have a major job to do.

June 30, 1978
Summer Recess
I would like to indicate that I think this is a global situation, it cannot just be seen as the Canadian situation. I will conclude by listing the three factors involved. The first one is that, globally, there has been a quantum leap in the problems that all governments have had to face, such as inflation, unemployment, foreign exchange problems, et cetera. Second, there has been a massive shift in terms of energy problems. We now have a unique notion, that is scarcity, which has created a series of other problems. Third, the techniques that we have traditionally used to solve these problems, Keynesian types of techniques, do not work either because the problems are too large for that kind of solution.
I should like to say in conclusion that we have many problems in this country, but if we are going to solve them, we will have to work together over the next several years as a nation to eliminate them.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of matters that I would like to raise on a point of order before the question is put on the motion. The first one has to do with questions on the order paper. I understand that there will be willingness to allow us to deal with questions on the order paper prior to the adjournment motion coming into effect. That is certainly agreeable to us.
The second matter is the discussion which has been going on between the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) with respect to the report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments to the effect that the report be allowed to stand rather than be proceeded with in any other way. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to consider whether we could do that before we close.
Finally, I understand that today is the last day on which parliament will be served by pages. I have come to know those pages-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has known them for many years before me-and they have served us so well. I understand we may well be proceeding to another system which you, sir, mentioned a few weeks ago.
I thought it might be appropriate if, before we rose-in the event that we will not be back in this parliament-I called the attention of the House to this day being the termination of a particular kind of service by a devoted section of the staff of the House of Commons, and to compliment them on behalf of all members of the House for the work they have done and the devoted service they have rendered to each one of us, sometimes far beyond that which we would normally ask anyone to do except in their most unusual form of service to a most unusual institution.
I would like to say that on behalf of my own party certainly and, I hope, on behalf of all of us in parliament, and to thank those who are here, and those who have gone before them who are represented by those who are here, for their years of devoted service to this parliament, to making it a much better place in which all of us can function.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has raised this point about the change that is being made with respect to the service being provided to us in this chamber. I am sure that I speak as he does for all members of parliament in saying we want to pay tribute to the service that the boys have given us. They are a fine bunch. I know that they are hoping-if they hear what we are saying- that it does not mean that their jobs are in jeopardy. Their jobs are protected under the new system, and I am glad to see some affirmative nods from the table. I hope the page boys see those nods as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said, I have seen quite a few generations of these boys come and go. In fact, sometimes when I travel across the country I meet some man who speaks to me who looks almost as old as I do and he says: "I remember you well from the time when I was a page boy in the House of Commons back in the 1940s or 1950s". They have rendered a great service over the years, and we have had no better bunch of boys than we have at the present time; I join in the tribute to them.
With regard to the other two points raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I see no difficulty about one of them, namely the motion in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It is on the order paper. We will not reach it today, so it will stand, and it will be there when we return on October 10, if we come back.
As for the suggestion that we stay a moment longer in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to give us any answers which he has to written questions, that would be desirable, and certainly we agree to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to make a few comments respecting the pages who were mentioned in glowing terms, quite appropriately. We will commence the implementation of a new system in the fall, but at this point I should like to reiterate the kind words which have been said about the work done by the pages, and indeed all of the staff of the House of Commons. We are proud of our staff at all times. In case I was not clear enough when I referred to this matter the last time, I should like to indicate formally that any introduction of a new page service in the House of Commons will be done without any risk whatsoever to the safety of employment of the pages who have been here for a considerable period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: At first we will draw on the experience of the boys who are here now. In turn, certainly we will find places for them in the service of the House of Commons elsewhere than as pages. Perhaps it is not widely known, but this is
June 30, 1978

something which has happened with great regularity in the past. Those who come here after they have left school at 16 and 17 years of age serve for a year or two as pages. Many of them have been able to find a place in the service of the House of Commons, and many of those who serve in very senior capacities in the service of the House began as pages. Certainly I want to repeat that assurance. In whatever changes are made, there will be places for the boys who are here now. I echo my comments that they deserve it.
In respect of receiving answers to questions on the order paper, obviously if answers are prepared it would be a shame to leave for a break without having those answers filed. Before putting the question, we need an indication that unanimous consent would be given for that purpose and that purpose only.
In respect to the motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), since it was not reached today, it stands protected on the order paper and will reappear when the House resumes.
Therefore the question is on the motion of Mr. MacEachen. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is seeking the floor to answer questions on the order paper, and for that purpose only. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: We cannot keep anything from you, Mr. Speaker. It was my intention to ask for such consent. The following questions will be answered today: 3 to 28 inclusive, 484, 1,526, 1,682 and 1,790.


Mr. Balfour: For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of the Solicitor General for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 4-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 5-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 6-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Finance for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 7-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Labour for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 8-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Justice for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 9-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of External Affairs for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 10-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Treasury Board for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 11-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Transport for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 12-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Supply and Services for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 13-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 14-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Agriculture for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 15-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

June 30, 1978
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 16-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 17-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 18-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 19-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of National Health and Welfare for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 20-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Communications for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 21-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of National Defence for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 22-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Public Works Department for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 23-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Fisheries and of the Environment for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 24-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 25-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of Manpower and Immigration for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 26-Mr. Balfour:
For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Ministry of State (Small Business) for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 27-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Department of National Revenue for advertising in Canada (i) 
in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?

Question No. 28-Mr. Balfour:
For the Fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost to the Post Office Department for advertising in Canada (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?


Yvon Pinard: See reply to question No. 2 tabled this day.


Mr. Peters: 1.	Is Mr. Rick Van Loon, an employee of the Department of National Health and Welfare and (a) if so (i) is he known to the senior officials (ii) what is his occupational status, classiFication, etc. (b) if not, has he had any other status with the Department i.e., as a consultant, speechwriter or a contracted person and, if so, what are the details in brief, including the remuneration by year and by item or project contracted for, the total sum he may have received in recompense and expenses?
2.	Is Mr. Van Loon's arrangements with the Department through a corporate arrangement on his part and, if so, what is the name and nature of the corporation?
3.	Has the Department made any arrangement with any other employer or contractor for whom Mr. Van Loon may work, for the use of his services and, if so, with whom and with what detail or agreement?
4.	Does the Department have a policy with regard to the use of persons who are employees of universities and, if so, what are the main features of such a policy?


Monique Bégin: 1. Consultant on federal-provincial relations for up to eight days per month, at a rate of $175 per day.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.


Mr. Tessier: Did the government allot funds under the dairy policy during the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 (c) 1976-77 (d) 1977-78 and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. (a) 1974-75, $251,100,000; (b) 1975-76, $275,000,000; (c) 197677, $268,500,000; (d) 1977-78, $450,000,000.


Mr. Brisco: What is the best estimate of the amount spent by the Department of Public Works in the Constituency of Kootenay West from July 21, 1977 to date?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: During the period July 21, 1977, to March 31, 1978, Public Works Canada spent a total of $470,000: $395,000 from public works appropriations and $75,000 on behalf of other government departments.
June 30, 1978


Mr. Epp: Has Mr. Bill Janzen of Manitoba, been hired or appointed to CEMA and, if so (a) what are his duties (b) what is his annual salary (c) what is his annual expense account?


Eugene Whelan: No. (a) to (c)
not applicable.

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, obviously I join in for the customary expressions of congratulations and thanks.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2 shall be deemed to have been an order for return?
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Balfour: For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the total cost of advertising in Canada for all government departments and agencies (i) in newspapers (ii) on television (iii) on radio (iv) in magazines (v) in all other forms?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after five o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 10, 1978, at two o'clock p.m.
Before taking the mace from the House, I invite all hon. members present, and the usual guests to whom we have always extended some hospitality on these occasions in the past, to join us in Room 16.
At 5.48 p.m. the House adjourned until October 10, 1978, pursuant to Special Order made this day.

Tuesday, October 10, 1978