1978-06-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the recent conformation at a provincial court case in Winnipeg by Mr. Harold Kenna, a program manager with Statistics Canada, that lists of Liberal party supporters to fill census commissioner positions for the 1976 census were sent out to Statistics Canada by the federal Liberal party, a practice which can be used for the purpose of gathering political information, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce instruct his departmental officials to abandon this obvious patronage policy which is undermining the political privacy of millions of Canadians, and adopt a policy whereby impartial lists, free of political affiliation, are given to Statistics Canada for the census commissioner.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, a motion can be presented only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity to draw attention to recent loans made by the Export Development Corporation, one in the amount of $47 million and the other in the amount of $50 million, to the Beloit Company of Canada, Sorel, Quebec, a totally-owned subsidiary of the Beloit Company of Wisconsin, U.S.A., for the manufacture of newsprint machinery to be used by two American companies, namely, the Bato Company in Virginia and the Midtec Paper Corporation in Wisconsin. I, therefore,
ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
In view of the fact that the machinery thus produced will be used in the United States to produce paper in direct competition with Canadian paper producers, something which could result in serious loss of business and jobs in one of our major industries, the House condemns the action of the government in sacrificing the long-term health of a truly Canadian industry, namely, the pulp and paper industry, in favour of a short-term benefit to a Canadian machinery manufacturer which is wholly-owned by American interests; and, finally, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce explain to the House why such steps were taken by ministerial order against the recommendations of senior officials of the Export Development Corporation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATISTICS ACT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Mr. Bill Watkins, a constituent of mine, has been charged under the Statistics Act with failing to complete a census form, that the section of the form which Mr. Watkins refused to complete did not provide for the accurate listing of the mother tongue of his children, which was neither English nor French but was both, since the children are fluently bilingual, that Mr. Watkins had pointed out this failing in the census form to the chief statistician in 1971 and had been informed that the census form would be changed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House urge the government to charge the responsible minister with an infringement of section 8(1) of the Statistics Act for discrimination against bilingual Canadians and, further, that this House urge the government to introduce a special bill to cover the legal expenses of Mr. Watkins incurred for contesting this charge brought against him by this government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80045-22V2

June 7, 1978



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has not allowed CMHC to release information relating to mortgage defaults, including AHOP defaults which will quadruple those of last year, and knowing that this information is critically important and necessary, first, for the evaluation of existing government housing programs and, second, for the analysis, projection and prospects for success of the government proposed graduated payment mortgage program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott):
That this House direct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs immediately to authorize CMHC to release all data relative to mortgage defaults in the past five years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who I saw outside the chamber but who is not in his place. In his absence, perhaps I could direct it to the Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister will know, the minister's proposed new directions in housing in one part propose the extension of direct funding to municipalities by the federal government well beyond the present limited state of that direct funding, in a manner which at least four provinces oppose and which is against the law of at least one province. Can the Prime Minister give us a categorical assurance here in this House that the government will not implement this aspect of that policy without the agreement of the provinces?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking a question which can be answered only by someone with intimate knowledge of the negotiations with the provinces, which the minister has. He will be in attendance in the House in a moment. Of course, the plan of the minister, in general terms, is to fund the municipalities, after consultation with the provinces, to choose precisely the kinds of areas which have been agreed to with the provinces. I cannot speak in any detail about the results of those negotiations, but I repeat that the minister will be here in a few moments.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Mr. Tom Kent, president of the Sydney Steel Corporation, has announced an agreement with the Three Island Steel Company Limited of Richmond, B.C., to sell 1.8 million to 2.4 million tons of steel billets between July, 1980, and December, 1990, and in view of the fact that this will amount to sales for the Sydney plant of about S30 million a year by 1980,1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Department of Regional Economic Expansion make funds available immediately for the repair of the billet mill in Sydney and for renovating the plant so that by 1980 a Q-BOP furnace capacity will replace the outmoded open-hearth steelmaking facilities in order to guarantee that this order will be profitable to SYSCO and increase employment at that mill by over 500 by 1980.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister certainly knows that the most serious possible exception has been taken by at least four provinces to this proposal. I wonder if, as a matter of ensuring that the conduct of federal-provincial relations in this country continues, or begins to proceed, in a civilized way, he would raise with his minister the necessity of giving the House a categorical assurance that the government will not proceed with an invasion of provincial jurisdiction without the agreement of the provinces. We can wait for that answer.
Let me ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to a statement made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Was the minister stating the position of the Government of Canada when he said yesterday:
The role of municipalities must be legally enshrined in the constitution as a full-fledged level of government with powers of their own.
Is that the position of the Government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not taken that position. If the minister said those words, he was expressing his own views.


Mr. Paproski:: Goodbye, Ouellet!
June 7, 1978


Charles Joseph Clark: Since the minister was expressing these personal views when he attended a national conference in his public capacity as a responsible minister in the field of urban affairs, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House of Commons at the earliest possible opportunity, since this matter has now been raised, the precise position of the government in relation to the constitutional status of municipalities? Will he also, since the matter has been raised by his responsible colleague, give us a categorical assurance that there will not be the proposed encroachment into provincial jurisdiction in the field of municipal affairs without concrete, advance discussion with the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I say once again, Mr. Speaker, that I have not seen the particular words to which the hon. member refers. If they referred to municipal affairs, then of course under the present constitution municipal affairs come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. When we get to constitutional discussions on a new sharing of powers, of course, we will be prepared to discuss even this aspect of jurisdiction. No doubt the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has some views on that. But because municipal affairs come under provincial jurisdiction does not mean that everything having to do with municipalities comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. We take a contrary view and I support the minister in so far as he takes that view.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve a supplementary question in the hope that the minister will eventually show up.



LOTO CANADA


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and it is based on my understanding that she is meeting tomorrow with the provincial ministers to discuss the general area of Loto Canada.
Is she prepared, today, to give the House the assurance that the commitment which was made by the Prime Minister in 1976, as well as by the Minister of Finance, namely, not to extend Loto Canada beyond 1979 without the agreement of the House and, what is more important, without the agreement of the provinces, will be respected at her meeting tomorrow with the provincial ministers, and that the meeting will be based on that underlying principle?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the commitment was made to have legislation in the House if we should wish to continue the lottery. I think we should put first things first. I should meet with our provincial colleagues first, which I am undertaking tomorrow, and if we move into a future lottery I will be pleased to bring it to the floor of the House for discussion.
Oral Questions


Frank Oberle: Will the minister be discussing tomorrow with the provinces the extension of the lottery beyond 1979 and, as well, further cost-sharing agreements? Furthermore, will she undertake to report to the House, so that in future we can avoid these on again-off again negotiations, the outcome of the discussions with the provinces so the House will know where the provinces stand on this very important question which is also under provincial jurisdiction?


Iona Campagnolo: There is no clear jurisdiction in lotteries. Obviously, the Fathers of Confederation did not foresee such an event. I will be very pleased to report to the House in due course when I bring in legislation, if I do bring in legislation to the House.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
BEEF: PRICE INCREASES FAVOURING MORE EXPENSIVE CUTS- PRICE OF SKIM MILK POWDER
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and they relate to the price of a couple of particular foods. I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that farmers are now, finally, getting a decent and well deserved price increase for the beef they are producing.
I ask the minister a question arising out of studies done by the Manitoba department of agriculture which show that in the city of Winnipeg, from August 12, 1977, to May 26, 1978, the price of hamburger increased by 128 per cent and blade roast by 120 per cent, and that more expensive cuts such as T-bone steaks increased by only 19 per cent and sirloin steaks by 27 per cent.
Is the minister aware of this tremendous price differential? Can he explain to the House why the cheaper cuts which lower income earners have to buy have gone up by such a drastic amount in the last few months, while the more expensive cuts while are purchased by wealthy people have had only minor price increases?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that with the shortage of beef there is less low-price beef available to lower income consumers. We are very much concerned about that, and I will be discussing some initiatives with my colleagues very shortly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, also in the area of food prices, on Tuesday, May 30, 1978, the minister said he would be looking into the tremendous increase in the price of skim milk powder. As we know, in April the Minister of Agriculture took off the 34 cents per pound subsidy on skim milk powder. Price increases have been as high as 45 cents and 46 cents a pound. Now that the minister has had approximately seven or eight

June 7, 1978
Oral Questions
days to look into this matter, can he say why there has been such an excessive increase in the price of skim milk powder?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, he asked me that question about a week ago: I immediately referred it to the officials in my department, including the director of investigation in the combines bureau. They are investigating this matter. The hon. member made an allegation that there was profiteering in that particular business. That is now being investigated, but I do not have a report.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General: it relates to the ongoing policies of the government regarding the confidentiality of income tax returns. Does it remain the government's policy to permit law enforcement officers access to confidential income tax returns in files of private citizens who are reasonably suspected of being involved in organized crime?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very much aware of the terms of the agreement entered into between the Department of National Revenue and the Solicitor General. The terms are self-explanatory. Both the Department of National Revenue and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police comply very specifically with the terms of that agreement.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is aware that access is only permitted on the basis of a citizen being suspected of being involved in organized crime, the official definition of which is "two or more persons concerting together on a continuing basis to participate in illegal activities either directly or indirectly for gain." It has been pointed out in the McDonald commission that that could include a husband and wife conspiring together to cheat on an unemployment insurance claim.
In the area of access by law enforcement officers to confidential income tax files of those suspected of being involved in organized crime, is this rather broad definition used, or is a more restricted, pertinent definition of organized crime used to permit that access? If so, what is that more restricted definition?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member fully knows if he has read the proceedings before the McDonald inquiry, the definition was one suggested by counsel through a leading question. I can assure the hon. member that the definition relating to a husband and wife attempting to conspire to defraud the unemployment insurance system is not one which is of any interest to the RCMP.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, as the Solicitor General knows full well, that definition has been accepted by the minister and by
[Mr. Nystrom.l
the commissioner of the RCMP, in committee, as being the only official definition of organized crime. Is access being granted to confidential income tax returns on the basis of that definition? If not, on the basis of what definition is such access being given?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the purpose of the agreement was to permit co-operation between National Revenue and the RCMP in order to prosecute offences under the Income Tax Act. That particular arrangement has been very successful in terms of the number of prosecutions undertaken. In terms of non-compliance with the Income Tax Act, there has, indeed, been information made available by the RCMP to National Revenue that permitted these prosecutions. Surely the hon. gentleman knows that the full purpose was to deal with individuals who are known to, or who are suspected of engaging in activities that come within the definition of organized crime as the hon. gentleman understands that definition.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since it is important for eastern Quebec to have satisfactory air connections with the remainder of the province, and since the Gaspe and Magdalen Islands airports have no instrument landing facilities, as a result of which 15 to 20 per cent of flights are cancelled, does the minister intend to correct those conditions in the near future?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as earlier answers in this House to the two members of parliament from the areas of Gaspe and Bonaventure have indicated, we have this matter under active consideration. There are several solutions, including the possible use of Dash-7 aircraft, and certainly improved landing systems in the long run will be part of the improvement to the air system in the area. The complications at the moment include, in at least one case, the location of an ideal site for the airport. We hope to come to a conclusion on this matter at a fairly early date.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the Dash-7 STOL aircraft seems to be a temporary solution for those two airports, does the minister intend to subsidize Quebecair for the purchase of a Dash-7 to improve
June 7, 1978

the service for the citizens of my constituency and those of eastern Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, again as answered in this House a few days ago, we are looking at this question of regional airlines, several of them, their possible use of the Dash-7 and the financial arrangements that may be required to enable them to acquire the aircraft.



HOUSING


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The minister has been repudiated by his leader, the Prime Minister, for his clumsy intrusion into constitutional questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: At a meeting of the Canadian Federation of Mayors, at Edmonton, he was repudiated by at least four of the provinces for his failure to consult with the provinces on his clumsy intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Now that he has been repudiated by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities for not consulting with them on his new housing and community services program, I ask the minister- who, surely, has some logic and common sense left, although we doubt it sometimes-whether he is prepared to withdraw that program which lies shattered, in any event, since it was designed as an election gimmick, and nothing more?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in asking the question, has bad timing because I was just reading some of my correspondence. I have here a telex which I just received from one of my provincial colleagues, who says:
I wish to acknowledge your telegram and to assure you that the province of Manitoba wishes to reach an agreement on an appropriate method of administering the proposed community services grant program as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: That is one of many positive responses I am receiving in relation to the proposal I have put forward to my provincial colleagues. Next week I will go to a federal-provincial conference in Toronto in a spirit of co-operation to reach agreement with all provincial governments in order to make the housing and community services proposals workable, in the interests of all Canadians, and of creating more jobs as soon as possible at the local level for the benefit of the municipalities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it speaks volumes for the minister's program when he can boast that only one province has agreed even to talk about it, let alone agree to it. The fact
Oral Questions
remains, sir, that over a month has gone by since the minister's telex to the provinces setting out the new program. Since that time the province of Quebec has rejected it outright, the province of Ontario has rejected it and, indeed, the very meeting which the minister refers to is being called at the initiative of the provinces.
I ask the minister, is he prepared to sit down with an open mind and discuss this program with the provinces, whose jurisdiction has been clumsily intruded upon by the minister? While the minister is on his feet, perhaps he could assure the House that when he does sit down with the provinces, he will not only recognize the constitution of this country but he will recognize his solemn obligation to low income earners to ensure that they have adequate housing, which they will not get under his program.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this is a surprising change of mind by the hon. member. About a month and a half ago he was urging me to increase federal funds for neighbourhood improvement programs, precisely the type of community services which the federal government wishes to expand for the benefit of Canadians. I do not understand the rationale of the hon. member who on one hand is asking us to do more for community services in his own province, and today is saying I am intruding into a field of provincial jurisdiction.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister understood when he repudiated you.


André Ouellet: There is great contradiction in the words spoken today by the hon. member and the letters he sent to me some weeks ago in relation to the neighbourhood improvement program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: With regard to the latter part of the question by the hon. member, on whether or not I will go to Toronto with an open mind, there is no doubt that throughout the negotiations with the provinces I have kept a very open mind, which I will continue to keep despite the hope of the hon. member that there will be confrontation. I will not go there with a spirit of confrontation: on the contrary, I will go there to meet the provinces in an attempt to agree on a positive policy that will be to the best advantage of every Canadian living in any province.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the minister has been repudiated by the Prime Minister this day, just as he has been repudiated by the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada which has accused him of misleading this House on Monday in the answers he gave to my colleagues on questions with respect to what will happen to co-operative housing under this program.
Can the minister tell the House how the low income earners of this country will benefit from a program which most of the main lenders of this country are saying will cost low income earners, over the life of the mortgage, $10,000 more under the graduated mortgage program than it would cost if they were to

June 7, 1978
Oral Questions
get conventional loans? Let him explain that to the House and to the low income earners of the country, Mr. Speaker.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is a bit confused. The graduated mortgage payment will apply to the Assisted Home Ownership Program, while the other programs in relation to co-operative housing and non-profit housing are entirely different.
Incidentally, when I am in Toronto next week I will take the occasion to meet representatives of the non-profit groups to explain further the ramifications of the program and to clarify the aspects of it which they have misunderstood. Clearly, the objective of the government is to create more public housing in Canada to allow people in lower income brackets to take advantage of our program, not the contrary.



MORTGAGE PAYMENTS UNDER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, on the same subject. I would like to say at the outset that I, for one, am not surprised that he got agreement from the government of Manitoba on a program that will be detrimental to low income housing.
I would like to ask him very specifically, in that context, considering that the head of CMHC made a speech recently in which he admitted that 280,000 families in Canada spend more than 50 per cent of their income on housing-clearly demonstrating the need for more, not less, low income housing-if he could explain why he has virtually scuttled the non-profit and co-operative housing sections. That is the accusation made by people in the field. In answering that question, will the minister take the opportunity, if he wishes to, to deny that the financing changes proposed by the federal government in the co-operative field will, in fact, mean that people, over the course of paying their mortgage in co-operative housing, will pay much more than they do under the present legislation?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when we have the meeting in Toronto next week the ramifications and details of the program will become quite clear. It will be obvious that the intention of the government is to substantially reduce the interest rate that this group has to pay. In fact, rather than paying 8 per cent, they will pay-


An hon. Member:: They are going to pay more.


André Ouellet: Under the current program, Mr. Speaker, the interest rate these people are paying is 8 per cent. We will reduce the interest rate to 1 per cent, which means that they will be paying 7 per cent less than they are presently paying under the existing program.


John Edward Broadbent: For how long?


André Ouellet: For the duration of the loan, that is, 35 years.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if what the minister is now saying is the case, it is certainly very different from the regulations-he is nodding his head-or very different from the announcement which he made not long ago in this field, which upset virtually everyone in the country concerned with low income housing. If what he says is correct, we on this side of the House will welcome that change. I would say to his colleague, who is cheering on the right, that he has just had an about-change, again, of 180 degrees, which is typical of that side of the House.
I would like to question the minister in another area, Mr. Speaker. The federation of Canadian municipalities, meeting in Edmonton, have said of the minister's general changes in housing that the government leaves all of that area of social policy in Canada, to use their phrase, "in the twilight zone". In this context specifically, would the minister explain to the House why the federal government is withdrawing from the capital financing of housing, particularly at a time when starts are down by some 20 per cent compared with last year?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental decisions that must be taken in relation to federal subsidies in the area of housing is to decide where to put the emphasis. Indeed, the emphasis should be put on low income housing and housing for old-age people. In order to do more in this area, to take all our available resources and increase our activity in that area, we had to cut some of our expenditures in other sectors. We decided to ask the provinces to borrow in the market through the normal financial institutions, rather than coming to the federal government and using us as banker.
This allowed the government to have more money available and to use it to help people of low income and people who need more in society. That is where the emphasis is. We will no longer put the capital on the table, but we will restrict our activities to subsidies to reduce substantially, as 1 indicated earlier to the hon. member, the interest rate which these groups must pay.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister has acknowledged in his answer, by shifting the burden to the provinces, that this means the poorer provinces and people living in them will be worse off than those living in the richer provinces. If the federal government maintains its program, that will not necessarily be the case.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is a Mickey Mouse program.


John Edward Broadbent: More specifically, on the question of finance, as the minister knows, his proposal in part involves the shifting of obligation to the provinces and in part to the private financial institutions. I ask the minister whether, in getting out of direct financing the federal government has obtained specific commitments from the banks and other lending institutions that they will fill this financing gap at low interest rates.
I ask this question in light of the failure of the former minister, the Minister of National Defence, who promised us
June 7, 1978

in 1975 that we would get $1 billion in financing for housing from the banks, but it turned out that we got only $300 million.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in our negotiations with the lending institutions, I could say that while they have some reservations and a prudent and cautious approach to the proposal of the graduated payment mortgage, on the other hand their responses to our initiative on the low income housing proposal were very positive. The lenders responded positively to the federal initiative in this area and indicated a willingness to invest in social housing programs in support of provincial, municipal or private non-profit or co-operative associations.
We have received this assurance from the lending institutions, and therefore we believe that the provinces or the private non-profit or co-operative groups could get the money from the banks. We have indicated that, at any rate, the federal government could be there as a banker of last resort.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right hon. Prime Minister. Given the fact that the Premier of Ontario has abdicated his responsibilities with respect to the linguistic situation, given the urgency there is to stop the galloping assimilation of the French-speaking minorities living in provinces with an English-speaking majority and, finally, in order to secure a federal leadership which will assure the existence of a united Canada which will respect the rights of all Canadians, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to table very soon the constitutional proposals he promised in the Speech from the Throne in order to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution, before it is too late, the fundamental rights in the field of linguistic equality and justice which will allow all Canadians to achieve their legitimate aspirations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 will remind the hon. member of what he surely already knows, and I mean that since 1969 at the least, the federal government has been making proposals to the provinces aimed at enshrining into the Constitution an unfailing protection for the rights of the minorities, whether they are the French-speaking minorities in the rest of the country or the English-speaking minority in Quebec. Those proposals are to be reiterated and restated in the proposals the government will table before this House within a few weeks.
Oral Questions



INDUSTRY


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister advise the House of the proposals he and his officials have made to General Motors, Ford and others regarding the establishment of a new automobile assembly plant and a parts plant in Ontario and Quebec?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have been over this one several times in the House. I have said repeatedly that when I have an announcement to make, I will be only too glad to make it. In our continuing negotiations with the Big Three auto manufacturers in North America, we hope we will be successful in landing a plant or two, or three for Canada. To date I have no announcement to make.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that this package of more than $150 million is broken down into roughly $50 million each for Ford and General Motors? Can he confirm that an amount of money is being offered to Chrysler for the refurbishing and renovating of the Tecumseh truck plant at Windsor, and tell us whether these proposals will require renegotiation of the auto pact between Canada and the United States?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we know that Chrysler is interested in making substantial improvements and an expansion of their van plant at Windsor, but they have not really outlined a proposal to the federal government on which we could make a concrete offer to assist them in any way. We are talking to Chrysler, however, and when they determine exactly what their proposal for expansion will be, then we will sit down and see how we can best assist them.
We are always willing to assist the expansion of industry within Canada. We are at the service of the Big Three and we have notified them. I really do not know where the hon. member got the figures he has quoted.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The hon. lady is aware of the extended visit to Canada recently of Dr. Paul Dolfus, chairman of the international commission on technical aids, housing and transportation for the handicapped. His purpose is to promote the rehabilitation international congress in Winnipeg in 1980.
In view of the importance and the urgency of the minister's new social services legislation, and the necessity of having it on the statute books as part of the preparation of the congress in

June 7, 1978
Oral Questions
1980, can the minister indicate what priority she is giving to Bill C-55 and her proposal for the debating schedule?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, any proposal for a debating schedule is a question that the hon. member knows should be addressed to the leader of the House. The government has given the highest possible priority to Bill C-55. I do not know when the caucus of the official opposition takes place, but the hon. member could do well to negotiate an agreement with his party in order to speed up the passage of the tax bill; then we could deal with Bill C-55 which includes a section concerning a rehabilitation fund of $50 million for capital expenditures. This will certainly be welcomed by handicapped groups and is awaited impatiently by several provinces.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I think the tax bill will take care of itself, under the present plan for closure by the government. Because of the emphasis of the new social services legislation on meeting the special needs of the disabled, can the hon. lady give the assurance that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs will be charged with the responsibility at the committee stage of bringing in a comprehensive report on the rehabilitation.movement in Canada as background to the 1980 congress?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, through their steering committees, the committees of the House decide on the witnesses and support documents they presented. It will be a pleasure for me to be a witness, if invited, and to bring with me whomever the committee would like to hear as witnesses on the question of rehabilitation. This is one of our top priorities in this country. We all know it is a matter to which the hon. member contributes very actively.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week, the president of the Canadian Transport Commission indicated there were some 23,000 CN railway cars located in the United States and said this was some 13,000 more than would be considered normal. He further indicated that the U.S. railways are using these rail cars for the movement of goods in the United States and are getting their use at no charge.
Has the minister looked into this matter, or will he look into it? Would this type of subject come under the consideration of the new special investigating committee announced last week by the hon. member for Assiniboia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this committee would not normally consider the expediting of grain movement. Grain cars as such are rarely involved in this problem with United States traffic, since they are rarely moved into the United States for any great distance.

There is a higher than normal number of cars in the United States. A number of factors contribute to this, including a combination of heavy traffic into the United States, some difficult weather conditions during the winter and, without doubt, some weaknesses in the United States rail system which cause an increasing number of slow orders to be issued across the rail system, thereby slowing down the return of the cars.
There is a penalty or payment in respect of many of these cars when they are used against the rules; indeed, when they are used in any case. My information is that this penalty was doubled recently so that there would be more inducement for the cars to be brought home. We are still not satisfied with the situation and are paying close attention to it to see whether other steps can be taken to ensure the return of cars, particularly in the case of potash and lumber, more quickly than at present.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister indicated that none of these cars would be used for the movement of grain. That point of view is different from that of the president of the Canadian Transport Commission.
I have a related question, Mr. Speaker. Since many points in western Canada will not be able to take advantage of the current delivery quotas which will terminate on June 9, for example, Kyle, Saskatchewan, where some 300,000 bushels are waiting to be shipped, with trucks lined up, is consideration being given to extending the termination date for quotas so that the grain can be moved to port position?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my earlier answer that grain cars as such are not involved in movements to the United States. Obviously, there are occasions when potash cars which are no longer needed for carrying potash could be helpful. I do not deny that there may be some slight implication for grain movement in relation to cars.
As far as quotas are concerned, I can tell the hon. member that the Wheat Board, as ever, is watchful of the situation of whether farmers are able to deliver on quota. It has already announced its extension of the June 9 quota date to June 30.



STUDY OF WESTERN CANADA GRAIN HANDLING

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. On June 3, the government made what turned out to be a form of press statement in Saskatchewan. The general thrust of it is that they are going to initiate one more study with regard to grain transportation in western Canada.
Will the minister inform the House who the government will appoint for that study, the length of time it will take, and will he outline some of the general guidelines that the person who will be appointed to carry out the study, for whatever reason it is being done, will operate under?
June 7, 1978


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the appointment has not yet been made. The study is being undertaken because we are not certain we have done everything that can be done; that is to say, we collectively, the railways, the elevator companies, the Wheat Board and all the rest, in order to get the maximum out of the equipment we have. We have done a great deal. We have the bloc shipping system, co-ordinators at the terminals, some improvements in the way cars are handled by the railways, and I could go on to many more things.
There are some very difficult constrictions in the system, such as union relationships at the terminal and the relationship among the elevator operators and their managers with regard to hours of work. There are some in the way the railways handle their cars and give them priority. It is our intention to again study these fundamental problems, with the optimistic view that we will not stop at the first objection from one or another of the parties involved that it is difficult to accomplish a particular end. We will go beyond that and look with imagination at how that goal can be accomplished so that we can get perhaps 40 per cent more use out of all the hopper cars that we are acquiring.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I would like first to thank him for having responded to the requests made by hon. members in anticipating the program for repair and assistance to the shipbuilding industry which is aimed at improving the situation which faces shipbuilding at the present time. I would like to know whether his department has secured the necessary funds, that is $2 million, following tenders which have been received for the building of the Protector for which the Davie Shipbuilding had made the lowest bid at $9 million.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at this matter very carefully. We hope to be able to find the funds to make this work possible in the St. Lawrence shipyards as quickly as possible.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the progress or, perhaps more accurately, the lack of progress with regard to the plant breeders' rights legislation. The plant breeders
Oral Questions
require this legislation: they have been asking for it for months and the government has promised it for months. I simply ask the minister when we can expect to see the legislation.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether the legislation will be brought in before the end of this month. It depends on how long the House sits. If it is not brought in at this time, it will be given a priority position in the early fall.


John Wise: I am disappointed by the minister's response and I am certain the plant breeders will share my view. Can we get an assurance from the minister that this legislation will not be like the Canadian meat import law and the stabilization payment to beef producers-promised and never delivered? These kinds of promises we can do without.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, our plant breeders have been without this kind of legislation since plant breeding began in Canada. If they do get it, it will be something they have never had before.



GRANTS UNDER GRAIN ELEVATOR PROGRAM

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the elevator program which was announced jointly by the Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, about nine months ago. I understand Treasury Board has given approval to it in the last two weeks. When may announcements be expected with regard to individual grants? I am particularly interested in the one in the south part of Hastings.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the hon. member is concerned about the one in this area. I signed a press release on this and outlined that the regulations would be announced very shortly for people such as the hon. member is talking about who want to take advantage of the program. People in the feed deficient areas of eastern Ontario, western Quebec and eastern Canada, will be able to take advantage of this program. We hope to have the regulations by the end of this week or the first part of next week so they will know how to apply.



INDUSTRY


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of industry, trade and tourism or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he report any progress as far as the Halifax shipyard is concerned? He must have been made aware by his confreres in the province of Nova Scotia that many of the shipyard workers are running out of unemployment insurance. Will there be a buyer for the shipyard? If not, why does the government not take it over and run it?

June 7, 1978
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are carrying on conversations with the Nova Scotia government and the owners of the Halifax shipyard in the hope that if they no longer want to run it, between the three of us we can find someone who will take it over and continue the business of repairing ships at Halifax.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to published reports today, the minister's Canadian negotiators on the undersea boundary dispute question have proposed a shared 50-50 access to oil and gas production in disputed territories with the United States. My question to the minister is, is this true?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Without being the least offensive, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think I ought to tell the hon. member. It is obviously part of a negotiating posture. It is a story in the newspapers. However, I would not want to confirm or deny it in precisely the language the hon. member has put to me. If he can rephrase the question in some way, I will be glad to be as forthcoming as I can.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Regarding any giveaway of undersea mineral rights on the continental Canadian shelf, regarding which many Canadian provinces feel they have a very just claim- and that view is shared by many in the country and in this House-may I ask the minister if any of the provinces concerned were involved in the discussions ahead of time, or will they be before any such offer is made to the United States?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question clearly. We have had discussions with the provinces and we are continuing to discuss the matter with them. I am speaking from memory, but I do not think there has been any firm position taken by either side. A number of possibilities are being explored. As I understand it, even if a clearcut line is delineated there is a necessity for some agreement on each side of the line because deposits, particularly our deposits, may be located under the seabed on each side of that dividing line. So there are some complications involved. But the provinces are being consulted and we shall take their representations very much into consideration in reaching any final decision.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A final question. Does the minister not think it possible that we could at least discuss this subject in the House, with the minister leading the way, and consider some of the legal questions involving jurisdiction, instead of some of us having to pick these things up in the newspapers? Could we not discuss these things in the House first?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not know what mechanism might be adopted. There are two considerations involved. One is the restriction imposed during the question period. The other is this: I do not know whether members opposite would genuinely wish to get into a discussion in terms of indicating what the posture is while the negotiations are under way. However, in committee or anywhere else where it could be done without causing problems to our negotiators, we would have no objection to the subject being dealt with. We have asked the provinces for their views, and there is no reason why we should not let members in on our position.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 gave you the usual notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege on a matter I brought to your attention yesterday evening. It relates to the performance of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in this House.


Mr. Basford:: A great performance!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is interesting to note the kind of action on the part of this minister that government supporters are applauding. I raise this matter because I feel it is one which should receive serious attention by Your Honour and by members of the House. We have, unfortunately, become used to intemperate and petty outbursts from the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We regret that the minister is incapable of making his point in debate without indulging in personal reflections. Members on both sides of the House occasionally infringe the rules in their warmth of expression and are usually quick to withdraw any remarks of theirs which the Speaker has described as unparliamentary. I hope the minister will take this opportunity to improve his record in this regard.
Yesterday evening, the minister stated:
But instead of grappling with it, the Conservatives go into Anglophone Canada and feed it with their lies and deceptions and their urgings to hate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to imagine language which more grossly offends against the standard usually enforced in this House. It was suggested yesterday that the minister saved himself by referring to the Conservative party generally. I agree that vague references have often been passed over. However, I suggest that in this case the violence of the language, and the fact that western members appear to be singled out by a subsequent statement of the minister, removes that defence.
June 7, 1978

For similar language, Mr. Speaker, a member of this party was ejected from the House two weeks ago. The words "lie" and "liar" have always been withdrawn after being used in this House. I also suggest that the words "urgings to hatred" offend the spirit of Beauchesne 155, in that they accuse a member of base and offensive motives.
It would not be very gracious of the minister to fall back on the defence that he did not single out a particular member, but accused all of them. It seems to me that a minister of the Crown should be fully supportive of the dignity of the House, and realize that we are here to debate policies and not debase the personal reputation of fellow members.
In the interest of preventing the kind of breakdown in the House that I know Your Honour would like to avoid, I hope the minister will take this opportunity to withdraw the remarks and allegations he made yesterday.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is clear that the language I used does not fall within the definition of what is considered unparliamentary. I agree that it is strong language; statements about "lies" and "deception" do, indeed, constitute strong language. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that I have frequently seen this used as a tactic, particularly in western Canada, and what I was addressing last night was the serious consequence for this country of that tactic being used in a way which permits, preaches and evokes dislike for either a region of the country or of a particular linguistic group. I have seen this time and time again.
I would be delighted to have a committee of the House look into the question of how these things are done and how hatred and separation are spread. 1 recall one instance particularly in the home town of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) which I share with him. It was very clear from the Conservative advertising that they were suggesting a Quebec plot-it would be funny if it were not so sad. They said the picture of the prairies had been removed from the dollar bill and replaced by a picture of the Parliament Buildings taken from the Hull side.
Going on from there, you have a greater combination of suspicion and lies. The example I used last night had to do with the way in which Conservatives across the country assert that the government is favouring the province of Quebec in DREE programs, winter works programs and the like. The fact is that Quebec may indeed benefit more than Ontario, Alberta or some other province, but in all cases it derives less benefit than the Atlantic provinces because the principle is to try to help those areas which most need help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: At the very time we are making our case against the separatists in Quebec, pointing out that the province does receive a good deal from the federal treasury given the economic circumstances of the province, we find these neo-separatists from other parts of the country spreading dislike-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a natural temptation for hon. members to get into the merits of the question when words such as "lies" and "deception" have been used, and to go behind such phrases to demonstrate a certain position or support a certain argument. Nevertheless, I think we should avoid going into the merits and confine ourselves to the procedural question.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has indicated that the description he was using was not applied to members of the House of Commons but to Conservatives generally.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On a straight reading of the language objected to, I would be prepared to accept that possibility. However, I go back to the beginning of his remarks, to the paragraph in the middle of the second column of Hansard at page 6126. In cases where there is any possibility that unparliamentary expressions have been directed against members of the House, I think we have to take action quickly.
The minister says now that he did not intend to direct this comment against members of the House of Commons and, if that is so, I will ask him to make that perfectly clear because of the following language the minister has used. I will read it without including interjections:
What we have in this House... is a Conservative opposition which does not care to consider the impact on this country's unity and which does not care indeed if its actions, time and time again, drive wedges between people in this country... The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) shrieks ... but let me tell him about colleagues of his having urged in this House on the one hand that the Minister of Finance immediately pay the money to the government of Quebec, when they would have gone across certain areas of this country saying to the people in the rest of Canada-in Saskatchewan where I live and in neighbouring provinces-
And so forth. In light of that language, if the Minister of Transport was endeavouring to make an accusation only a few lines later in respect to Conservatives outside the House and not members in the House, that certainly is not the context which is described by the language which I have just referred to; and if the Minister of Transport says today that he was talking about Conservative organizers and so forth, he is excused. However, on the basis of this language I would have to have him state here in this House that that language somehow did not refer to members of the House of Commons, and that if he did refer to members of the House of Commons he now withdraws that remark in respect to members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand your adjudication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I would like to make it perfectly clear that in the later reference to lies and deceptions I was referring to a

June 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
general Conservative tactic and conduct and certainly not specifically to any members of parliament.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Cheap.


Otto Emil Lang: In the earlier one I did indeed, I think, describe exactly what I thought they did in the way of a tactic, in terms of talking one way in this House and talking another way outside the House. That did apply to members. But I am presuming that Your Honour does not indicate that that earlier reference is the unparliamentary one, so I do separate those two very completely.


Mr. Speaker:: What I am saying is that the combination of the two references, so closely related, leads to a very clear suspicion, which the minister says is not the case. We accept the word of members in this House, but it leads to the clear impression that the two are tied together. He separates them in his mind, and I accept that; however, I would want the minister to make clear today the intent of the language he used, "lies and deceptions". I think we always have to be very careful. When we enter into that kind of language, we have to be absolutely clear that it is not in reference to members of the House of Commons, and I would want the minister now to make it absolutely clear that he was not making that reference in relation to members of the House of Commons.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what I meant to do in my previous intervention. I do not so intend.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the national Leader of the Progressive Conservative party and as a member of this House, I am responsible in quite general terms for the strategy of my party. It is that very strategy which was attacked by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) last night in the House of Commons.

I am quite prepared to accept the ruling which Your Honour has made and the retraction you have extracted from the Minister of Transport. I will accept that on the very narrow procedural grounds which are the grounds to which Your Honour, by necessity, is confined.
What is of greater concern to me here, as I am sure it is to all hon. members of the House of Commons, is that we know that in this House we set a standard which is followed elsewhere in the country and which forms attitudes toward the goodwill which exists among peoples and regions in this country and also toward the very delicate and difficult question of national unity in this country. I think that whatever the technical ruling Your Honour has made in relation to this intemperate, unfortunate statement by the Minister of Transport, it is very clear that when a senior minister of the Crown of Canada can stand up in the House of Commons and make that kind of allegation, designed in its way to create apprehensions about the Progressive Conservative party and also designed to undermine and to sow discord in the country and

to create suspicions where no suspicions should exist, then, sir,
I think we have a rather different circumstance.
I quite accept that the circumstance which has arisen now as a result of the unfortunate, irresponsible and childish remarks of the Minister of Transport is one which cannot be dealt with in any further procedural way by Your Honour. But we have in the House with us now-and I appreciate his staying at my request-the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the leader of the party of the minister who has made this allegation against the Progressive Conservative party as a whole in the country and who has made these statements which clearly can lead to a very serious hostility in the country.
The Prime Minister has heard these remarks stated. He was not here yesterday. I recall that in 1968 when the Prime Minister was campaigning in his first election as leader of his party he had the courage and the courtesy, when faced with an advertisement placed in the name of the then Liberal candidate in Calgary South which made similar unfounded allegations against the Progressive Conservative party, to dissociate himself as leader of his party from those irresponsible remarks, and I hope that the Prime Minister of Canada will use this opportunity here, not to hide himself behind the narrow grounds which have provided some protection under the rules to the Minister of Transport, but instead to accept his larger responsibility to national unity and stand in his place and dissociate himself from the statements which have been made by the Minister of Transport.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Procedurally we are in a very vague area here. On procedural grounds the matter was resolved. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has been given the floor. He has raised a point to which I think the House obviously would expect a reply. However, the matter was raised by the Minister of Transport last night in debate. In so far as the comment was not made about members of the House of Commons, it is a comment which can be made by the Minister of Transport.
Debate on the bill will carry on today. There will be a few hours of debate later on this afternoon, and if there are to be further replies, they can be made in that debate.
In so far as there was an unparliamentary use of language, that has been corrected procedurally. But there are ways of answering the allegations-or repeating them, in fact-if in fact they are parliamentary allegations; and in so far as they do not apply to members of this House, no procedural objections can arise.
I see that the Minister of Transport wants to answer the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is only fair that he make a response and then, from a procedural point of view, the matter ought to be closed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I need not take a great amount of time to respond, but I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) did in fact impute motives to me in terms of trying to create some unfortunate and disastrous results in the country by my comments.
June 7, 1978

I would just like to assure him that my motives are very much based on the hope that he may take his responsibilities and correct the actions which go on in the Conservative party so that there will not be seized the advantage of prejudices which do exist. If the Leader of the Opposition does not know how extensive they are, I ask him to accept the offer I also extended to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), and that is to let me take him to certain areas in the west and let him hear how deeply these divisions are sown. I have the hope that his party, as one of the traditional and ancient parties in this country, will adopt a standard designed to unite the country and not divide it and feed on prejudice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are on very doubtful procedural grounds here. The Leader of the Opposition has been given the floor. He made a request by way of intervention which does not in any way relate to a procedural matter. It certainly is not a point of order. It certainly is not a question of privilege. The procedural matter has been settled. The debate will go on for the rest of the afternoon, and there will be all kinds of speeches and suggestions made during the course of the balance of the debate. But there really is no procedural basis upon which we can now go on to recognize other hon. members so that they can make other contributions to a non-procedural point.


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully submit that the only retraction here has been about lies and deceptions and urgings to hate. I as a member of the Conservative party in the House have also been accused of seizing every opportunity to encourage feelings of hate and antipathy in this country. There has been no withdrawal of that statement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. gentlemen opposite can howl all they like; we have our reputation to defend, Mr. Speaker. At page 6127 of Hansard the minister has clearly libelled every member of the Conservative party in the House by saying:
-they seize upon every-opportunity-to encourage feelings of hate and antipathy in this country.
I have never done that, nor has anyone else on this side of the House. So I put it you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has not retracted that part of his remark.


An hon. Member:: The decision has been rendered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member misunderstands, and I will say it one more time. Procedurally, members of the House of Commons are restricted in making allegations in various forms of unparliamentary language against members of the House of Commons. They are not under the same constraints in respect of other groups of people. Therefore, if
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
any member of the House feels himself aggrieved as part of a larger group, there are several recourses for him. If it is a political aspersion, it can be defended in a political circle; if it is a debating point, it can be carried on in the debate this afternoon. But on procedural grounds, the minister has made an allegation which, in my opinion, indicated it may be directed at members of the House of Commons, and in so far as it was, it was unparliamentary. Therefore, I insisted that it be withdrawn in respect of members of the House of Commons.
I think hon. members should understand that the precedents indicate quite clearly that a general aspersion against a group of people, whether it happens to include members of the House of Commons or not, is not to be included in those parliamentary categories. Therefore, whether a member of the House of Commons incidentally, as part of a larger group, feels himself aggrieved by the aspersion is beside the point.
In any case, I have ruled on the matter procedurally and the minister has indicated his withdrawal of any unparliamentary remarks in the sense that they might have been directed at members of the opposition here, and that closes the matter procedurally.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what is my position as regards the challenge made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)? I was asked some questions by the Leader of the Opposition. Are you ruling that it is not in order for me to answer them at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: I felt that I should indicate a response of equal proportion. I thought that response was taken up by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). If the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were to make a reply at this time, it seems to me that it would have to be only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just before we deal with the matter of unanimous consent, may I say that I hope we will not get into this matter too deeply, and I will tell you why, sir. Just after you made your ruling and after the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) had spoken for the last time-and we will make our judgment on what he said- the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) was on his feet trying to get the floor, but you did not see him-and I use that expression in the procedural sense. I think that if the issue is going to be opened up-and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be allowed to speak if he wishes to do so-then I think the hon. member for Halifax should be allowed to do so as well, and any other member of the House of Commons. I merely point that out to you, sir, to indicate the extent to which we might very well be proceeding if you adopt the practice of asking for unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had indicated earlier my disposition of the matter and I said that the Leader of the Opposition had been given the floor, as is often the case on an

June 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
unclear point from the procedural point of view, and that I thought a reply should be given, which it was. I said that there was no procedural basis upon which I could recognize any other member without opening a debate.
I think that is probably the safest course to take, notwithstanding the desire of several members, including the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Halifax, to get into the debate; and I think that upon that procedural basis I should take the safe course and close it off.



MR. BROADBENT-ANSWER GIVEN BY MINISTER OF STATE FOR URBAN AFFAIRS

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an entirely different question of privilege. Earlier in the question period, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), either deliberately or inadvertently-and I am assuming the latter until he clarifies the record-told the House that under the changes announced in the housing program those who are going to get a subsidy for mortgages in the co-op housing section would get a mortgage of 1 per cent for 35 years. The clear, commonsense interpretation of that answer is that anyone who is in a co-op housing project would get that 1 per cent mortgage for 35 years.
As the minister surely knows, the reality is that such is not the case. According to a document which was circulated by his own department in the month of May, the reality is that someone in a co-op housing project might get a subsidy down to the 1 per cent level and might get it extended year after year for up to 35 years. Because of other changes made in the regulations by his department, it is most unlikely that anything approaching a significant number of people going to that co-op project, would be eligible for a 1 per cent mortgage and subsidy, on the assumption that a significant number in that project were eligible for a 1 per cent mortgage subsidy.
That is a very important point because the minister, in his remarks today, left the impression that there is a fundamental change in policy which will be to the advantage of the co-ops rather than, as many of them see it, to their disadvantage.
I should like him to clarify the record on that point and make it clear that it is just possible that a few people might get a subsidy down to the 1 per cent level. In that context, would he clarify the other concern which is directly related?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is raising what is essentially a point of disagreement or interpretation. However, in case there has been, as we have recognized in the past, the possibility of a misleading reference, the minister may contribute now, but I do not think it should go much further.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say very briefly that perhaps I should send to the hon. member and to other members of the House some background information on the proposal which will clearly indicate its intent and its advantages, as the policy has been amended. This should meet some of the remarks
which have been made by the co-op groups and non-profit groups.



POINTS OF ORDER


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) might want to correct a misleading statement made by the Prime Minister in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), in which the Prime Minister indicated that the new housing initiatives have been taken by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with the agreement of the provinces.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs then rose in his place and, in answer to a later question, indicated that the province of Manitoba had not given agreement. The telegram which he quoted clearly states that the province of Manitoba wishes to reach agreement at the earliest opportunity. That is a dear indication that the minister proceeded with the housing program without the consent or agreement of the province. The Prime Minister, deliberately or inadvertently, misled the House by saying, in answer to an earlier question, that the new initiatives have taken place with the agreement of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member raises a matter of disagreement, not a matter of order.



MR. STEVENS-CLARIFICATION REGARDING TABLING OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order touches on the order of business for today and certainly for tomorrow. As you know, sir, we had difficulty with the original tax motion with respect to a portion of Bill C-56, and your ruling called for the tabling of a new tax motion, a new ways and means motion, which would facilitate whatever the government saw fit to do with respect to clause 30 of Bill C-56.
The reason for my point of order was perhaps to receive clarification from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) as to whether he intends to table notice of his ways and means motion today, so that it might be concurred in tomorrow on the assumption that we will move into committee of the whole stage tomorrow, at which point we may well reach clause 30.
fTranslation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the ruling you made in this House, you indicated that it was not necessary to table a notice of an

June 7, 1978

amended ways and means motion before we reached examination of Clause 30. If the opposition were ready to guarantee that the 29 preceding clauses will be agreed to quickly, with the unanimous consent of the House, we might adopt an amended ways and means motion which could comply with your ruling a few days ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. A rather difficult procedural problem is created for the House by the failure of the Government of Canada, when it first introduced the ways and means motion relative to Bill C-56, to have clearly in its mind what exactly it was going to propose. Your Honour has ruled on that by indicating that before we get to clause 30 tomorrow, a new ways and means motion must be approved by the House in which the Government of Canada spells out what it proposes in Bill C-56.
The government has chosen to introduce closure. That issue was debated and lost yesterday by this side of the House. There will be a vote today, and then we will proceed tomorrow into clause by clause consideration of Bill C-56. Perhaps clause by clause debate in committee of the whole will go very quickly tomorrow. If that is the case, surely it would be helpful to the House of Commons, if we are not stopped by a failure of confidence by the government, to introduce a ways and means motion in time to allow us to deal with that clause if we come to it. We do not know if we will come to it, but perhaps we will. The rules of the House require that notice must be given the day before in order for us to deal with clause 30.
Perhaps some Liberal members will want to hold up debate and perhaps there will be some serious disagreement on the preceding 29 clauses. Also it is important to contemplate that the House of Commons may want to deal with the new clause 30 tomorrow, that part of the bill which the government will change as soon as an arrangement has been worked out with the government of Quebec.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has two options open to him. He can introduce that ways and means motion today, which would allow us to deal with clause 30 if we come to it tomorrow. Perhaps his difficulty is that he does not know what he wants to propose. Yesterday he imposed closure on a matter the nature of which he did not know. Perhaps he does not know what he intends to put in the ways and means motion.
The other option open to him, since he does not know what he wants to propose and what he wants parliament to deal with tomorrow during clause by clause consideration, is that he may want to suggest to the House leader that we withdraw the bill and go on to other matters where the government is ready.
I see the minister is shaking his head and indicating no. Thus I assume the minister has come to some conclusion as to how he will amend clause 30 and how he will amend the ways and means motion. If that is the case, then it is very much in the interests of progress in the House of Commons and very
Point of Order-Mr. Stevens
much the responsibility of the minister to introduce that ways and means motion right now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to use the proper terms. He indicated that yesterday I used the procedure of closure in the House. That is not the case. I used the time allocation procedure. There is a difference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is completely different. Closure does not permit any more discussion on a bill. We have provided 11 days for the second reading debate. The hon. member should be correct and indicate that we have used time allocation, which is a very proper rule. After nine days of debate, I provided another day and a half of discussion.
Dealing with the ways and means motion, I confirm the decision of the Chair. Your Honour said that I had to table the amended ways and means motion, if I so wished, before the House reached consideration of clause 30. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition is willing to guarantee that the preceding 29 clauses will be passed very early, I would not mind tabling the ways and means motion.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition likes to presume if there will or will not be an agreement with the province of Quebec. I do not know this. For approximately two months I have sought an agreement. Yesterday I read in the newspaper that Quebec will probably propose my own proposition. If that is the case, perhaps an amendment to the bill will not be necessary. We will see when we arrive at clause 30. If the opposition wants to collaborate with me and pass 29 clauses tomorrow, I will be ready to table a ways and means motion with unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to refer to the relevant portions of the hon. member's point of order and the second last paragraph of my earlier ruling on this matter. I referred to May's Parliamentary Practice, 19th edition, page 790, which reads as follows:
If any provisions of a bill are found to go beyond the resolutions on which the bill is founded, further resolutions must be passed-
The operative word is "passed" and not "tabled". It continues:
-before those provisions are considered in committee on the bill-
The second relevant reference would be Standing Order 60(1) which reads as follows:
A notice of a ways and means motion may be laid upon the Table of the House at any time during a sitting by a minister of the Crown, but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
Subsequently the rules indicate that the taking up of such a ways and means motion is without debate and the question for concurrence is put without debate.
The procedural point raised is the question of possible consideration of clause 30 in committee of the whole stage. These are the provisions which apply to it. If that were to take place tomorrow, it cannot take place on the basis of the

June 7, 1978
Poll Disclosure Act
precedents I have cited until the amended ways and means motion is passed. It can be passed tomorrow if notice is given today. Notice can be given today at any time during this sitting, in the language of Standing Order 60(1).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it would clarify this issue greatly if the minister would simply indicate whether he has an amended, suitable tax motion to give notice of today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure if the minister had one that he would give it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the opposition wants to agree to pass the 29 clauses tomorrow, I am willing to give notice today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The request that a minister make some sort of notice or table a document surely is not a point of order. If the minister seeks to table a document, a point of order may arise. To simply ask a minister to take such a step does not constitute a point of order.

[ Translation]



INCOME TAX ACT AND EXCISE TAX ACT


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-59, entitled "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act in relation to ownership and operation of small businesses".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: for leave to introduce Bill C-459, respecting public opinion polls.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, this bill would require those who release public opinion polls during the time of a writ, either in respect of a general election or a by-election, to give certain adequate information regarding such polls so that the public could ascertain the validity and reliability of such polls.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 491 and 1,375.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Over the past five years, has Canadian Pacific received any grants from the government and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) amount (b) date (c) allocation?
2.	Was a portion of the grants assigned to the North Bay area and, if so (a) what percentage (b) what amount was used for the road that runs through the Constituency of Temiscamingue?


Yvon Pinard: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Yes. The information requested is available in the CTC Annual Reports No. 6 to 10 tabled each year from 1972 to 1976 in the House of Commons.
2. Canadian Pacific Ltd.'s application to abandon its Ville Marie Subdivision, between Gaboury and Ville Marie (7.7 miles), and a portion of its Temiscaming Subdivision from Gendreau running through Gaboury to Angliers (69.0 miles) was filed with the Commission October 27, 1977. No subsidies have been paid to date on either of these lines. Canadian Pacific will not be entitled to subsidy on these lines until 90 days after October 27, 1977, as per Section 256(1) of the Railway Act. Subsidies will not be paid until such time as a public hearing has been held on these lines and/or the Commission has determined that actual losses have been incurred by Canadian Pacific. The future of these two lines will be tetermined on the basis of a public hearing at which time all interested parties may present their views, verbally or in writing. No abandonment of these Subdivisions would occur before such a public hearing is held. Based on the workload before the Railway Transport Committee at this time, it is doubtful such a public hearing would take place before the latter half of 1978, at the very earliest.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
(C)	(a)	(b)Company	Program	Amount	Fiscal YearCanadian Pacific Ltd.	Miscellaneous-repairs to grain cars	$1,430,000	1974/75Canadian Pacific Hotels	PEMD	5,912	1976/77"	1,910	1977/78Canadian Pacific	PEMD	8,026	1975/76Consulting Service	"	13,624	1976/77"	6,241	1977/78Canadian Pacific	Tourism	5,157	1976/77
Airlines
2. Nil
Note: There were some payments under IRDIA, but this information is confidential and cannot be released.
June 7, 1978


Mr. Jones: Is Canadian Pacific Railway subsidized in part by Canadian government funds, and if so, what are the names of its shareholders and what is the amount of their shares?


Yvon Pinard: For the first part of the question, please see replies to questions No. 17 ordered December 18, 1974, No. 1,250 ordered April 29, 1977, and No. 491 answered this day. For the second part of the question, see Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171 (dd).
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The questions listed by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of questions on the order paper, and I would beg your indulgence for a couple of moments, sir.
On January 25 I placed a question on the order paper, No. 1,216, which reads as follows:
For each department, what was the total expenditure on air travel during the last year for which figures are available and, in each case, how much was for (a) domestic (b) overseas flights?
A return was tabled last Friday, and I would have been reluctantly prepared to accept the advice of the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) when his return was tabled as follows:
The information on all air travel booked directly by each department i.e. last minute reservations, etc., is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of thousands of travel claims for every department, which cost in manpower and time would be exorbitant or prohibitive.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I would have been reluctantly prepared to accept that, but we have received further answers in respect of that same question. We find that the Department of National Defence did give a reply to the effect that, because of the complexity of the question, they could not answer it. I would have been happy with that as well.
However, we have an answer in respect of the Department of External Affairs, and it was at this point that I began to feel that the House was being misled by the minister or the office
Point of Order-Mr. Alexander
of the President of Privy Council, or that they were at least being less than honest with members of parliament. This department did answer the question. They were able to come up with the figure of some $4 million.
That is not the end of it, sir. We then received another return, and this is most important because sometimes I find that the office of the President of Privy Council is less than co-operative. I do not suggest officials intentionally attempt to mislead the House, but in this case at least I think they were less than honest. The return from the Department of Supply and Services is as follows:
Insofar as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned:
The total expenditure on air travel booked through the Central Travel Service of the Department of Supply and Services was $30,539,494.00 in 1976-77, the last year for which complete figures are available.
Information is not accessible on the division between domestic and overseas flights.
My point of order arises from the return tabled by the President of the Privy Council through the parliamentary secretary which, in effect, states that the question is too complex, would cost too much money to answer, would call for the expenditure of a tremendous amount of manpower, and accordingly will not be answered department by department. We then find a department answering the same question, namely the Department of Supply and Services, which refers to expenditures in terms of air travel for 67 agencies, including the departments.
I suggest there are too many of these stock type of answers. With all due respect, the parliamentary secretary has egg on his face. I hope in the future when questions are replied to there will be some co-ordination. The replies to question 1,216 would indicate there is something lacking in respect of co-ordination of answers given to questions on the order paper.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we guarantee one thing: the most serious and complete research possible in order to give answers that are as complete and as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, we cannot give the hon. member a guarantee that he will be satisfied, on the political level, with the replies he receives. We are not here in this House to serve the political ends of the hon. member; we are here, at the taxpayers' expense, to try to give him the most complete answers possible.
As was explained in the reply in most of the departments concerned we could not obtain the requested details; that is why, because of the costs and the time factor involved, the hon. member did not get the answer he had requested. For-tunatly, in some cases, he did get a global amount but no breakdown, precisely for the reasons explained in the reply we gave him. In short, Mr. Speaker, once again, the employees of the Privy Council office always do their best to give hon. members on both sides of the House the most responsible,

June 7, 1978
Motions for Papers
honest, accurate and complete answers possible. That has been our attitude in this session when up to now we have already replied to 73 per cent of all questions on the order paper. So I would ask the hon. member to be more understanding and much more courteous, and not to think when we answer questions that we are trying to mislead the House. Such is definitely not our motivation. Once again, we are not here to look after the political yearnings of the hon. member.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 1,295 which I placed on the order paper on February 7. It is a simple question asked of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) regarding a program called "Open House Canada". I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could look into the matter and find out why it is taking so long to getting around to answering it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,
I also have a complaint in respect of delays in answering order paper questions. Last year on December 7 I placed question No. 895 on the other paper as follows:
Are Members of Parliament entitled to use DOT Telex "Comcen" facilities for the purpose of sending political messages to their constituency and, if so, how many members used such facilities in 1976-77-
That was six months ago. Last fall 1 presented evidence at a committee meeting that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) was being allowed to use DOT telex facilities to send out political-and I have to refer to it as "garbage". We are entitled to an answer as to how many Liberal members are allowed to use this DOT telex network to send out political messages. This is information that could have been provided within a week. Here we are six months later without an answer.
I realize this is a very embarrassing question to the government but, nevertheless, I am entitled to an answer. Six months is a ridiculous length of time to provide an answer to a question like that. I would like the parliamentary secretary to look into the matter and give some indication as to when 1 can expect to receive an answer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-56, to amend the statute relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate ended last night, I was going to say that some people do not seem to understand the facts of the dispute between Ottawa and Quebec concerning the sales tax, a dispute which is admittedly very complex, but some do not really understand the facts of the matter or still they try to make political capital by using arguments which strike the people's imagination but have strictly nothing to do, Mr. Speaker, with the matter before us. For example, how can someone say that to give an $85 or $100 tax credit to Quebec taxpayers is socially unjust because the underprivileged will receive nothing?
I think, Mr. Speaker, that any one who feels he can make a useful contribution to this debate should at least know that the problem is merely to find a means to transfer to the Quebec government an amount of $226 million to compensate the Quebec Treasury for part of the loss it incurred following the removal of the sales tax on a number of items. In short, Mr. Speaker, these tax credits granted by the federal government will be of no use whatever to those taxpayers since their tax burden will be increased by the Quebec government by an amount equal to the federal tax cut. Hence, Mr. Speaker, 1 find quite irresponsible a statement such as the one made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) who said in Montreal on May 28, and I quote:
We shall never agree to the Chretien proposal. This formula is unfair because it benefits the wealthy and penalizes the poor.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, such a statement does not mean anything at all. Either the Leader of the Opposition does not know what he is talking about, in which case he should shut up, or he does, and then he should have the decency to recognize that such a statement is irrelevant. Also, Mr. Speaker, what about the argument to the effect that a tax credit of $85 or less to Quebec taxpayers would have very little effect on the economy since the recipients tend to buy less than non-taxpayers, and thus might not inject the amounts received into the economy.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, such an argument holds no water since it is a cut in the sales tax, whatever form it may take, which is supposed to stimulate the economy, and not the money given to the taxpayers by the federal government,
June 7, 1978

which one way or another will end up in the provincial treasury. The same applies to the argument that it would be preferable to give the tax credit on the basis of the 1977 tax returns because a larger number of taxpayers would then be eligible and the economic incentive would be more immediate. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the tax credit has nothing to do with social justice since the recipients of that money would not benefit from it and would have to turn it over, as extra tax, to the Quebec treasury. The taxpayer, in that case, is nothing more than a conveyor between two governments, and the tax credit would not serve as an economic incentive, since it is only through sales tax cuts that the economy can be put on the way to recovery.
Mr. Speaker, last week's events have clearly demonstrated the willingness of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and his eagerness to find a honourable solution to this legal problem. I commend him for proposing to his Quebec counterpart a $100 tax cut for each and every Quebec taxpayer in 1978. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that the Quebec minister of finance did not find it advisable to explore fairly and immediately the offer which was made to him last Thursday by the Minister of Finance of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to fight for the interests of Quebeckers, but their elected representatives in the Quebec government should indeed adopt a reasonable attitude which would make negotiations possible. I feel that the reasons put forward by the Quebec minister of finance for turning down the federal government's offer do not carry any weight and cannot stand analysis. For instance, how can he claim that this generous offer will penalize the less fortunate when he knows perfectly well that this tax cut would serve only to vacate a fiscal field which the Quebec government could take over to recover the funds it is entitled to receive? Moreover, Mr. Speaker, he is not very convincing when he criticizes the last federal offer for not providing for a cash payment of some $40 million as compensation for the equivalent of the province's 2 per cent sales tax reduction on clothing, footwear, textiles and furniture. Mr. Speaker, he is fully aware that Quebec will not lose these $40 million which are part of the $226 million which would be transferred to the Quebec government under the new tax cut scheme proposed by Ottawa. Finally, why does he come up with the cost of some $8 or $9 million in interest which would result from the transfer only next year of this tax money, when the federal Minister of Finance has clearly indicated that this question is negotiable?
Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday from the media that the Quebec minister of finance seemed to have had second thoughts about the whole matter and appeared quite willing to come to an agreement. Whatever may happen, Mr. Speaker, whether the current negotiations come to an happy or unhappy conclusion, I sincerely hope that the federal Minister of Finance will continue to demonstrate the open-mindedness which served to increase his stature over the past week and
Income Tax Act
include clause 30, the proposal he made to Quebec last Thursday, in Bill C-56.
To put it in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, the idea is to grant Quebec taxpayers a $100 tax-rebate for the year 1978, hopefully, pending an agreement on the procedure to be followed by the Quebec government when it takes over fiscal jurisdiction from the federal government. The Quebec minister of Finance would apparently be prepared to give up the idea of a tax collection agreement. I am happy about this latest development which heralds the end of a useless quarrel. But I think that for the sake of Quebeckers it would be preferable to go one step further than a $226 million reduction in federal taxes and a corresponding increase in provincial taxes. As the leader of the Quebec Liberal party pointed out recently, we should not end up, Mr. Speaker, with some taxpayers suffering inequities in all this matter, such as, for example, double taxation on a short-term basis or retroactive taxing by the Quebec government.
To avoid these difficulties, it seems to me that a collection agreement is practically essential unless it is technically feasible to avoid these difficulties without such an agreement. But if such an agreement is necessary and can be entered into, it should not be interpreted as an additional concession to the Quebec government, but rather as the expression of a federal concern not to penalize anyone in Quebec. I would add, Mr. Speaker, that any agreement between Quebec and Ottawa should include the explicit commitment by the Quebec government to take over the whole power of taxation from Ottawa so that it would not be tempted to gain political advantages by refusing to accept all the monies transferred by the federal government to the Quebec taxpayers under the $100 tax rebate.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close on this note and I am happy to see that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is in the House. It has been quite natural for the official opposition in the last few weeks to criticize the Minister of Finance and to pretend that it was defending Quebec interests. They thus obtained political capital at little cost by using such nonsensical arguments as the one used by their leader and which I mentioned earlier. I want to say very clearly and specifically to the hon. member for Joliette that his crying and his anger have contributed very little to the solution which seems to have been found for this conflict. Moreover, I would like to caution him that his party should not accuse the government of having been overly flexible towards Quebec once this problem has been resolved.
We are used to this type of double play by the Progressive Conservatives as far as Quebec is concerned. I remember that in last year's federal by-elections, the hon. member for Joliette went around Quebec saying that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was too rigid in his stand on the constitution and that he was refusing to grant additional powers to the Quebec government, on matters of immigration, for instance.

June 7, 1978
Income Tax Act
At the same time, at the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, some of his colleagues accused the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) of wanting to sign with Quebec an agreement which would balkanize the country. Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition should stop saying one thing in Quebec and something else everywhere else in Canada. Mr. Speaker, since this bill will not penalize financially the people of Quebec and since the Minister of Finance has shown his good will by offering Quebec a tax rebate of $100 for 1978, I shall support this bill when the vote is taken at the conclusion of the debate on second reading.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it was not
my intention to enter this debate until I listened to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) speak earlier this afternoon. I participate in the debate mainly in response to the suggestion of Mr. Speaker that this debate might be an appropriate place to make the response that I wish to make to the Minister of Transport.
With regard to the bill itself, I think the position of my party has been very well put and very well stated. We have been asked-indeed compelled-to vote today. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has time enough to come in and hear my remarks or not. We are being asked today to vote on a bill, the terms of which we do not know. It is as simple as that. The Minister of Finance speaks of being flexible, which is another way of saying that the bill, in its most important aspect as far as this House is concerned, may be very significantly changed in committee.
I never expected to sit in this House and be required to vote on closure on a bill, the terms of which I do not know. I think it is most extraordinary. If the roles were reversed and my hon. friends opposite by some strange coincidence found themselves in opposition, I can just imagine what a howl they would put up if they were confronted with a closure motion to vote on a bill, the terms of which are not in the bill itself. They are not even in the head of the Minister of Finance. I take it the Minister of Finance has some things in his head, but that is not one of them.
It is most extraordinary. I do not wish to use excessive language, but surely what is being asked of the House of Commons today is an affront to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I presume you do not know what I will do.


An hon. Member:: You do not know either.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I agree; I do not know what the minister will do. I agree that he does not know-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think you do not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister does know, that makes the affront even more offensive. There is a double affront to this
House. The minister sits there grinning. He thinks he has the troops and I am sure he has got the troops.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Wait until we read you this letter.


Mr. Boulanger:: You are filibustering.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the hon. member wishes to speak he will have his opportunity. I am not going to speak for very long.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) has the floor.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think the hon. member who is interrupting me is fundamentally a good natured man but he finds himself in a tight position on this bill and his usual good nature is giving way under the difficulties in which he finds himself.


Prosper Boulanger: I am surprised that you follow Joe Clark in this manner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, some people can speak better from the seat of their trousers than on their feet. It is an old gag to be rude to a member when he is speaking, but the hon. gentleman does not really bother me. This is a further indication of the extent to which supporters of the government are bothered by the situation in which they find themselves.
I say it is an affront for the minister to introduce closure to compel the House to vote on a bill, the terms of which are not clear to the House. Furthermore, we are being asked to vote on a bill which does not conform with the ways and means motion. We are being compelled, through closure, to vote on a bill which does not comply with the ways and means motion.
The minister finds himself in a difficult position. He tells the House-and I believe him-that he thought he was doing something useful for the country; he thought a reduction in sales tax was a useful thing to do at the present time and he set up to confront the provinces and get their agreement.
The difficulty is that he did not get the agreement of all the provinces. My hon. friends opposite can criticize the government of Quebec as much as they like and say it is regrettable that the government of Quebec was not prepared to go along with the Government of Canada and the rest of the country. The fact remains, however, that there is nothing in the constitution that requires the government of Quebec to go along with the Minister of Finance or the other provinces. There is nothing in our constitution nor in the spirit of our constitution which gives any of us the right to criticize the government of Quebec for refusing to go along with the proposal.
I hope the Minister of Finance will work this out eventually. I hope he is able to reach an accommodation with the government of Quebec. I say in all sincerity that there is no justification for introducing closure on a bill to bring about a sales tax reduction in the province of Quebec and across the country without the consent and approval of the provinces. In other words, I say in all sincerity that I understand the minister being worked up and feeling badly about the situation he is in.

June 7, 1978


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He says not at all. I think he should. 1 hope he is able to work it out eventually. However, he ought not to ask this House to vote on the question until he has it worked out.
I want to say something else on this point in connection with the bill. The Minister of Finance and other members on that side of the House, realizing that they are in a position of some difficulty, try to work out their difficulty by attacking the motives of myself and other members of the opposition. They take the view that you cannot disagree with or criticize the position of this government unless you are a separatist or have separatist tendencies.
Whenever the Minister of Finance is asked about the level of the dollar or some other aspect of the policy which he finds difficulty in answering, he criticizes the motives of those asking the question. I had hoped we had gotten beyond that in this country. I must protest the tone of that kind of response.
I resent very much hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), for example, suggest that members of the opposition are speculating on the dollar. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) accused members of the opposition of speculating on the dollar. There has been no withdrawal of either remark. The Minister of Finance and others are constantly accusing the members of the opposition of hurting the country, being only interested in securing some cheap political advantage, incidentally never giving any information and never answering the question.
I would not have risen simply to have made these points today, because I think they have been pretty well made already. However, the Minister of Transport took off last night and he took off again in the House this afternoon. He said it was the tactics of the Conservative party to divide the country. Last night he said, and I quote him:
Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of the action of the Conservative party is that, whatever its public and apparent stand is here in this House, back on the hustings across this country they seize upon every ... opportunity ... to encourage feelings of hate and antipathy in this country.
As a former leader of the Conservative party for some seven years or so, I had some responsibility for the tactics of the Conservative party at that time. It was very clear from the minister's remarks that he was speaking about the tactics of the Conservative party for some period of time. He called upon the present leader to correct these tactics.
I recognize the need for all of us who are members of parliament, and indeed everybody who has any part to play in public life in this country, not only to exercise restraint in terms of people in other parts of the country and in terms of people who speak in tongue different from theirs, but to recognize the responsibility we all have to encourage restraint and increase understanding. I say to you in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, we do not need the kind of vicious, unrestrained
Income Tax Act
remarks that the Minister of Transport made in the House last night and again this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The parliamentary secretary rises on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve the right and privilege of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to raise a question of privilege regarding the term just used by the previous speaker. Obviously, the word "vicious" is unparliamentary and I want to reserve the right of the Minister of Transport.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was making the point, before the parliamentary secretary saw the need to rise and make his point, that we all have a responsibility to exercise restraint and to try to increase understanding in this country. We all have a responsibility to refrain from inflammatory remarks which encourage distrust in our country. We do not need the kind of hot-headed, unrestrained, intolerant, unjustified and, indeed, vicious remark made by the Minister of Transport in the House and the drift of his remarks here this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I recognize that through the years there has been a tendency among candidates from time to time to get a little enthusiastic in their desire to get votes and succeed in getting elected and to yield to the temptation of attacking some other parts of the country. For many years the Liberal party made quite a thing about attacking Toronto, the people of Ontario and those in my own province of Nova Scotia. One can say that is fair game. I do not make too much about that. It is an old practice. It did not involve any racist element or anything of that sort.
I recognize as well that there are times when advertising during campaigns gets a little out of hand. I recall very well during the 1968 campaign-and I am sure this was not the wish of the Prime Minister-the Liberal party in western Canada running on the basis that the Prime Minister was the one to put Quebec in its place. Some Liberal candidates in Alberta, or at least their associations, ran ads accusing me, as leader of the Progressive Conservative party, of supporting special status for Quebec. Those ads had no purpose other than their obvious purpose, and that was to create doubt in the minds of the people in the west as to how firm I was on Quebec. They wanted to create the impression that I was soft on Quebec and that I would yield to Quebec things that ought not to be yielded to Quebec. I had to chase the Prime Minister through most of that campaign in 1968 to get him to repudiate that kind of approach and advertising.

June 7, 1978
Income Tax Act
1 had some trouble with advertising in 1972. A couple of constituencies engaged in advertising which was considered doubtful. One was around the Lakehead.
During that campaign I was also in Alberta. Correspondence called to my attention an advertisement being run on behalf of the then hon. member for Crowfoot. I got in touch with the hon. member's campaign manager who stated quite simply they had not considered anything offensive in that ad. I asked that it not be run again, and it was not. I do not make anything particularly of it. I simply indicate there have been instances in which advertising has been run by candidates, or associations on their behalf, which was at least of doubtful tendency in terms of its significance. It has not been limited to the Conservative party.
The reason I am taking part in this debate today is the reference made by the Minister of Transport to the practice and tactics of my party. I am rather proud of my party. I do not want to be too thin-skinned but I like to think that while I did not become prime minister 1 did at least not pursue or permit tactics which divided the country. There may have been some things in my party which could be criticized. There are a good many things I see in the Liberal party which I have criticized-and I could go back over them today beyond those I have mentioned.
There can be no question that it is a challenge in this country to achieve understanding between the various regions and an even greater challenge to achieve understanding between the French and English speaking people. My party under its present leadership is dedicated to improving and increasing that understanding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I like to think at least that I worked in that direction myself and I deeply resent, both personally and on behalf of my party, the intolerant, unrestrained and savage attack by the Minister of Transport. I think it was unworthy of a minister and his words could do nothing to improve understanding and a feeling of unity in our country. I deeply regret that they were uttered. Perhaps he, also, deeply regrets having said those things last night, but being a stubborn man he was not prepared to back off today.
Mr. Speaker, no one party in this country has a monopoly on good motives. No one party has a monopoly on patriotism. I myself distrust people who talk too much about patriotism. I think there is a lot to be said for the remark of old Dr. Johnson, who said that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. I suggested jokingly to the Minister of Finance in a private conversation last evening that he should bear those words in mind himself.
To conclude, I do not expect the Minister of Transport to withdraw any more or to express any regret. But as a former leader of the party I repudiate the attack made on my party and indirectly on myself personally. I repudiate it and I say to all members of the House that, if we are going to work to keep
this country together, let us stop attacking the motives of those who are opposed to us and let us really seek to improve understanding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments. Many Canadians, through cable television, are now in the fortunate or unfortunate position, depending upon one's point of view, of being able to watch the proceedings of this House on a regular basis. I do not know what message other members have received but the message I have had is that, by and large, they view us as being long winded, repetitious, frequently fuzzy-minded and sometimes downright boring.
One of my friends was quoting Woodrow Wilson to me the other day in this regard. When Wilson was asked how long it would take him to prepare a speech, he said: "If you want me to talk for two hours, I will start right now. If you want me to talk for 40 minutes it will take me about a week. If you want me to speak for ten minutes it will take me about two weeks''. My friend went on to recommend that most of us should be using the ten-minute version in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: I will endeavour to comply. First, I should like to praise my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). We have heard a great deal of criticism directed at the initiative he has taken. I suggest it was a vital and important initiative as far as this country is concerned. For the first time in Canadian history he went out to talk to his provincial counterparts before bringing in his budget to see whether there were any provincial initiatives which could be taken to the advantage of the country as a whole. Such an innovation, viewed against the background of the difficult times which Canada, along with much of the world, is passing, was, it seems to me, crucial to the well-being of the country.
I trust the response my colleague has received will not dissuade him from taking similar initiatives in the future. He would certainly be the first to admit that the result has not been a smooth operation or that there has not been a certain roughness around the edges. Nevertheless he has made a significant and important effort.
It was only after the acceptance of the budget by eight provinces that Quebec said no and produced a scheme designed mainly to benefit that province regardless of its impact on the rest of the country. It was a scheme designed to be divisive and to tear apart the Canadian market rather than unify it. The immediate reaction of the Tory party was: Whatever Levesque and Parizeau approve, we support.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There you go again!


J. Judd Buchanan: I am sorry the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) takes umbrage at that remark. I think it is important that the reality be stated unequivocally. The stand

June 7, 1978

to which I have referred was asserted day after day in the House of Commons by all members opposite and then repeated in Montreal by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to that statement. I hesitated to interrupt the minister. Nevertheless, the phrase he used, "all members of the opposition", includes me. The stance I have taken has been an Alberta stance. It had nothing to do with Parizeau. The minister should be more careful when making statements in the House.


J. Judd Buchanan: The hon. member is quite correct in that all members opposite have not spoken on this bill. I will say, then, that the vast majority of the members of the Conservative party who have spoken on this subject, including their leader, have taken that position unequivocally.
When the Minister of Finance proposed to finance part of the selective cuts and all of a 2 per cent reduction for six months of the general retail sales tax in Quebec, the Tory party waited for the PQ to reject the counter-proposal and then rejected it themselves. When, for a period of weeks, Mr. Parizeau gave no sign of life, when, in his own words, he "behaved like the cow watching the train go by", the opposition spent its time attacking the Minister of Finance for what they called his inflexibility and bad faith. Never once did it cross the mind of the opposition that the Minister of Finance was faced by adversaries dedicated to the break-up of Canada.
As far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, the enemy of the federal Liberals is his friend. We do not want, nor do we need, the Parti Quebecois for a friend. I suggest that hon. members opposite should beware of Pequistes bearing electoral gifts. When the Minister of Finance proposed an income tax refund of up to $85 for Quebec federal taxpayers based on the taxation year 1977, the Leader of the Opposition was outraged. Last week when the Minister of Finance stated that he was prepared to change the refund from 1977 to 1978 so as to meet some of the objections to his proposal, what was the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition? On Friday he said that the minister was refusing to give an immediate economic stimulus to the economy of the province of Quebec. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
The lesson of the last many weeks is that we in Canada are dealing with a formidable and dangerous adversary in the separatist government in Quebec. The Minister of Finance made one proposal before his budget which Quebec rejected only after the budget. Since then he has made four proposals, one on April 25, one on May 15 and two last week. All have been summarily and arrogantly rejected by Mr. Parizeau and the Tory party.
It is obvious that an agreement on a national plan of economic benefit to Canada is not in the best interests of the government of Quebec, nor does it fit with its goals. Opposition members seem to be unwittingly going to bed with the Pequiste government and supporting a position held by that
Income Tax Act
government, which is bent on destroying Canada. Its objective is to tear Quebec out of the Canadian confederation. I have a great deal of respect and even affection for my hon. colleagues opposite, but I am distressed because I firmly believe that they are being duped. They cannot continue to do pirouettes with their tongues and dance from one position to another. It is a ballet of politics with no grace and no finesse, and the people of Canada clearly see that. C'est vrai, n'est-ce pas?
The objective of the measure put forward by the Minister of Finance clearly was to increase and to stimulate consumer demand in Canada. Last weekend I was attending a meeting of the Conference Board out in British Columbia. Several ministers from provincial governments were present. One of those, a minister of finance from one of our western provinces, said, "Well, Buchanan, we were not totally happy with what has developed, but there is absolutely no question that it is successful, and we are seeing a dramatic upturn in consumer demand". That was the goal we were achieving.
It has been suggested that we should have stayed out of the provincial bailiwick of direct provincial sales taxes and that we should have used federal sales tax cuts. We have done that before. Unfortunately, we have found that there is a great tendency for the impact of those cuts to disappear somewhere between the manufacturing level and the point of purchase. The actual stimulus turns out to be very minimal. That route was considered. It was advocated by several hon. members opposite and it was rejected. Another route is the personal income tax cut. That is another policy which was advocated. We have had a similar experience in that regard. Those cuts do not turn out to be a direct and immediate stimulus to consumer demand.
Last October the Minister of Finance cut personal income taxes for seven million Canadians by $100. This tax cut was seen in January and February. A distinguished businessman, former banker and sometimes critic of the present government commented last January that, and I quote:
Relatively little stimulus will come from Chretien's $100 tax credit, yet the measure represents the right approach. Consumers must feel that they are becoming better off in real terms.
His advice, notwithstanding this personal income tax cut, was the following: "We should continue to press for a retail sales tax cut". This commentary is contained in a memorandum dated January 23, 1978 addressed to members of the Progressive Conservative caucus. Its author is the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
I suggest that the Minister of Finance should be commended for his initiative and for trying to work out a collaborative, co-operative arrangement with provincial ministers of finance. His approach is very much in accord with the goal laid down at the first ministers' conference. The feeling was that we are all in this together, and that if we do not hang together we will hang separately.
The first ministers clearly and unequivocally stated that we should be endeavouring to collaborate, to work together and to share common interests in endeavouring to stimulate our economies and to help growth in this country. The minister has
6164

June 7, 1978
Income Tax Act
been pursuing that goal, and I suggest that is an extemely worthwhile goal to be pursuing. I hope the shell shock of the experience will not deter the minister from similar initiatives in the future.
There is no question that we are achieving our objective. The figures which are coming in now for the months of April and May show clearly that in the area of retail sales there has been a dramatic impact, particularly in the province of Manitoba.
Throughout the course of all this the opposition has been incredibly inconsistent and opportunistic. With all the good will in the world I feel that hon. members opposite have been naive. They have inadvertently got themselves into bed with a government whose clear objective is to prove that federalism does not work and that provincial governments-the provincial government of Quebec, at least-and the Government of Canada cannot work together. Working together is not the objective of the government of Quebec. Its clear objective is to do the opposite. Hon. members opposite may find themselves with a comfortable bed mate in this case, but I certainly do not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) certainly made some interesting comments in criticizing the opposition regarding sales tax proposals. It is his right to criticize, but I find it very strange that he should be criticizing the opposition when there are members in his own party who have voiced strong objections to the formula of the government. We are talking about the tax sales formula, the income tax formula and all the rest. We are not talking about being in bed with any separtist government. Nobody on this side of the House supports that separatist government. I think the people of Quebec will take care of Mr. Levesque in the next provincial election. He is a one-time deal.
I would like to point out to the Minister of Public Works that federal proposals to compensate provinces for sales tax cuts, a plan rejected by Quebec and attacked by other provinces, have led to pronounced disagreements within the Liberal party caucus. Three Quebec Liberal backbenchers, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier), have all expressed doubts about the plan. They were noticeably absent when the House voted on an NDP motion which would have scuppered the proposal.
An editorial in the Montreal Star of May 17, 1978 states the following:
"Clumsy rebate": The best that can be said about Jean Chretien's plan to give an $85 rebate to Quebec income taxpayers is that it provides a way, however clumsy, of getting rid of 186 million embarrassing dollars.
The rebate will achieve none of the aims of the reduction in provincial sales taxes which it replaces. It will not provide the timely economic stimulus, it will not give the help to the lowest income families and will certainly not encourage the federal-provincial co-operation on tax matters that was the aim of the original budget proposal.
Mr. Chretien, of course, was in a box, largely of his own making.

In the event, he has chosen a solution which contains a large element of inequity and which has provoked opposition in other provincial capitals anyway. Mr. Chretien would have done better to admit that he had been out-manoeuvred, pay Quebec the money and make sure that, if he ever again proposes joint tax action with the provinces, he does his negotiating before, not after, the event.
That was our main point, Mr. Speaker, and there are many other editiorials around the country. One in the Montreal Star reads:
Chretien deserves his troubles: Finance Minister Jean Chretien is in deep trouble trying to rescue his April budget proposal for sales tax cuts and he deserves every bit of it.
So it is not just members of the opposition who are critical; it is members of the Liberal party, newspapers across the country and also the provinces.
I listened very closely to the debate and especially to the speeches of the government members. Those speeches which I have not been able to hear in the House I have read in Hansard, and I find that government members have come out with some of the strangest comments I have ever heard in my five and a half years here. I would like to refer to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) when he spoke about tax reductions. He said:
One must say where the spending can be cut down.
He went on to say:
The people of Canada should be shown where reductions can be implemented-
Many of the government members have said that there is no such thing as tax reductions, that there is no way we can cut down on government expenditures, no way we can cut down on growth, that it is an absolute impossibility. They made that point very clearly on February 2, 1978, and they also made that point very clear two weeks ago when we had a debate on a review of Canada's tax structure. They are against tax reductions and they say there is no possible way in which taxes can be cut down or reduced.
So what did we hear last Friday? We heard an announcement which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and is as follows:
Cut costs $500 million, every department asked.
Prime Minister Trudeau has asked all federal departments to come up with program cutbacks that can slice $500 million from this year's budget.
It is obvious that the Liberal party is divided. In speech after speech and debate after debate month after month they have told us it is absolutely impossible to cut anything, so how can the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ask the different departments to cut costs by $500 million? This is obviously more window dressing. The article goes on to state:
A letter circulated on May 23 asks all departments to notify Treasury Board as soon as possible which expenditure cuts can be made so reductions can be announced this summer and early fall.
Where is the cohesion in the Liberal party? I read the speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made in Toronto on June 5 in which he stated the following to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association:
I want to suggest to you today that in half a dozen vital respects the government is doing things that are contributing to a better business climate in this country.
June 7, 1978

I see no evidence that they are creating a better climate in this country, and I will go into some detail on that point in a moment. The Minister of Finance went on to say:
I have to add that I am disappointed, so far at least, in the reaction of the Canadian business community to the many changes in government policy that are favouring private sector development. The room is there for private initiative. The incentives are there. With a million Canadians out of work, the need is there for job creating expansion. The first ministers of this country have said: Look, we don't think government make-work and bootstrap operations are the answer to our problems.
I certainly agree with the Minister of Finance on that. It is unfortunate that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and other business people in this country are not taking advantage of these so-called proposals and initiatives. They are taking them down to the United States. What concerns me in this debate is that there has not been one comment from a government member about the mass exodus of investment money and businesses from Canada. It is absolutely ludicrous for them to ignore this.
I would like to quote from a recent article reporting on Northern Telecom moving to the United States. The article reads:
By 1982, the 100th anniversary of its founding in Canada, Northern Telecom Limited, Canada's largest telecommunications manufacturer, will be largely an American enterprise-consequently, its Canadian employment will screech to a standstill, while its U.S. employment will quadruple. As a result, Telecom's 5,061 Canadian suppliers will be unable to cash in on its U.S. growth because Telecom's U.S. operations only buy in the U.S.-
It is by no means alone. According to the Conference Board, a New York based private business research organization, Canada with 49 investments ranked second in foreign manufacturing investments in the U.S. in 1977, compared with the 53 of leader West Germany.
Telecom Chairman, Robert Scrivener predicts that the U.S. portion-now $228 million-of Telecom's sales will grow from 18 per cent last year to 45 per cent in 1982. By contrast, the Canadian portion-now $925 million-is expected to drop from 73 per cent last year to 40 per cent.
That is just one example, but there are a large number of businesses that are moving out. This tax bill and all the statements and speeches made by government members as well as the Minister of Finance certainly do not encourage anybody to stay in this country. The article goes on to read:
For Telecom's Canadian workers, the implications of Telecom's shrinking Canadian outlook are all bad. If, as Scrivener says, "payroll tracks sales," Canadian employment by 1982 will have levelled off but U.S. employment will have almost quadrupled.
Those are devastating figures. The article goes on:
Already, Canadian employment has decreased 9 per cent from a year ago, whereas U.S. employment is up 29 per cent.
With this trend we will never overcome the problem of our unemployment. As I stated before, unemployment is costing the taxpayers of Canada $8 billion, UIC is costing $4 billion a year, welfare is costing $2 billion, and $2 billion is lost in taxes.
Here is another report on how we are creating jobs in the United States, especially in Florida. Scarcely a single community in Florida does not feel the impact. In Dade County, Florida, a consortium led by Canada's Markborough Properties is spending $1 billion on an 18-year project to build an entire town, Villages of Homestead, that will add more than
Income Tax Act
14.000	homes to the tight south Florida market and provide
4.000	jobs. Would it not be wonderful if those developers could stay here and develop some of their projects here? But they are taking their money and expertise to the United States.
I have done some research on some of the other companies which are moving to the U.S. or expanding to the U.S. We now find that Canada has moved from being a recipient of foreign investment to being a net exporter of funds. In 1977, Canadian direct investment abroad, CDIA, stood at $790 million, foreign direct investment in Canada stood at $410 million, and the balance or net outflow amounted to a deficit of $380 million. The balance sheet assets of Canada's U.S. affiliates, according to a U.S. study, totalled $24 billion in early 1977. The following corporations, deemed Canadian by the Conference Board, made major new investments in the United States in the third and fourth quarters of 1977.
I would like to read the names of the companies which are moving and expanding to the United States and investing there. They are: Tonecraft, Commercial Label and Tag, Quebecoi, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, Standard Industries, Santana, Kins Management Ltd., Alcan Aluminium, Bell Canada, U.S. Bell Canada, Tridon Ltd., Sun Pac Foods, Ivaco Industries Ltd., CTC Industries, British Columbia Forest Products, Thomson Newspapers, Harlequin Enterprises, Reichhold Chemicals Limited, Hudson Bay Mining, Renwick of Canada, NRG International, GSC Electronics, Robin Sportswear Ltd., Original Jewellery, John O'Connor and Son and Junjian Company Ltd.
I should now like to refer to some of the investments which are going to the United States to the detriment of Canada. In the first quarter of 1978 in the area of food and related products a number of companies moved to the United States. John Labatt, Ltd. announced plans for a wheat starch and gluten facility in South Carolina.
In the area of textiles, Industrial Knitting has leased a plant in New York State to produce elastic netting. Why could that company not lease a plant to produce elastic netting in Canada?
During the last year and a half members of my party have raised this matter with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We asked them what they were prepared to do about this serious outflow of business investment money. All we have received are negative responses. Also we are told that we should not raise this subject. We will continue to raise this subject until some action is taken. The government must sit down with these people and find out why they are not prepared to stay in Canada.
In the area of chemicals, Kingston Spinners will manufacture synthetic yarns in Georgia. The initial employment will be 35 to 40 persons.
In the area of rubber and miscellaneous plastics, St. Laurence Steel & Wire Co. Ltd. has leased facilities in New York state and will produce hockey masks. Good Heavens, can we
8004 5 -23%

June 7, 1978
Income Tax Act
not produce hockey masks in Canada? Why does that company have to move to the United States? The Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott) have made no comments about this mass exodus.
In the field of fabricated metal products, Velcro Industries announced an expansion of its New Hampshire facilities. Velcro is a producer of look and loop fasteners.
In the area of non-electrical machinery, Northern Telecom acquired Sycor Inc., which is a Michigan based manufacturer of data processing terminals, for $77 million.
In the field of electrical machinery, C Tech leased facilities in New York to provide radar and sonar equipment. Mitel leased facilities in Florida to produce telecommunications equipment. Also Mitel opened a plant in Puerto Rico to produce printed circuit boards. Northern Telecom acquired Danray, which is a Texas manufacturer of telephone switching equipment, for approximately $23 million.
In the area of transportation equipment, R.C. Machine Ltd. leased facilities in New York to produce aerospace parts.
It is evident that the exodus is ongoing. These companies do not go back and forth. Once they are established in the United States they stay there. I have dealt with this subject many times, but I have received no comments from the Minister of Finance or any other government minister.
The list of companies involved is endless. Recently Canadian Pacific invested $185 million in New York. In 1977 in the province of Ontario 140 Canadian manufacturing firms went to the state of New York. They took $28.6 million with them when they left. Union nationale leader Rodrigue Biron said that $4 billion of economic exodus from Quebec has gone to the United States.
A few weeks ago I referred to the figures for nine states. Approximately $6.5 billion of Canadian investment money has gone into nine states. I do not have the figures for the other 41 states. We are looking at a figure of $50 billion to $100 billion of Canadian money which has left our country. Even so, this government has no comment to make on that. The government has said nothing except to tell us to shut up and that we should not be talking about it. How irresponsible can the government get?
On Monday of this week there was a report on CBC radio out of Winnipeg which indicated that there were one million Canadians in Florida. I do not know where that figure was obtained from, but that is what was said in the newscast. I should like to refer to some examples of Canadian funds which have gone to Florida. Approximately $7.5 million went to a North Miami Beach apartment complex; $1.3 million for Hawaiian Inn; $2.3 million for Beachcomber Motel; $6.3 million for Lincoln Industrial Park; $1.5 million for Industrial Park in Lauderhill; $1.6 milion for Fort Lauderdale Apartments; $1 billion for Housing Corporation from a Toronto-based firms; $60 million for high rise condominiums from a Montreal-based firm; $50 million for a 7,800 unit complex; $50 million for a 1,200 luxury apartment complex in Key Colony by a Toronto-based firm, Fininvest Corporation.

There are others. Genstar, which is a Montreal-based firm, is planning a $8 million operation in Houston. Hillcrest Investment Ltd. of Calgary is investing $11 million for two Denver apartment buildings. Canlea, a Canadian investment group, is investing $16 million in an 850-unit apartment building in Houston. The list is endless.
There has been a $70 million takeover by B.C. Forest Products Ltd. of a Minnesota paper company plant; a $140 million takeover of a Revere Copper and Brass Co. plant in Alabama by Alcan Aluminium Ltd.; and a $95 million acquisition and reconstruction by Co-Steel of Toronto of a New Jersey plant. Trizec Corporation of Montreal has land holdings of $192 million or 26 per cent of its $840 million assets in the United States.
Western Canadians are also fleeing to the United States. Mainly they are buying real estate in Texas and Colorado. The Edmonton based firm of Oxford Development Ltd. is putting up $145 million to buy property and buildings in Denver. The Calgary based firm of Nu-West Development Corporation recently announced a $3 million investment in single family units. York and Olympia Developers of Toronto laid out $350 million for skyscrapers in New York City, which was the largest Canadian investment in the United States.
Another subject I should like to deal with in the area of Canadian taxpayers receiving value for their money is the manner in which the federal public service is run. The morale in the federal public service is not very good. The government has put fear into the hearts of all public servants. There has been no evidence indicating that the government will sit down and discuss this subject with public servants. The morale in the public service started to deteriorate last year and is continuing to do so.
I should like to refer to an article entitled "Members'jobs are on the line as contracting out increases" which appeared in the September 1977 edition of the Argus-Journal. My party has no objection to contracting out, but we object to the fear public servants are working under. The article reads in part as follows:
The government is contracting out more and more of its work; it could eventually, contract out your job! The PSAC since its foundation has fought against government contracting out but now the issue is even more crucial. Every member must know what we are up against.
Public meetings have been held across the country in order to discuss this matter, but apparently nothing has been done to allay the fears of public servants.
I should like to refer to an article entitled "More government employees to lose jobs" which appeared in the May 1978 edition of the Argus-Journal. I have discussed this problem on many occasions, yet I do not understand why contracting out is increasing. Many public servants have expressed the same opinion; they cannot understand it because so many of them do not have enough work to do. In part the article reads as follows:
Although the names in this story are fictitious, the circumstances are factual.
June 7, 1978

Jim Smith is a trusted and diligent public service employee with 20 years of solid work behind him. He has problems like everybody else: his 10-year old son needs braces and the mortgage doesn't seem to be getting any smaller.
Despite this he felt good about himself, he felt good about the world as he walked to work one cold morning last February. When he arrived at the office a letter was awaiting him.
Dear Mr. Smith:
The current economic climate dictates that all government departments and agencies reduce their man year utilization. An extensive study ... has concluded that the work presently performed by the R & D Labs is a supportive function that can be provided in other ways. Target date for the phase out will be Oct. 31, 1978.
Just a few lines from a deputy minister and the bottom drops out of Jim Smith's world. "1 couldn't believe it. None of us could believe it. Sure we had heard rumours but we figured at the most they might discontinue some parts of the operation as guys reached retirement age. But to drop the whole thing! That seemed unbelievable to us."
That seems to be a cruel way of dealing with an employee, Mr. Speaker. From the May edition of the Argus-Journal another article states under the heading "No Job-Bitter Blow":
Although all the men are bitter, those who are close to retirement age have a special grievance. David Martin, 60, gives us his case. "I've been 21 years with the Lab. Three of my kids are in university and two are in high school." If I have to retire now, my pension will be $8,400. You tell me how in the name of all that's holy 1 can get my kids through school on that income.
They give example after example of similar problems in the civil service. This government and its policies have put a fear into them.
Now we have the irresponsible statement from the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) to the effect that "PCs hurt PS morale". We are not the government, we have nothing to do with the hiring of these servants, and nothing to do with the fear this government is putting into the service. For a Fiberal member to try to blame us for this situation in the civil service is absolutely ludicrous. This ridiculous statement that "PCs hurt PS morale" is now being considered by the civil service in Ottawa. This article states:
Ottawa West MP Lloyd Francis accused the Opposition ... of undermining the morale of the public service with ill-founded, abusive attacks.
The situation is exactly the opposite. 1 would suggest to government members, including the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), that they should start reading some of these articles about some civil servants to find out what is going on in the public service, because you cannot operate a government department or any government operation while putting that type of fear into the minds of employees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: You can yell at me and ridicule all you want. I did not write these articles; civil servants wrote them.
We can talk about taxes, sales taxes and all the rest, but we are never going to be able to accomplish sales tax reductions, or reductions to the extent of $500 million, with this type of threat to the public service, with public servants having to live with these conditions.
Income Tax Act
I do not know whether any government members intend to speak this afternoon. Perhaps we will hear something from the Minister of Finance tomorrow when we are in committee of the whole in respect of what action the government will be taking to deal with this mass exodus of business and investment money from Canada. I hope he will give us some information on this very serious matter. I will be questioning him in this regard, but I hope that he will make a statement.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before making a few remarks about the bill I want to say at the outset that I agree with and support wholeheartedly the main purport of the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). All of us in this chamber, as well as several million Canadians, are engaged in a struggle to preserve, maintain, enlarge and renew our confederation. Every hon. member of this House is committed to that. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, the hon. member for Halifax holds a special place in the hearts and minds of members and millions of Canadians, a place that the rest of us would like to occupy. Not only do I have a great deal of respect and admiration for that hon. gentleman, we even do our hair the same way!
Nobody in this House has the business or the right to get up and call into question the desires of any hon. member or any party in this House regarding the strengthening and renewing of confederation. Using words such as "hatred" and "liar" does not only detract from the efforts all of us want to make, it adds nothing. I may disagree with the official opposition party, its policies and ideas, which I think are nothing more than a renewal of those of R. B. Bennett, but certainly each member of that party as well as others in this House has the same desire, goal and objective. That applies as well to colleagues in my party, the Creditiste members and the three independent members in this Chamber.
The Minister of Finance, his parliamentary secretary, and other government spokesmen have drawn a longbow in attempting to maintain they did not have unanimous agreement or a commitment from the ten provinces in respect of measures the government wanted to take on the levying of retail sales taxes. The Minister of Finance has put forward as an excuse that Quebec announced 48 hours after the budget what it would do regarding its retail sales tax.
The Minister of Finance had no business bringing in a budget until he had a commitment or an agreement from all provinces. If he was lacking a commitment by the province of Quebec, Saskatchewan, or some other province, he could easily have delayed his budget by two days or a week.
Given the circumstances which occurred-the budget being brought down and then 48 hours later Quebec saying what it would do about retail sales taxes-we do have unanimous agreement on the part of the provinces of Canada to reduce retail sales taxes, including the province of Quebec. The fact that Quebec took its entire 8 per cent sales tax of five commodities means simply that the province reduced its retail sales tax, which, is entirely within the jurisdiction of that province, as it is within the jurisdiction of any other province.

June 7, 1978
Income Tax Act
It follows, then, that Quebec has complied with the wishes, intent and purpose of the federal budget.
If the Minister of Finance, his parliamentary secretary and others are correct that the separatist government of Quebec - that is, Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Levesque-are determined and intend not to co-operate in any respect with the national government, Mr. Parizeau would not, and I repeat would not, have had anything to do with a reduction of his sales tax, whether prior to, during or 48 hours after the budget. If there had been some justification for that statement by the Minister of Finance, surely that justification would have been in the actions of the government of Quebec. That has not been the case.
The Minister of Finance and others have overlooked some facts. The first fact I have already given: Quebec has reduced its retail sales tax in a manner that it feels suits Quebec best, and that is entirely its right and prerogative. In fact, I spoke to the minister of finance for Saskatchewan on the telephone last week.
I said to him that I wish that Saskatchewan had taken all 5 per cent of its retail sales tax off five selected commodities, such as farm trucks and clothing. Had they done so, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would be talking the same way in this House as he is about Quebec. If so, he would have created
900,000	new separatists in Saskatchewan. Our minister of finance in Saskatchewan, Mr. Smishek, has authorized me to say in this House that Quebec is entitled to $225 million from the federal government, that the federal government should give it to Quebec, that how Quebec adjusts its retail sales tax is entirely its prerogative, so long as they do not get a nickel more or less than Saskatchewan does.
The Minister of Finance and others on the government side have spoken about a contribution by the provinces to national economic recovery. Let us look at the contributions, Mr. Speaker. Saskatchewan chose to reduce their sales tax by 2 per cent for nine months. This amounts to a reduction of $54 million in Saskatchewan's retail sales tax revenue. Of that, $36 million will be made up by the federal government and $18 million is a contribution or a lost revenue by the province of Saskatchewan. In Quebec the removal of the 8 per cent sales tax in the five areas in which they decided to remove it amounts to a reduction of $340 million. I gave these figures a week ago in the House, and they have not been disputed yet by anyone from the finance ministry or on the government side of the House.
If Quebec obtains $225 million in tax room, their contribution to the national economic recovery as compared to Saskatchewan's $18 million will be $115 million, the difference between 340 million and 225 million. That is in direct proportion, for if you multiply Saskatchewan's contribution to national economic recovery by six, you come very close to the amount of the contribution that Quebec is making by removing an 8 per cent sales tax from five different areas. It is also

in proportion to our populations. It is a decision that Quebec has the right to make under our constitution.
My leader, myself and others, including the hon. member for Halifax today, have spoken about our national unity and our confederation. We have said to the minister and the government, and I repeat it again: "Okay, you're wrong a little bit; why not admit it for the sake of national unity and confederation?" We do not need them running around talking about hatred and lying. I do not know of anybody on this side in this debate, for the time it has gone on, who has made those kinds of statements about members on the government side. All we are asking is for the government to say once in a while, and this is one of those occasions, that it just might be wrong. It may be much more statesmanlike, and it would make a much greater contribution to confederation, if they were to say, "We will bring in amended legislation." That we would accept. Whether or not the government of Quebec is right or wrong is their problem, but we accept their constitutional right and authority to deal with their retail sales tax in a manner which suits them the best.
Quebec's contribution to national economic recovery will be as much or more benefit to the manufacturing industry, employers and workers in Ontario as it will be to Quebec. In four of the five areas in which Quebec has removed their sales tax, the majority of the retail sales in those four commodities is manufactured in Ontario. Therefore, Quebec's move benefits Ontario as much as or more than it benefits manufacturers and workers in Quebec.
The fact is that all ten provinces have agreed to reduce their retail sales tax. Alberta has none. When the government talks and brags about their boast that, for the first time in the history of Canada, the national government has received the cooperation of all the provinces in an area which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, Quebec agreed and Quebec did, in fact, reduce its retail sales tax. I would have thought that this situation would allow the members of the Liberal party and the members of the parties in the opposition to go back to Quebec and say, "Aaha! Where are those separatists now?"
Instead of that, the government has brought in legislation in a manner which plays into the hands of the separatists and reinforces their arguments about economic association, sovereignty or separatism. They have played into their hands, and we in the opposition parties who are joined in the struggle to preserve, enlarge and renew our confederation object to legislation that plays into the hands of those who want to divide this country. The reality is that Quebec has reduced its retail sales tax, and whether the Minister of Finance likes how they have done it or not does not matter. It is their right. I wish that Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Nova Scotia would have decided to knock their sales tax off in five selected areas. They would still be cooperating and making a commitment and living up to it. I wonder if the Minister of Finance would have come to parliament then and accused Saskatchewan, B.C. or Nova Scotia of trying to break up this country. I doubt that he would.
June 7, 1978

This paranoid Liberal government which has brought about measures that have increased dissension in this nation is now preparing to go to any lengths, including closure, to do what it could have done much easier with the unanimous agreement of every member in this chamber, and that is to provide to the government of Quebec the full amount of money that they are entitled to in this budget and agree that Quebec, like any other province, has the sole right to levy a retail sales tax in any manner they see fit. Quebec would then be answerable to their own public about whether or not the manner in which it was done was proper. It is not the prerogative of the federal parliament to decide whether or not a retail sales tax levied by any province is proper. It is none of our damned business. The fact is that ten provinces have now, today, agreed to reduce and amend their retail sales tax legislation, and they are in fact cooperating with and are committed to what the minister's objectives were in the budget in the first place.
I have one other point to make before I sit down, Mr. Speaker. The minister today spoke about a big increase in retail sales in April and May of this year as compared to April and May of last year. This reminds me of the old vaudeville joke when they asked the guy, "How is your wife?" and he says, "Compared to what?" If you compare retail sales for April and May of this year with April and May of last year, which was a bad year, anything that happens this year is an improvement over last year. It is mythology when the government speaks about the fantastic results that have already occurred in April and May as a consequence of their budget. There is no doubt that it has probably helped, but surely that is no justification for doing a disservice to our constitution with regard to the sovereignty of the provinces.
If the Minister of Finance really wanted to do something about national economic recovery, he could pay attention to what the minister of finance for Saskatchewan said in the legislature on the same night that the Minister of Finance brought down his budget in this House. Referring to Saskatchewan, Mr. Smishek said:
-our preference would have been for a permanent federal income tax reduction for low and middle income Canadians. That would have put cash into the hands of those who need it most and surely would have stimulated consumer spending-
Then he said:
I regret that the federal offer to participate in this tax cut came so late.
And a little later he had this to say:
Certainly, the finance ministers' meeting in January, or the first ministers' meeting in February would have provided an ideal forum for the federal government to present such a tax proposal to the provinces. But this did not take place.
Further, the minister of finance for Saskatchewan, as well as authorizing me to say in this House that Quebec should get its $225 million, went on to say:
In my view a better form of stimulus would be selected personal income tax reductions-
Income Tax Act
And later he said:
I am concerned that the federal government intruded into an area of provincial jurisdiction by trying to establish policy for the provincial retail sales tax.
He said, in effect: "We agree to co-operate; we are committed; we will live up to our word." There cannot be any question that Mr. Parizeau will not live up to his word about taking tax off five areas of retail sales for which they are responsible. They are committed to that and they are co-operating.
It will take only an amended bill to get unanimous agreement on the legislation. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary will tell us that they will do this very thing in committee of the whole, starting tomorrow. If they do, they will be surprised how fast this bill will go through.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, while I listened to the various speeches made by the previous speakers, it was obvious that Bill C-56 was presented to solve a fiscal problem due to a defective distribution of taxes, since the relations between Ottawa and Quebec have been constantly mentioned during the debate on the bill. Although it includes a good many things, we will no doubt be compelled to vote against it, because the procedure used to make that distribution makes no sense. Unfortunately, that bill has not succeeded in restoring order in the confusion we have witnessed for a couple of months.
For almost two months now we have been hearing in the House of Commons a debate where the speakers are inconsistent. It reminds me a remark made by the Speaker of the House of Commons on October 27, 1971 when he said, as reported on page 9086 of Hansard. He said:
If hon. members take five minutes of the question period to say that what the minister said is not what he said, and the minister replies that what he said was what he thinks he said, we might go on for a long time.
Then, we did not get any significant result. We have seen that occasionally and we saw it at the outset of this afternoon's proceedings. I would like now to get back to the bill. Since the beginning of that fight between the federal government and the provincial government over the tax issue, we have heard, as I said earlier, various speeches from the representatives of both Quebec and Ottawa governments. Here in this House, a publicity-seeking hon. member has succeeded in getting what he wanted, that is a one-day-out-of-the-House penalty. However, this is far from being a solution to the problem. Governments are so used to taking money out of the citizens' pockets through all kinds of taxes that they have forgotten the way to give that money back to the people. It is a pity to watch their performance.
In his statement in the House on May 17, 1978, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) mentioned, on page 5525, second column, and I quote:
The tax is very important.

June 7, 1978
Income Tax Act
It certainly looks like it, judging by the disputes it leads to. He goes on to say:
If I had decided just to pay by cheque, the increase in the expenditures of the federal government would have been more than $800 million. Everyone would have said that the Minister of Finance is increasing his expenditures, while in fact it would have just been a matter of transferring cash to the provinces to reduce their taxes.
In order to be imaginative and to do what I wanted to do without creating the false impression that we are spending money-and the ministers of finance agreed with me-I said we would reduce our taxes and they could increase their taxes. As we are collecting taxes, nobody has noticed what is happening.
People are so used to paying taxes that they hardly know what is going on.
-The federal tax in Ontario and elsewhere has been reduced by $100. The legislatures of Ontario. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the maritimes have introduced legislation increasing their income tax accordingly. However, as we collected it, nobody noticed.
That is curious. What I am reading is in the proceedings of the House.
The ways our governments use in the field of taxation, income tax and other forms of draining the taxpayers' pockets are so varied and complex that wage earners, especially, wonder what is happening with the leaders of the country or the provinces when they cannot understand why there are so many deductions on their pay cheque at the end of the week.
Further in the same speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said and I quote:
The other provinces have increased their taxes already and we have effectively decreased our taxes for them since the night of the budget by collecting them for them.
This is the kind of formula that reduces taxes by increasing them. It is quite ludicrous but ludicrous things often happen here. The bill to amend the Income Tax Act and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions submitted on May 15, 1978 by the Minister of Finance of Canada includes amendments to the Income Tax Act and creates as always some implementation difficulties that force the large majority of taxpayers to hire an accountant to file their returns and those costly services are always paid by those whose salary or income has been reduced by the taxation, deduction, adjustment and readjustment system and we could also mention tax transfers, according to the whim of our corrupt provincial system that forces governments to Find all kinds of ways to collect taxes under various forms in an attempt to balance an adverse budget.
We should not forget that this bill is submitted in particular circumstances following a strategic error that contributed to create a climate of uncertainty, hesitation and indecision with the result that the people of Canada and particularly the people of Quebec are watching the reactions of the members of the government and some of them try to figure out the number of mistakes made by the servants of those who really control
[Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).l
our political puppets. In an editorial of the Wednesday May 17, 1978 issue of the newspaper La Presse, we can read comments that cast some doubts about the real value of the federalism proclaimed by politicians of various stripes. I quote:
Since November 1976 the federal government has been proclaiming everywhere the superiority of federalism over the separatist option but its behaviour is often a parody of true federalism. It resorts to trickery and overwhelming political clout in cases where only good faith and co-operation between the two levels of government should be the rule of the game. Is it not showing it quite clearly once again by choosing to override a provincial government which resists its interference in order to deal directly with the taxpayers?
It will undoubtedly justify its behaviour by suggesting that one cannot reach an understanding with a separatist government which is bound to prove that federalism cannot work. Yet could it not be that the only way to counter such tactics is to rigorously apply the federalist principles: absolute respect for the jurisdictions of each level of government, untiring patience in the quest for dialogue and consultation, constant desire to reach an honourable political compromise? Just as the value of democracy cannot better be demonstrated than by always introducing more democracy in the field of social relations, the superiority of federalism cannot be better demonstrated than by applying it with absolute respect for its rules.
In the Ottawa-Quebec dispute should the federal government not be the first to set the example of the virtues of federalism?
Yet, if the central power suspects the PQ government of acting in bad faith, why does it not try to let everyone be a judge of it by acting itself in an irreproachable manner in this respect?
In another article in Le Devoir of Wednesday, May 17, 1978, one could read, and I quote:
Far from alleviating concerns, the recent decision by the federal government with respect to the sales tax will have only managed in Quebec to throw oil on the fire and cement the solidarity of parliamentarians of all parties around the position being defended by the Levesque government.
So, for the second time in less than a month the National Assembly once again denounced yesterday by a unanimous vote Ottawa's attitude in this dispute with Quebec, and specifically asked federal members of Parliament to defeat the bill tabled on Monday in the Commons by the Minister of Finance.
It goes on to say:
In a quasi-solemn atmosphere that is usually reserved for important occasions, the Assembly unanimously reiterated its support to Mr. Parizeau and asked the federal government to "stop its foolishness before it is too late".
We were so used to reading articles by reporters, a strong percentage of whom seem to go out of their way to criticize the social credit doctrine without having studied it properly, that particular events were needed to bring them to comment on the adverse effects of the financial system which are the cause of that tax war which broke out at the time of the presentation of a federal budget a few days before that of a provincial government, at a time when it is costing Canadian taxpayers over $100,000 a day to support the floating dollar.
However, it is easy to see that the record current account deficit which reached $4.2 million last year was a capital factor in the depreciation of the Canadian dollar. Most of those problems could have been avoided if the government of Canada had decided to adopt a financial policy more in line with the needs of Canadian taxpayers.
For over a month we have been reading varied comments on that famous tax fight between the federal government and the

June 7, 1978
provincial government. I could quote a series of newspaper articles but in view of the time I am allowed I would like to give perhaps someone else the opportunity to speak for a few minutes before the debate ends. Before I sit down, I would like to add that it will be impossible for me to support this bill as it does not contain what is required to straighten out the present disorder that was created precisely on a matter of bad tax distribution among Canadian taxpayers. The government of Canada did not have to take away their power of taxation from the provincial governments. There are so many federal taxes weighing on the people of Canada that it could have eliminated taxes in its own departments.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) who accepted to give me a few minutes of his time before the end of this debate not on sales tax, but on the budget tabled in this House on April 10. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Kamouraska was indicating a few moments ago that the Quebec government is quite sincere. I would like right away to show an aspect of what is the Parti Quebecois. I would even ask the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to pay close attention because I have a very telling document to read in the House, and that will be very important. Here is, Mr. Speaker, how it reads:
Dear Sir:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter concerning the applicability of the Quebec retail sales tax to footwear.
First I would like to emphasize my interest in the development of the Quebec footwear industry, which is now going through a very difficult period.
However, as regards your request to eliminate the sales tax on footwear to stimulate Canadian production, I do not believe that this would be a useful means to attain the desired effect. Indeed, in view of the low rate of Canadian independence in this sector, which is about 36 per cent, I am convinced that to stimulate this industry, the setting of quotas on imports is a much more effective tool than a sales tax reduction which would deprive the government of $42 million in 1978.
As a matter of fact, in this regard, the Anti-dumping Tribunal has very clearly stated that the problems of the Canadian footwear industry are caused mainly by massive imports. This is also the opinion of the Quebec government and this is why I have made representations to the federal government to ask it to negotiate under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs quotas that would limit for a few years the quantity of footwear imports at the 1975 level. Indeed, the federal government has recently announced its intentions in this regard. Please be assured that the Quebec government will see to it that the announced quota policies will be respected.
In short, we must attack the source of the problem, that is we must reduce imports, and interventions like the elimination of the sales tax on footwear are only band-aid solutions which cannot settle the problems of the footwear industry, as, among other factors, more than 60 per cent of the tax reduction would apply to imported products.
You can be assured that the Quebec government is deeply interested in the situation of the Quebec footwear industry.
Yours sincerely,
Jacques Parizeau Minister
Income Tax Act
Mr. Speaker, this letter was addressed to Mr. Jean-Guy Maheu, care of the Canadian Association of Shoe Manufacturers, and it is dated January 3, 1978. This letter recognizes the work done by the present Minister of Finance when he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as concerns quotas for the footwear industry, textiles, clothing and shipbuilding. Mr. Speaker, he followed in the steps of another Quebecker, the former minister of industry, trade and commerce, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin and the present minister of this department (Mr. Horner) is actually following on the same course of action. I wanted to point out today, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance is seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to whom I say in passing that he should take his orders from his leader instead of playing the role of Conservative ambassador to Premier Levesque in Quebec. That is what he should do, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) on a point of order.


Mr.   La Salle@: I simply do not want to say that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) has lied, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to say that, but once again, as the Minister of Finance and many others, he is misleading the population when he says that I am an ambassador. I am not an ambassador but I know others who would not have minded being appointed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 1 suggest that is not a point of order but a point of dispute between two members.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the few minutes the hon. member made the House waste, while adding a few more when he chided Quebeckers for not taking part in the debate. But I want to tell the truth, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that same hon. member whether he has disowned his leader with regard to the sales tax, when he goes for his orders to the Quebec premier. I think he is quite talkative when it comes to the sales tax and slightly less with regard to the Roy bill which Mr. Davis, the Ontario premier . . .


Mr.   La Salle@: That is none of your business!


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Oh yes, none of my business, he says. Mr. Speaker, he repudiates and has little to say when the Ontario premier says that he would campaign side by side with the Progressive Conservative leader. I trust the hon. member for Joliette will be there too. Then we will see to what extent he makes small politics in this House.
6172

June 7, 1978
Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to the order made on June 6, 1978, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith any questions necessary to dispose of the motion before the House.
The question is on the motion in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the business for tomorrow. Does the Minister of Finance have an amended ways and means motion of which he could give us notice now?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I replied to that question earlier. I made a proposal to the opposition, but they refused it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: No, we did not.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.12 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 8, 1978