1978-06-02

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the last two days 1 have heard a large number of complaints about the revised salary schedules which were tabled on Wednesday. There is a great deal of puzzlement, to say the least, over the fact that a member's principal secretary's salary has been frozen, while the top executive category, already paid over $40,000 per year, receives a full 6 per cent permanent increase.
While accepting that a readjustment in all salary levels is necessary to correct any overclassification which may have occurred, I think morale has been harmed by the selective and mysterious manner in which this occurred. I, therefore, ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House requests the tabling of all documents, papers and memoranda on which House of Commons staff salary revisions, tabled in this House on May 31, were based, particularly those which compare House of Commons classifications with public service classifications and those which explain the differentials between positions within the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some hesitation about whether the motion put forward relates to any administrative responsibility of the government. It is the responsibility of parliament and, indeed, one in which I have a representative capacity. While not a government responsibility, it would be clearly a parliamentary responsibility, so I will ask if there is unanimous consent to put the motion.
Presentation of the motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of serious and pressing necessity. For the law to be respected and obeyed, it must be clear, concise and free from ambiguity. Every Canadian, according to our system of jurisprudence, is entitled to know what the law is.
In light of the former changes in the law contained in the Criminal Code of Canada as to soliciting, vagrancy and prostitution, and in the words of one judge, persons will be tried for offences which are not contrary to the law but merely for publicity purposes, creating a false, unnatural, and unwarranted punishment, and in light of the fact that in some places certain police enforcement officers are used as decoys as a method of cracking down on activities that may or may not be illegal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the questions of soliciting, vagrancy and prostitution be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study and recommendation, with the right of the committee to hear witnesses giving their views and opinions with reference to all matters pertaining to the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent of the House is required for the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the many problems and animosities stemming from the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify the Canada-U.S. interim agreement on fisheries, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That this House orders the Canadian section of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group to convene at the earliest possible moment a special meeting in Washington in order to explain to our congressional colleagues the need for ratification of the interim agreement, so that the fishermen of our two countries may gain their livelihood under this pro tern arrangement pending the conclusion of a more binding agreement between the two countries.

June 2, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR LOCALLY BASED FISH MARKETING BOARD IN NWT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that commercial fishermen in the Northwest Territories are most dissatisfied with the services provided to them by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, with headquarters in Winnipeg, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board be replaced in the Northwest Territories by a locally based marketing board which can more effectively meet the needs of the commercial fishing industry in the Northwest Territories.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that today is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House extend to Her Majesty, on behalf of the people of Canada, wannest greetings and sincere best wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[.Editor's Note: The House rose and sang God Save the Queen and O Canada.]

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In 1974, the Canadian government banned the use of diethylstilbestrol or DES, a carcinogenic growth hormone which was fed to cattle to promote weight gain. I have just learned that "Radio Noon", a CBC Toronto program, has tested ten samples of beef liver, five Canadian and five American, from four different stores. Despite the ban, nine of these samples were found to contain DES with a level as high as 3,720 parts per billion. Levels as low as two parts per billion have been shown to be toxic in tests of laboratory animals. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House call for an immediate investigation of the inspection procedures for meat and livestock products imported into Canada and produced in Canada to determine the reasons for the failure of the DES ban and to make recommendations for any changes necessary to avoid a repetition of this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, who telephoned me this morning to describe the position he had taken in the unsuccessful negotiations with the province of Quebec yesterday regarding the sales tax question. The minister confirmed in that telephone conversation that the federal government continues to refuse the kind of direct payment to the provinces, particularly to the province of Quebec, that is sought by the National Assembly of Quebec and is accorded to every other province. The House knows that there is no regular tax transfer agreement with Quebec. Why did the Minister of Finance of Canada not accept a one-time only tax transfer agreement covering the $100 abatement?
June 2, 1978


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am responding exactly to the wish of the Leader of the Opposition as expressed in a speech he delivered Sunday last when he said: We demand that the equivalent of the amount represented by the tax cut, that is $226 million, be paid in full to the province of Quebec. And we have decided to transfer back to Quebec residents the equivalent of $226 million as requested by the Leader of the Opposition.
Of course, yesterday we tried to make two proposals to the Quebec government, the first one along the lines of Mr. Ryan's formula whereby the tax income reduction would be made in 1978 instead of 1977 but Mr. Parizeau rejected it. We tried to make a further proposal which would have caused me to accept some of his proposals if he were prepared to accept some of mine and he refused. I stated on many occasions yesterday that obviously Mr. Parizeau and the Quebec government have only one thing in mind, to prove that there is no way to deal with the federal government. What we are trying to do is to develop a national policy on economic incentives, and economic success for the Canadian government is certainly not something which meets the political purposes of the separatist government in the province of Quebec.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister was a little more clearcut in his attribution of this proposal to Mr. Ryan in his statement than he was in his communique. In his press communique, he said it was not the same as, but similar to, the proposal made by Mr. Ryan. I am sure Mr. Ryan will be quite prepared to clarify that difference himself.
1 am pleased to know that the minister is now reading and quoting my excellent speeches: that might redound to the better governing of the country. He knows the difference between what we proposed and what he has done. We have proposed to let the government of Quebec, as with the governments of other provinces, have that money. He is proposing some form of payment via individual citizens. He is proposing to change the system with the province of Quebec.
My question is this: In the second proposal that the Minister of Finance made yesterday, according to his communique he proposed to make a one-time only transfer to the province of Quebec on condition that the Government of Canada is allowed to dictate the way a province uses a provincial jurisdiction. The minister knows that that condition is unacceptable to the government of Quebec. He knows it is unacceptable to Mr. Ryan. Indeed, it is unacceptable to anyone else who respects the constitution of Canada. The minister is prepared to make a one-time only tax transfer in a way that violates the constitution. My question is quite simple: Why will he not agree to make it in a way that respects the constitution of Canada?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am respecting the constitution all the way. Mr. Parizeau, or any government, can do what they want in their field. In fact, Mr. Parizeau has done it so much that he has selectively cut the sales tax for 12 months. It is done. I have not intervened. As there is no agreement with Mr. Parizeau, and he does not want an agreement, I do not want to penalize the citizens of Quebec. I am reducing the income tax of Quebeckers in exactly the same way as I have done for those in Ontario and New Brunswick. On the night of the budget I reduced the federal income tax by $100. They increased their provincial sales tax by $100 and followed a procedure of cutting the sales tax.
What I did on the night of the budget was reduce the income tax of the other provinces which have sales tax. 1 have no agreement with Quebec. 1 tried to get an agreement. I made five different proposals. There is no way I can get any agreement with them. 1 am doing now exactly what I did on the night of the budget with the other provinces in reducing the income tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Finance must, surely, by now recognize that it is not exactly the same when the citizens of one province receive a cheque from the federal government and the citizens of other provinces do not receive a cheque. That is not the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: One of the proposals that the federal government has put forward-it is one that we on this side of the House would like to see considered with some calm-has the serious disadvantage of delaying the economic stimulus in Quebec for at least a year. Indeed, it may have the consequence of forcing the Quebec government to raise taxes, which it is not in a position to do with ease before that time. Naturally, the chief victims of an arrangement like that will be the people of the province of Quebec.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance this question: Assuming there is some progress affecting the tax year 1978- affecting that proposal-would the federal government be prepared to give the most serious consideration to including in any agreement that might be arrived at, some provision that might bring stimulus to the province, the economy and the people of Quebec this year, when it is needed, rather than causing the people of that province to suffer because of a determination to disagree on the part of two governments?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is exactly why I decided to take the list of the taxpayers of 1977, to make sure that the money was available to assist the Quebec economy this summer. The one disadvantage of the Ryan formula would be that the money would be in the hands of the taxpayers of Quebec only in the spring of 1979. In order to stimulate the economy right now, 1 have decided to go with the taxpayers' list of 1977. If the hon. gentleman would prefer me to take the 1978 list, 1 could do

June 2, 1978
Oral Questions
that; but the money would be in the pockets of federal taxpayers only in the spring of 1979. That was the formula proposed by Mr. Ryan, and I am willing to go along even if, economically, it makes less sense than what I have proposed.


Charles Joseph Clark: We all know what has been proposed by Mr. Ryan. His position is far clearer than that taken by the Government of Canada. Yesterday the minister apparently indicated some willingness to accept the 1978 base, something which would have delayed a certain economic stimulus to the economy of that province this year, when it is needed, as the hon. gentleman has just admitted. I hear that the former minister disagrees with the present minister. I know that the Liberal caucus is full of disagreement on this question. But let members opposite resolve their differences internally, and let the Minister of Finance address himself to the question I have asked.
Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of talking and shouting going on over there. I know how nervous they are about this subject, but 1 ask the Minister of Finance to address himself to the question I put to him. If he does come back to that proposal to move to the 1978 base, will he undertake to enter into some arrangement with the province of Quebec? 1 do not know what it might be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are quite prepared to propose a number of them. One would simply be to respect the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec and to end this attempt to interfere with provincial jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But the government refuses to do that.


An hon. Member:: They want a confrontation.


Charles Joseph Clark: I ask the minister, seriously, in the interests of the taxpayers of Quebec and in the interest of equity, to give us an undertaking in principle that if there is to be an agreement relating to 1978, he will ensure that the people of Quebec will not become victims, economically, of this dispute between two governments which appear to be increasingly stubborn?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I say, again, to make sure that the Quebec people will not suffer at all, that if the hon. member will vote on the bill today, the cheques will be in the mail next month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I called the hon. member this morning because I thought he had some problem of understanding. It appears my call was not very useful. I repeat that I am not interfering in the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. They have cut their sales taxes in the way they wished. They can cut all the taxes in their field they wish. They would go bankrupt very quickly-they are close to it-but there is nothing 1 can do about it. It is within their jurisdiction. I am reducing

personal income tax for the federal taxpayers of the province of Quebec.


SELECTIVE SALES TAX CUTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: The minister has indicated that the Ryan proposal, as one way of extricating us from this mess, is not the best one in terms of stimulating the economy of the province. Upon reflection, I agree with him. In this respect the minister at least agrees with the government of Quebec. That government, too, rejected the Ryan formula as not providing the kind of stimulus needed this year.
If that is so, would the minister confirm that the second part of his so-called new proposal for selective sales tax cuts is, in its substance, precisely the same as his original proposal, in the sense that the federal government is still insisting that the Quebec government cut for some period of time all the sales taxes in that province as a condition of getting any federal payment at all?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a condition that we have a collection agreement. Since Maurice Duplessis there has been no collection agreement between the federal government and the Quebec provincial government. If the hon. member now recognizes that the Ryan formula is not perfect, why did he move a motion in the House of Commons on Thursday, May 25, urging me to accept the Ryan formula?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the minister's remarks earlier today regarding his proposals. I would have thought that he would at least do the courtesy of reciprocating an attitude which I have. As I said, on reflection-not just today, but previous to today-I have seen the implications of the Ryan formula. I am appealing to the federal government to show the same flexibility as some of the rest of us in this country are prepared to show in this matter.
As I understand the second part of the minister's proposal, that is, the selective sales tax proposal remaining in the province of Quebec, with some subsidization coming in direct payment from the federal government, it is still an insistence by the federal government that the province of Quebec impose a unive nuales tax on all commodities. If that is the case, would the minister not agree that he has come all the way back to his original proposal, which still amounts to his insisting that the federal government impose certain priorities on the provincial government which are within the constitutional right of that province?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in my second proposition of yesterday I came a long way. I said that even if I did not agree with the selective sales tax system proposed by the Quebec government, I would pay part of it. Quebec could have it forever, if it wanted, but I would pay two-thirds for nine months, as I have agreed to do for Saskatchewan and British Columbia. There was some money left over on the table. I said
June 2, 1978

that if Quebec wanted a tax agreement, with that money it could cut sales taxes across the board for the rest of the items until October.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I say that the minister is showing an inflexibility which simply is not required in the circumstances. Would the minister confirm that what the Quebec government wants is no more money than any other province?
Second, would the minister agree, because this has not been challenged in the debate, with the fact that I put on the record more than a week ago, that the job impact of the tax cut proposal coming from the province of Quebec would likely create more jobs in the province of Ontario than in the province of Quebec, and as such it is not a balkanization measure?
If the minister agrees with both those points, why can he not admit frankly that he was mistaken in his original judgment, and accept the proposal of the Quebec government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons. Mr. Parizeau made his cut 48 hours after my budget. Before 1 rejected that, I took the liberty of calling some other ministers of finance in this land to ask them if the Quebec proposal was acceptable to them. They said no. I called three. We had previously had a unanimous agreement, so I did not have to call everybody. After I had called three, I knew there was no possibility of agreement, so I could not accept the proposal at that time.


Mr. Stevens:: Who were the three?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In addition, Mr. Parizeau went for a full year. British Columbia cut its sales tax by two points for a full year although I recognized only nine months. Following that, they are on their own. I do not see why Quebec should not be on its own after nine months, like British Columbia.


SALES TAX-FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, in fact, he reopened the discussions with the province of Quebec about changes in the sales tax issue. I should like to ask if he has undertaken to have similar discussions with the governments of the other provinces, notably the government of Manitoba, which had originally proposed to use 1 per cent of the sales tax reduction for direct job-creation programs, and also with the province of Alberta which had been ignored in any discussion of income tax rebates.
Has the minister, therefore, reopened discussions with the other provinces, now that he has proposed making changes on the whole sales tax issue with one province?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. I discussed it with all finance ministers prior to
Oral Questions
the budget. I asked Alberta: Can I help you reduce your sales tax? The minister said: I do not have any. So that settled the matter. I told him: There will be other measures in the budget to help the economy of Alberta. That was settled. In Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and in all provinces, what I did was reduce the income tax on budget night so that they could increase theirs. What I propose today for Quebec is to reduce the income tax for Quebec residents. The Quebec minister of finance can do what he wants in his jurisdiction. He can cut the taxes he wants, that is his business. As for me, I am cutting the income tax of Quebec taxpayers.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given the fact that the Minister of Finance went into such detail this morning to explain that he had made different arrangements, or had proposed different arrangements, I would have thought he would have considered it courteous, at least, to have conveyed that information to his counterparts in the other provinces.
I should like to ask a supplementary question. Because of the uncertainty and confusion which now surrounds this entire sales tax issue, because of the fact that there would be real interest in the other provinces if any changes were contemplated to be put into effect, and because by its actions of yesterday the Government of Canada has indicated that it really has no clear idea as to where this issue will eventually take us, will the minister, in the interests of common sense and, more important, in the interests of national unity, agree to withdraw the bill from debate in the House at the present time until negotiations with the province of Quebec and, indeed, with the other provinces have been completed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are reducing the federal income tax for the federal taxpayers in Quebec. I am acting within my jurisdiction, and Mr. Parizeau can do whatever he wants in his own jurisdiction. But I want to tell the hon. member something, that it will not be the separatist government of Quebec which will run the economic affairs of this nation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the minister denied that anyone had claimed that Cubans were involved in the Zaire situation. Today, the Carter administration, which is providing evidence that Cuban soldiers in Angola played a role in the Katangan invasion of Shaba province in Zaire, is preparing special broadcasts to tell the Cuban people how Cuban troops are being used as a surrogate force to advance Soviet strategic aims in Africa, and is further backing up its claim by consider-

June 2, 1978
Oral Questions
ing the cancellation of U.S. charter flights to Cuba and the cancellation of athletic exchange programs.
Since there is a split between the American and Canadian view of Cuban involvement in Zaire, will the Canadian government now revise its view and take similar steps to those taken by the Carter administration to pressure Cuba to get out of Africa.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have not seen the report to which the hon. member refers; however, I am sure it is an accurate assessment. I do not think it reflects any split. I said yesterday that there was no hard evidence; certainly, the impression I wanted to convey was that there was no hard evidence-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I cannot answer and listen at the same time. Maybe the hon. member would give me the opportunity to answer him; then I will be glad to deal with a supplementary question.
I do not think there is any question that there are Cubans in Angola. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that there is some relationship between that and the activities in Zaire. I was simply stating the fact that it was not a proven situation and that a number of countries-among them, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium, to name just a few-at least five or six, made the point that it had not been specifically proven in the case of Zaire. That is not to say-I repeat-that anyone is condoning Cuban, Soviet or other interventions in Africa.
In terms of what the United States is now doing, I have had consultations with Secretary of State Vance. I repeat to the House what I said yesterday, that if there is any way, either through the Security Council or through other initiatives taken by the United States or other allies, whether they be in NATO or elsewhere, to end foreign interventions in Africa, we will be fully supportive of them and we will use whatever techniques appear to be most appropriate in our circumstances to reinforce that view.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, Zbigniew Brzezinski, special adviser to the president, said:
Any sensible person who sees what is going on in Angola will reach a very obvious conclusion.
This relates to the Cuban involvement in Zaire. I want to ask the minister a supplementary question. Since Canada has provided $13.3 million in aid to Cuba in the last three years, will the minister now formally terminate that aid, as distinct from just letting it run down, to enable Canada to go before the UN Security Council with some credibility in urging that body to give immediate study to the grave implications of Cuba having a total of 43,000 troops in 14 African nations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, the hon. member uses a highly selective technique. He quotes Mr. Brzezinski without acknowledging that, of course, there is
[Mr. Roche.1
quite a substantial difference of opinion even within the U.S. administration. There have been a number of spokesmen, including the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who have expressed a quite different view. However, that is beside the point in this regard.
In so far as speeding-up or terminating what is happening with relation to CIDA in Cuba is concerned, I will be glad to take a look at that. I am told that the amounts now are absolutely minimal and that, in fact, there would be grave difficulties and problems in so far as Canadians are concerned if we were to terminate abruptly. But I will take a look at it. Frankly, I do not think it is all that substantive in terms of the much more important declaration that I have made and the Prime Minister has made that we are not contemplating, now, giving any additional assistance of this kind to Cuba.


Mr. Paproski:: We want our DC-8s back.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the report tabled in the House, in response to question No. 135, which stated that an assistant deputy minister of fisheries, now retired on full pension and appointed as chairman of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, has been given $62,750 worth of consulting contracts by the government within the past two years as a means of providing some money to him, I ask the minister whether he would seriously consider designating the chairmanship of the corporation as a salaried position so that the fishermen can see directly whether they are getting value for their money.


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: The fishermen might be happy to know that the salary paid to the chairman of the corporation is out of general funds, not out of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation's money which belongs to fishermen.
I recognize the difficulty of the position being unsalaried. Mr. Bradbury, having long-standing expertise in the area of saltfish, agreed to stay on as chairman at my request. He also undertook to work in the area of marketing, also at my request. In the future, I hope that if chairmen of corporations of this type are going to spend a great deal of time in that position, and not only preside at meetings, we might find a way to pay them out of the normal system.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, did Mr. Bradbury's predecessor also receive an indirect salary in this manner and, if not, why is Mr. Bradbury, his wife, his two sons and his daughter, who are all officers of W. & R. Bradbury Holdings Incorporated, considered a special case?
June 2, 1978


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want the implications of his question to be interpreted as he hints. The payments are made to the company of which Mr. Bradbury is, I believe, chairman or one of the senior partners. He functions as chairman and as an adviser to me in the area of saltfish marketing. I do not know what the other members of his family have to do with the hon. member's question.


FINANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
I think there is a dilemma in addition to the question of the sales tax. I believe the minister knows that the National Assembly fought for a principle, that of selective sales tax cuts. So, can the minister say clearly that he is willing to come to an arrangement with the province of Quebec with regard to the reimbursement of funds, without rejecting the principle of selective sales tax cuts so that Quebec can use those funds according to the formula agreed upon by the minister and the Quebec government, without rejecting the principle of the selective cuts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I should like to repeat once again that the Quebec government can do what they want in their field of jurisdiction. They can cut the sales tax for 12 months; if they want to cut it for 20 months or three years, that is their business. As it is impossible to reach an agreement with them that can fit in with the national plan, I have decided, in order not to penalize Quebeckers, to reduce the income tax of Quebec citizens. If Mr. Parizeau needs more money from his taxpayers because he has spent too much by cancelling the sales tax, then he can increase his income tax. I cannot prevent him from doing so. But I do not see why I should collect the taxes Mr. Parizeau needs.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance understands my question quite well and his stubbornness concerns me. Can he say yes or no whether the Quebec government can rely on the federal generosity to meet its needs and cope with the Quebec facts? I would ask the minister not to beat around the bush. Is he willing to let Quebec use its millions without any cost to the federal treasury for the purposes already
Oral Questions
suggested and unanimously agreed to by the National Assembly?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the National Assembly think that the proposed selective tax cut-


Roch La Salle: Yes or no, period!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -is good for Quebec all they need do is vote for it. I am doing for Quebec what I have been doing for Ontario and New Brunswick. I am reducing the income tax for the Quebec taxpayers, the federal tax. If Mr. Parizeau needs funds, he should levy his own taxes. I am not standing in his way. It is his jurisdiction. The money allotted to Quebec will be reimbursed to Quebeckers as soon as the opposition will vote with us on the bill now under consideration.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As reported recently by Mr. J. T. Kennedy, the incoming president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Canada is faced with a serious shortage of skilled labour, especially in the metalworking trades, whereas fewer European tradesmen are coming to Canada.
Is the minister working with the provinces to provide more opportunities and incentives for young Canadians to train and apprentice as skilled craftsmen and provide more employment in a strong, growing manufacturing sector?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the field of education is within provincial jurisdiction, we work in very close co-operation with all of them under the Adult Occupational Training Act and our apprenticeship programs, with our emphasis being on the job-creation aspect. I am happy to say that the provinces are co-operating, particularly under the Adult Occupational Training Act.
We are entering into a new series of three-year agreements with the provinces. We are shifting our emphasis from simply the training aspect, where training seems to be needed, to training individuals for jobs which in fact will be available. The result of a recent study conducted in southern Ontario indicates that 75 per cent of the highly skilled jobs in the manufacturing industry were filled as a result of immigration rather than training of Canadians. I think that is an emphasis we have to change.

June 2, 1978
Oral Questions HOUSING


NON-PROFIT, CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Co-operative housing organizations have made representations to him indicating their belief that his propoals regarding non-profit and co-operative housing for the next year are unworkable. The existing program will come to an end by July 1. They propose continuation of the present programs while discussions are continued.
Has the minister considered these representations by cooperative housing organizations? If so, what was his response? Will he arrange to meet with these organizations and discuss these questions, as they have requested?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with these organizations. Officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are to meet with these people. They have done so already, and will do so next week. The assumption is wrong. Basically, the aims of the program are to make the non-profit program even more attractive to users, to penetrate more deeply down the income range and to provide for an income mix in projects. I believe the assumptions of these people are wrong. We will attempt to study with them some adjustment to meet some of their concerns. By and large, the aims of the program should meet their objectives.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not indicate whether he would be prepared to meet with these organizations. The minister said in his earlier statements, and again today, that he would like to get away from the past system of large-scale public housing projects and integrate low income families into other developments such as co-operative and non-profit housing. Can the minister explain how he expects the non-profit sector to accommodate low income families when he proposes to take away rent supplement payments which have made this kind of mixing possible in the past?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is quite to the contrary. We do not want to do away with rent supplements; indeed, we want to expand them. One of the proposals made to the provinces was to expand this section of the program. I do not know where they got this impression from, but it is a wrong reading of the tentative program. In fact, we do not want to do away with rent supplements; we want to increase them.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Recently, in Toronto, the Minister of National Defence stated that the death penalty should be restored for terrorists. He also cited the assassination of former Italian premier Aldo Moro as a

classic example of why terrorists should be executed. Of course, we have seen terrorists in action in Zaire, France, Turkey, etc.
Is the government planning to restore the death penalty for terrorists, as a warning to terrorists not to start in Canada and also as a warning to keep them away from Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Minister of National Defence is quoted correctly in the question.


Walter David Baker: He is.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the last round of Criminal Code amendments, and in the current ones, there are a number of measures designed to deal with terrorist threats. Fortunately, in this country we have not had instances of that occurring to any large degree.


Mr. Gillies:: Oh, come on. Have you never heard of the FLQ?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Certainly, we have not had the experience of other countries. It is not the intention to amend the law in the manner indicated by the question.


CABINET DISCUSSION ON REINSTATEMENT OF DEATH PENALTY FOR TERRORISTS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He said that he had not discussed this with his cabinet colleagues. I ask him, has he discussed it in cabinet? Does he intend to pursue this matter in cabinet and call for the restoration of capital punishment for terrorists?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: No,
Mr. Speaker. I think the report indicated that I was making this recommendation, if that is the way the question was put. It was not a recommendation; it was speculating on the things one could do to reduce terrorism.
When one looks at the situation in recent months, where most terrorist activities have been directed to the release of terrorists who are incarcerated, one must consider the alternatives to reduce terrorism which is aimed at the structures of our society and our democratic way of life.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. The Chief of the Defence Staff indicated during the estimates of the department that there could be a change in location because of the operating capability of the new fighter interceptors under consideration for purchase, the range being shorter than the present interceptor, the Voodoo.
June 2, 1978

Is it the government's intention, in order to maximize the operating capacity of these aircraft, to locate one squadron in the province of Newfoundland where there are at least three sites readily available which have been developed by the Americans for fighter interceptor squadrons?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, as the Chief of Staff said, "all options are open".


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that the province of Newfoundland does not have a major defence establishment within it, notwithstanding the undertaking by Canada in terms of union. I ask him this question: In view of the importance of surveillance because of the 200-mile economic zone and the limited capacity of our aircraft operating out of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, is it the intention of the government to locate at least one squadron of surveillance aircraft in eastern Newfoundland in order to increase their range and operating capability?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, that is not the intention. The long-range patrol aircraft which are used primarily for that purpose at Summerside and Greenwood at the present time will be moved totally to Greenwood, although other units will be moved into Summerside to compensate. Other units have been moved into Gander, which is becoming a very important base for us.
I understand the concern in Newfoundland and 1 have a deep concern that we have a presence in Newfoundland. My staff and I are looking at this seriously because of the great contribution Newfoundland has made not only to confederation but to the armed forces of Canada, which is very considerable indeed.


James Aloysius McGrath: You have left me speechless.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Then it is a rare occasion.


FISHERIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Will he confirm the recent report to the effect that the agreement between Canada and the United States has been suspended and Canadian fishermen will no longer be able to fish in American waters, nor will American fishermen be able to fish in our waters?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier this week that we would have some information one way or the other by the end of this week, and this will certainly happen. The hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs will be making a statement in a few moments.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Now that the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs will be making a statement, presumably questions will follow that statement.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. On the weekend, while the Prime Minister was out of the country, his cabinet colleague, the Minister of State (Small Business) gave a televised interview on CTV in which he made the following statement:
I think that there is a certain number of people who feel that the jobs of consequence and heft are not, in the economic area particularly, in the hands of any of the Toronto ministers-
I would ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of State (Small Business) has communicated to him this feeling that the portfolios held by him and his Toronto area colleagues are not, in the minister's words, "of consequence and heft", and what does the Prime Minister intend to do to rectify the situation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this question was asked in the House in my absence, perhaps in the absence of the hon. member as well, and it was answered satisfactorily by the Deputy Prime Minister, to my knowledge.


Charles Joseph Clark: That was not the question, nor the answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister about another statement made in the same interview by the Minister of State (Small Business) wherein he said that there is a natural disposition to identify the government with its leader. He also said that he is not unprepared to believe that there may be dissatisfaction with the English-speaking ministers from Toronto. I ask the Prime Minister whether, when the minister made that statement, he was expressing the feelings of the government; or was he speaking strictly for himself?


Mr. Abbott:: For myself.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously he was speaking as an individual.


PRESENCE OF DES CHEMICAL IN BEEF LIVER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. In 1974, the Canadian government banned DES-the short form for

June 2, 1978
Oral Questions
diethylstilbestrol-which is a growth stimulant put into cattle feed.
I have been informed that CBC Toronto took ten samples of beef liver, reportedly from stores, five Canadian and five American, and found evidence of DES in nine of the ten samples. Would the minister inquire how DES got into this meat, since the government has abolished the use of DES in Canadian cattle feed?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for advance notice of his question. I have been assured that our officials will look into this serious matter immediately.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, apparently the lab which tested the samples found the level of DES in some samples as high as 3,720 parts per billion, and laboratory tests on animals show that levels as low as two parts per billion are toxic.
In view of these startling revelations, and the fact the DES is banned in Canada, would the minister make representations to the appropriate officials to ensure that our meat inspection system is investigated and updated so that it will protect the Canadian consumer against this type of possible health hazard?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure all hon. members agree that we should not create false anxiety in the public mind, but we will have a complete investigation since, as the hon. member said-and rightly so-DES is banned in Canada and has been since 1974.


PIPELINES
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. It is in connection with the role and jurisdiction he has assumed with respect to the northern pipeline.
In light of the tabling of documents which refer to regulations which the pipeline companies will have to follow, is it the minister's intention, in view of the fact that there are so many inconsistencies, omissions and even contradictions in those initial documents, to reactivate the pipeline committee?
Secondly, is it the intention of the minister to make a statement in the House about the negotiations he and his officials are carrying on with the province of British Columbia, since the omissions I have mentioned refer to the fact that there is not yet any kind of socioeconomic impact or environmental impact study under way in that province, where most or a great part of the pipeline will be located?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at the moment to reactivate the committee on the north-

ern pipeline. The guidelines to which the hon. member has referred have been circulated in a preliminary way and there are bound to be suggestions from many sources, with resultant changes to the guidelines. That is the whole purpose of putting them into the public domain. As I recollect, there will be an opportunity for hearings and evidence to be heard in northern British Columbia with respect to the impact of the pipeline. It would be premature to reactivate the committee at this stage.
On the second question, with respect to negotiations with British Columbia, these are continuing. I believe there was a meeting this week in Ottawa among officials of the government of British Columbia and officials of the Government of Canada. At least, that was the intention earlier in the week. I have not yet had a report on the results of that meeting.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether he would reconsider reactivating the committee on the pipeline before the final decision as to the regulations and criteria are laid out. In other words, is there going to be parliamentary scrutiny in respect to the firming-up of these guidelines and regulations and parliamentary input into the final document?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the order which provided for the committee on the northern pipeline and its terms of reference was the result of inter-party consultation. All the views received from the hon. member for Yukon, who was acting as lead-man for the official opposition on the committee, had been cleared, so that I believe the terms of reference were broad enough to cover the items in the bill that were of interest to members of parliament.
I will look at the terms of reference and see at what stage, if at all, these types of guidelines might come before the committee. If that is part of the terms of reference to which we all agreed, then of course I would have absolutely no objection to having that kind of scrutiny take place.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks the government has encountered several difficulties with respect to the implementation of the 1978 Canada-U.S.A. interim fisheries agreement on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
On the Pacific coast the problem relates to the terms under which Canadian fishermen would be allowed access to waters in Washington state to troll for salmon.
June 2, 1978

On the Atlantic coast the problem relates to unrestricted U.S. scallop and pollock fisheries in the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank area, and what we view as excessive allowable U.S. catch levels for cod and haddock.
These difficulties were discussed at a meeting between Canada and U.S. officials in Washington on April 28, and at meetings between the Canadian and U.S.A. special negotiators for maritime boundaries in Ottawa on May 11 and 12, and again in Washington on May 26. At the May 26 meeting and during subsequent conversations, it has become clear that these problems cannot be resolved in a way that would protect Canadian interests.
My colleagues and I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the 1978 interim reciprocal fishery agreement cannot be implemented by the U.S. in a manner compatible with preserving and protecting our fisheries interests. Accordingly, I wish to announce that the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs has called in the United States ambassador and given him a diplomatic note stating that the Government of Canada is not prepared at this time to continue provisional implementation of the agreement. The note states that, consequently, U.S. fishing vessels will not be permitted to continue fishing operations in Canadian fisheries waters after 12 noon June 4. This means, of course, that the U.S. will take corresponding action against Canadian fishing vessels in U.S. waters.
The government has taken this action with great reluctance, but under the circumstances we believe it is the most appropriate means of maintaining a balance between the fishing interests of the two countries. I am confident that we can work out, on a co-operative basis, enforcement arrangements in the boundary regions that will avoid confrontation.
The problems we have experienced with the interim agreement demonstrate clearly the need for an early settlement of maritime boundaries and for a long term agreement on reciprocal fishing. My colleagues and I continue to believe that a comprehensive maritime boundaries-resources agreement, arrived at by negotiations, is the preferred means of providing for the effective and mutually beneficial management of maritime resources in Canada-U.S.A. boundary areas.
The government recognized that, in negotiating an over-all agreement of this kind, difficult problems remain for both sides in reconciling the various regional and industry interests. At the same time, it has become clear that a balanced and equitable agreement cannot be constructed on the basis of continued insistence by all concerned on their maximum demands. The difficulties which have led to the government's present decision are the best evidence of the need to replace a generalized interim agreement without institutional arrangements by a permanent, comprehensive agreement that places all the issues in an interrelated framework and includes effective mechanisms for interpreting the agreement and for the settlement of differences.
Fisheries
Ambassador Cadieux has been instructed to resume his negotiations and has been in touch with the U.S. negotiator, Ambassador Cutler, and they both agree that the suspension of the interim agreement need not and should not impede their negotiations which, as you know from the joint reports issued in October and March, have laid the basis for progress toward a comprehensive agreement. Thus, in an exchange of letters which is being released, the two negotiators have agreed to resume their negotiations on the long-term agreement. They have scheduled for June 19 and 20 the first of a series of meetings that are intended to lead to early recommendations on a comprehensive agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statement by the Secretary of State for Exernal Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) on the present status of the Canada-United States fisheries relations. While agreeing with the action that has been taken, it is a matter of some regret that it has become impossible to implement the 1978 Canada-U.S.A. interim fisheries agreement on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
It is my understanding that the 1978 interim agreement, intended to redress the 1977 situation on the west coast by providing for Canadian salmon fishing three to 12 miles, for an additional 54 miles along the United States coast. The United States wanted Canada to agree, categorically, not to fish salmon returning to U.S. waters, namely, Swiftsure Bank, as a conservation measure. We agree to this proposal as long as there was a conservation problem, and the area was closed for at least the last two or three years. But there is no conservation problem today in this area, so Canada did not agree to close down salmon fishing operations and the United States withdrew concessions for the additional 54 miles.
In the meantime, while agreement was provisionally applied, United States fishermen went to court under the acts in the United States to force enforcement. I believe this injunction will apply to Washington, Oregon, and California, but I do not believe it will apply to Alaska halibut-the minister can correct me if I am wrong-nor will it apply on the Atlantic coast. With this precedent on the west coast, however, the door to further difficulties is wide open. For example, on the Atlantic coast the 1978 interim fisheries agreement calls for the 1976 allocations as made by ICNAF for Georges Bank. The total allowable catch for 1976 amounted to 20,000 metric tons of cod and 6,000 metric tons of haddock, of which Canada received 15,600 tons of cod and 4,730 tons of haddock, with the balance allocated to the United States.
In 1977, however, the United States set domestic total allowable catches for cod and haddock at 20,000 metric tons for codfish and 6,000 metric tons for haddock, in other words, a 40 per cent increase in their fishing effort. That is an effort which took the whole total quota allocation as set by the scientists and by the officials of ICNAF for this area.
To add to the problem, in November the United States unilaterally further raised its allocations of cod and haddock to
6004

June 2, 1978
Fisheries
21,600 metric tons of cod and 10,500 metric tons of haddock simply by changing what is called their "by-catch" regulations, thus contravening section 8 of the 1977 agreement.
We must ask why the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) was silent when he knew this was happening. Why was the Secretary of State for External Affairs silent? Why did this matter not come up for discussion with U.S. officials over a year ago?
In the same area, in 1977, there was no management plan established by the United States for pollock or scallops. The U.S. overfished its pollock allocation by something like 3,000 metric tons on Georges Bank alone, and its allocation at that time was something like 6,000 metric tons. Why did the minister not raise his voice when he became aware of these facts?
We imposed quotas and restrictions on our scallop fishermen, for example, Mr. Speaker. We dragged them from Nova Scotia to a meeting here in Ottawa, and then in turn we had to drag the minister to Halifax in order to get a dispute settled that simply asked for the right of Nova Scotian fishermen to catch 850,000 pounds of scallops when the inshore ground fishery declined. This right was denied them by the minister, and he argued and fought over the matter for a period of some two months. While we did this to our own fishermen, the United States increased its scallop effort by 120 per cent in one year, and they increased their catch in one year by 180 per cent. Did this government complain? Well, if they did, where are the complaints on the record?
Overfishing of pollock and of scallops cannot help but result in lower total allowable catches for both species in future years. The United States will now most likely argue for a greater share in the future of all species based on their recent high percentages.
The situation to date in 1978 is obviously the same, with no plans, as far as I know, for total allowable catches of pollock or scallops by the United States, and with the United States claiming the "total" allocated for this area.
The 1977 fishing facts were known a long time ago. Steps should then have been taken to consult with the United States so that no further action would be taken without consultation. Unfortunately, public action has already prejudiced the situation. For example, how can the government expect Canadian fishermen to remain within their pollock quotas, in a fishery which comes under joint management between Canada and the United States, in the face of open quotas and in the face of open fishing effort by the United States fleet?
The action taken by the United States in ignoring the International Commission for North Atlantic Fisheries quotas is highly irrational in the face of joint scientific recommendations for this area. We obviously need a joint fisheries management plan for scallops. Canadian fishermen are now paying a very heavy price for the procrastinating policies of this government. Only yesterday, when asked whether this matter was discussed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was
[Mr. Crouse.l
in the United States, his response was-and I am paraphrasing-that there were too many other important things. There was no time for this fisheries problem. It seems there is only time for fisheries problems of this nature when there is an election on the agenda. But, in between, Mr. Speaker, there is no time for the fishermen and their problems.
In conclusion, I say to you that it is not helpful when the headlines scream "Canada Declares 'War' on U.S. fishermen". It is not helpful in any way whatsoever, because the U.S. buys some 70 per cent of our catch and is our most important customer. I hope that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have learned a lesson from what has happened and that they will be more diligent in their activities in trying to secure a resolution to what could be a very serious economic problem, not only in Nova Scotia but throughout the entire length and breadth of Atlantic Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the regrettable news that we have today, and I will elaborate on it in a moment, could not be a better symbol of the way in which the Government of Canada deals on the one hand with Canadian economic or job interest and, on the other hand, deals internally with our provincial governments.
Earlier today we saw the tough talking federal government in its response to a federal-provincial relationship issue. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is always ready to sort of loosen his tie, take off his jacket, and talk tough when it comes to dealing with other provinces in Canada, a sublimely inappropriate attitude in terms of federal-provincial relationships. But when it comes to dealing with economic interests of Canadians abroad, we get an entirely different attitude and response from the Prime Minister. It is a sort of quiet diplomacy that sees Canadian jobs and Canadian interests going down the drain. The problem in our fisheries is a perfect example. We have similar problems in the auto industry, with a loss of jobs, and similar problems in the electronics industry with the export of jobs to the United States. There is nothing done until a crisis is reached.
We have an announcement that there is a kind of war that will exist, or a no-man's land area, in the fisheries on both our coasts. A good part of the responsibility has to be directly attributed to the federal government's negotiating approach.
For over a year now there have been violations of the agreement on both coasts, and we have seen no public response coming from the federal government to redress the grievances of Canadian fishermen. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and, no doubt, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) will say, "Well, Canada lived up to its side of an interim agreement." The problem is that interim agreements with the United States, another federal system which operates somewhat differently from ours, in which the executive branch of the government is not able to enforce automatically an agreement in a way that can be done on this
June 2, 1978

side of the border, are precisely the kind of agreements into which the Government of Canada should not enter.
We should not enter into an interim agreement if that means we enforce our side of it in advance of the United States side, in a way which is detrimental to the interests of Canadian workers, whether they are fishermen or any other group of Canadian workers. Surely that is what we have here. 1 hope that this is a warning to the government for future courses of action, that any agreement entered into between Canada and the United States in the fisheries should not be enforced one day earlier on the Canadian side of the border than it is enforced on the American side of the border.
The second point I would make concerns the negotiating position of the Canadian government on this matter. For the last few months it has not been something of which Canadians should be totally proud. They have taken one position in substance on the east coast, and they have taken another position on logic on the west coast, and a third, as I understand it, in terms of the Alaska region. We cannot have a whole series of conflicting arguments and get anywhere in serious bargaining with another nation.
In conclusion, 1 want to say that I hope that the government, with the United States, can reach an early agreement in this area and that the agreement will be one which will be enforceable simultaneously on the part of both countries which will then simultaneously bring benefits to those employed in the fisheries on both sides of the border.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, naturally a statement of this importance, which unfortunately did not reach me until just as the bells were ringing, requires a good number of questions. I have three or four here which I would like to put and which cover a variety of areas.
Is the minister prepared now to concede that this party has been right for a long time, that they ought to have more fisheries enforcement machinery in place in order to deal with the situation?
Because it seems to me we will now be faced with a matter of popgun diplomacy. Can the minister explain how he will enforce respect for Canadian waters, especially in the light of the flag-state enforcement principle which has been in existence, or whether he proposes to revert to the coastal state enforcement procedures? If so, how will he enforce this agreement and keep United States fishermen and other fishermen out of our waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the specifics, regrettably under this system it is not possible to hand questions of this nature to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) who would know the size of the fleet and the specific intentions with regard to enforcement, but I think a statement will be made on that. May I just parenthetically tell the House I will be glad to table the document relating to this, if there is agreement for me to do so.
Fisheries


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent to allow the minister to table the document mentioned ?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the substance of the hon. member's question, first I would hope that despite what the newspapers have said this morning, and I regret as much as the hon. member that these kinds of information leaks occur, we would not either employ the word "codwar" or "fishwar" or build this up as being a confrontation. I can assure the hon. member and the House that I had considerable discussions with the secretary of state in Washington on this matter. Both sides are most anxious. Having recognized there is genuine difficulty to avoid this type of thing, we will use common sense with regard to enforcement.
I am quite satisfied that in the case of the United States there will not be any escalation of the effort. We are beginning with a presumption which I think is reasonable, given two friendly countries, that there will not be a wide range of incidents requiring, I believe the hon. member said, gunboat diplomacy.


Donald W. Munro: Popgun diplomacy.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Popgun diplomacy, or anything of that nature.


Donald W. Munro: On page three of that statement, the minister has suggested what he has in mind is a comprehensive agreement covering all unresolved maritime issues under the general heading of fisheries and boundaries. On page two he talks about the need for the early settlement of maritime boundaries on the one hand and, on the other, an agreement on fisheries rights, presumably in terms of maritime zones, and possibly a third on maximum catch levels. I wonder if the minister can dispel the confusion that naturally arises out of this apparent contradiction. Does he favour a single agreement covering all matters, or will it be a series of agreements covering the individual matters that are at issue?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Ideally, a comprehensive agreement, which would at one and the same time resolve all of the myriad issues that this new development has raised. That would be perfect, if it could be done. Certainly there is agreement not only between governments, but by Fishermen and other interested parties, that the boundary question will be easier to resolve if there is clear evidence that satisfactory arrangements with regard to fishery sharing are also in prospect. I do not see that it is going to be possible to divorce these entirely.
Having said that, it is conceivable, of course, that in the round of negotiations that is to resume in the next few days many of the elements will be able to be brought together. However, there may be a few having to do with certain boundaries that are already, as hon. members know, of long standing in the nature of dispute, where it may be possible to put those to one side, or refer them in some other way for settlement, and not impede the fundamental problem which is
80045-13V2

June 2, 1978
Fisheries
to get a satisfactory agreement, particularly with regard to fisheries.


Donald W. Munro: Will the minister agree that an early meeting of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group might be of assistance in this matter? In replying to a question I put yesterday, it was apparent that while there was a conference during this present week in Washington at the executive level between cabinet ministers, there is still a need, because of the congressional process in the United States, for contact between parliamentarians in order to impress upon our U.S. colleagues, particularly in the Senate, the particular point of view and the need for understanding of Canada's problems and ratification of the agreement when it is concluded.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with this principle at all. I should explain to the hon. member, lest he fear that I was being negative today, that I was not opposed to his motion under Standing Order 43 when it was moved today. I merely wanted to point out to him, and it is relative to his question now, that my recollection is that the Canada-U.S. parliamentary committee operates outside the formal framework of the parliamentary process here. Therefore I am not sure that anything is necessary other than for the secretariat to move toward convening such a meeting.
However, if there is some step that needs to be taken here, I will be supportive of it. Obviously the only question is that we want to ensure that it was not a surrogate kind of negotiating session but for informational purposes and the like. In that context, it is immensely helpful. I hope the hon. member will note my comment with regard to the necessity for regional interests and the like to be seized of the magnitude of this problem and not in all cases to be asserting maximum claims which clearly do not provide any basis for maximum negotiation.


Donald W. Munro: My last question is to ask the minister whether on the basis of the information available to him he has any reason to believe that the failure of the United States Senate to ratify the interim agreement is related to the pipeline arrangements, the uncertainty that the United States has about an early beginning on the Canada-U.S. pipeline deal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. In this connection it is appropriate, in light of the comments by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), to indicate that there were very comprehensive discussions in Washington. It was a slough-off. The leaders of government were obviously there to talk about NATO and did not have a great deal of time, for perfectly obvious reasons. Mr. Vance and I spent a great deal of time on this matter, as did myself and a number of officials. It is clear there is no relationship between this and any other difficulties or matters in relation to Canada-U.S. relations.
If I had to sum it up in a single sentence, the problem is essentially one that the hon. member has identified, that is, the regional interests in the United States and the structure they have which makes it all the more important that members be

seized of and aware of Canada's interests. By the way, also in answer, I think it is not at all certain that the Senate have approved the treaty. It had gone through the House. It is not inconceivable that they may still do it.
The problem here, which the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) did not seem to understand, is that this is not a problem that has arisen because the agreement was what it is. The problem essentially this year, as I think the hon. member for South Shore has identified, is one of interpretation. Therefore, even if it had been ratified, it would not have resolved this particular problem in its entirety.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the minister will go down in history as the "codfather".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: I want to point out at the outset that when I raised the question during question period, I was not aware that the minister had sent a copy of his statement. As my colleague from South Shore indicated, he just received that statement as the bells were ringing. There was no time for him to circulate it. I did not try to pre-empt the minister's statement.
I have some questions that are of some import to the people of British Columbia. I notice that the statement makes no reference at all to the government of British Columbia which has taken a very active interest in the dilemma that the fishermen face. 1 recognize that the minister does not have responsibility for fisheries, but I would point out that the premier of British Columbia and his colleagues have taken an active interest in the problems that the fishermen are facing at this time. Has the minister even informed British Columbia of the action which has been taken?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The statement is obviously designed to refer to Canada-U.S. relations and is drafted with that in mind, but the hon. member need have no concern about the extent of the involvement of the interested provinces, not only British Columbia but the east coast provinces. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), had a full meeting of his advisory council earlier this week, at which British Columbia and other provinces were represented. While 1 do not wish to put words into the mouth of the advisers-they are perfectly free to speak for themselves-I have every confidence that the action which has been taken projects their views. In that sense the provinces have been consulted, and as the negotiations continue they will continue to be consulted-the representatives of the fishing industry as well.


Benno Friesen: 1 just wanted assurance that this action which had been taken reflects their views and is on all fours with what they consider should have been done. I want to build on the question raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-whether this agreement has been sacrificed on the altar of other agreements to make sure that other agreements will stay intact. The Minister of Fisheries may smile,
June 2, 1978

but we in British Columbia are accustomed to negotiations of that kind. We recall the decision of the anti-dumping tribunal as a result of which the industry in British Columbia was sacrificed for the sake of the industry in Ontario. We recall the Skagit Valley agreement which has never been signed and under which there is no security at all-it seems no final decision can be reached with regard to it. There is a good deal of justification for our feelings on this matter; I could produce a fairly long list of examples such as 1 have mentioned. What happens in the Dixon Strait area? Our fishermen are already out there on the halibut grounds. Will they be obliged to leave on Sunday afternoon?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Obviously, a specific question of that kind can only be answered in a general way, because what I say will be interpreted properly and I want it to be done in accordance with whatever regulations are to be published. Perhaps the answer to the question about Dixon Strait and related matters can be found in my statement in the sense that, effective on June 4, no longer will there be American fishing in Canadian waters, and it is a natural assumption that there will no longer be Canadian fishing in American waters, except for the reference that was made by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) to halibut fishing. From our point of view the halibut fishery is governed by a long standing arrangement or treaty, and for our part we are prepared to treat it separately. As to the question the hon. member raises about the possible sacrificing of provincial interests in this case, 1 would suggest, with all due respect, that it was the opposite which was being argued, namely, that the agreement itself and the interpretation of it were sacrificing those interests. In this case, therefore, I repeat my view that British Columbia will be entirely in agreement with the suspension we have announced today.


Benno Friesen: The statement refers to proposed meetings at the end of June-June 19 and 20. By that time the salmon will be running and the fishermen will be out. This affects fishermen in the Gulf of Georgia as the salmon enter the Fraser River run. Every year there is concern on the part of fishermen there that they are not getting their fair quota. As the Minister of Fisheries knows, there is disagreement each year regarding the count the Americans get vis-a-vis Canadian fishermen. How will today's decision affect the count under the agreement? Do we intend to do as the former minister of fisheries, Mr. Sinclair, did, and simply put our fishermen out at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and allow them to catch all the fish they can? That would preclude any further arguments. My second question is this: if we can get no resolution of this agreement later on, it means dislocation of the activities of our fishermen. Maybe this will be temporary in nature, maybe it will be long term. Are there any plans in place to assist fishermen whose livelihood has been cut off because they cannot go into American waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There are a number of elements to that question, Mr. Speaker. I might say the hon. member has asked a number of questions. I will try to deal with them. As to provisions for taking care of dislocations, it would be neces-
Fisheries
sary, first of all, to ascertain the extent and nature of a dislocation. This cannot be done in advance of the implementation of the new policy. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, has made it clear to the advisory committees and others that we are prepared to discuss with all concerned what steps may be necessary to ensure that hardship is not imposed on Canadian fishermen as a result of this decision.
I must add-I think we were all aware of this in advance- that one cannot move in this direction and seek a permanent solution without there being some disruption along the way. It is implicit in the arrangement. We shall therefore have to look at these difficulties on a pragmatic basis as they occur.
The question of salmon interception is one of long standing and is not directly related to this issue. There is, perhaps, only one direct application. It is that under the policy announced today the Swiftsure Bank will now be open and we will revert the situation which existed before the action taken some weeks ago.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask about three questions on the statement the minister gave. As the minister well knows, it is of pretty fundamental importance to those of us on both coasts. The first question may be just a little general but I would like the minister to amplify the subject if he can. Will he tell us how close he thinks we are to concluding a comprehensive maritime boundaries resources agreement? My next question is, really, supplementary to that. Are the differences between the Atlantic coast and/or the Pacific coast part of that, or the difference perhaps with that, and also between the fish stocks and the resources that may be on the coast? If he could answer that first, I would be obliged,


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member, with his usual incisiveness, has gone directly to the heart of the matter.
I am sure the Minister of Fisheries would be glad to deal with all those matters at some appropriate time, perhaps in the fisheries committee.
There is no one particular issue that I could describe as being the most difficult. I answered the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, I think it was, by saying there was a clear linkage between the boundary definition and the management of the fish stock question. On the boundary question there are differences, obviously, between the east coast situation and that on the west coast. I hate to say this in his absence, but the Leader of the New Democratic Party displayed an appalling ignorance when he talked about the inconsistency of our position on the two coasts. That, in fact, is the very key to our whole attitude. We are taking up a consistent position in the sense of trying to get everything neat and tidy. We are seeking to get the best arrangement for ourselves that we can. For the hon. gentleman to take the approach he did at the present time is not very helpful to our negotiating posture.
We would like to get a permanent agreement in place very quickly and I have asked our ambassador, Mr. Cadieux, and I have asked Mr. Vance to instruct his ambassador, to find out in a definitive way within the next two or three months what areas of agreement there are and what issues may be in

June 2, 1978
Fisheries
dispute. Some of these issues are of long standing. In the case of British Columbia there is the AB line which comes to mind and, of course, there are others. We shall try to obtain as clear a picture as possible as to the maximum level of agreement, after which we can decide whether that is worth going for as a package and whether to continue to negotiate on the other issues.
1 might say that at the moment there is no disposition on the part of the east coast fishermen to cut and run from our fishermen on the west coast. In the advisory committee of the Minister of Fisheries a consistent view has been put forward, one which has been enormously helpful, that we ought not to get into a "divide and conquer" situation, and I believe this will continue to be the attitude taken.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for that answer which does cover a couple of the questions I had in mind. That leads me to my last supplementary.
In view of the fact that there are disputed areas and boundaries on the east coast-certainly regarding Georges Bank-and that the minister mentioned that as of June 4 Americans will not be fishing in our waters-presumably they will not be too happy to see us in their waters, and that is a logical conclusion-what about the situation when there is a dispute over, for example, Georges Bank and when different fishing vessels fish in the disputed area? Have we given instructions or do we intend to give instructions not to escalate a sensitive situation which, hopefully, can be resolved by negotiation, but to patrol, provide protection, or record just what happens? Are we going to increase our surveillance on the east coast, and particularly on Georges Bank where both the Americans and we think we own some of the water?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, once again that is a very basic question, and I am pleased to be able to answer it. I hope hon. members will realize that I do not have a firm commitment on this from the United States in the formal sense of a document, becase we presented our note formally to the United States only this morning.
However, following my discussions in Washington 1 have every reason to believe, as I said in my statement, that there will be no desire on the part of the United States to escalate this, or to engage in any actions which would be designed to inflame the situation. What I have suggested is that we agree to a non-prejudice approach during the negotiating period, that is, that whatever actions are taken by both sides would be non-prejudicial to the final outcome or the final positions the governments might take in negotiations.
Second, in the disputed zones or areas where there is no clarity as to ownership, each country will act against its own vessels or, in terms of surveillance, its own vessels only so that therefore the other side would in a sense impose its regulations against its vessels. We would not then, I hope, have the problem of having-and this again comes back to an attempt to answer the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich-Canadi-

ans imposing regulations against American fishermen and vice versa in the disputed zone only. However, that will be clearer by Monday, I hope, when we have a response from the United States.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I hope the governments will not provoke situations. However, in view of the dispute, especially in these particular areas, the specific part of the question was: does the minister think this approach would be an act of provocation? I would be interested in his answer, and that might answer the supplementary part of my question. Are we going to give instructions-particularly because Greenwood came into this earlier today when we were talking about long-range patrol aircraft, and Greenwood happens to be in my riding-to patrol this disputed area as discussions continue? Will there be instructions to increase surveillance in these disputed areas?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, I can only say to the hon. member that neither the Government of Canada nor the government of the United States-and perhaps in the context of the question the latter is the more important-is going to see this as an act of provocation. The administration of the government of the United States has had full discussions with us. It understands the situation. It is as unhappy as we are, but it recognizes that we cannot allow this situation to go on.
We cannot go on interpreting differently on each side of the border. In that sense there will be no deliberate actions by the United States administration to escalate this situation. However, undoubtedly there will be either regional decisions, or individual fishermen of both countries, which may perhaps involve themselves in some way in minor provocations, so I am advised by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, that there will be some increase in patrol and surveillance, but I emphasize once again that I am most anxious that it be kept to the point where there is as little difficulty as possible.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief question. I noticed in the response which was forwarded to the minister by Ambassador Thomas Enders of the United States that he confirms that the negotiations should be considered as not prejudicing the position of either country in the negotiation of a long-term agreement. I also noted on page two of the minister's statement that he indicated that efforts to avoid confrontation in the boundary regions will be taken by adopting enforcement procedures. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on what those procedures will be. For example, if there is confrontation in the waters in dispute, will it be resolved by our own government if our own people are involved, or will it be resolved by the United States government, and will there be a report as to just what is happening? I know the minister is well aware of the tempers which flare among fishermen in Atlantic Canada. Some of them will say, "By golly, we are going after scallops-" and I do not like to use these words in the House, but this is the way it will come out- "come hell or high water".
June 2, 1978


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Come fog or high water.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: "Come fog or high water" is perhaps better. I am just wondering what the minister means when he says that enforcement procedures will be adopted. How will this be carried out?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can answer in a general way, and 1 am sure we can get and will provide a more detailed answer to the mechanics and the specifics. As I understand it, in the disputed area alone-and we should emphasize that that is what we are speaking about, the place in Georges Bank between where our line as drawn by ourselves and theirs as drawn by the Americans overlap-Canadian surveillance and Canadian patrols will exercise jurisdiction in relation to Canadian vessels and in terms of Canadian law or regulations, as the case might be. Americans will do the same with regard to their vessels and in precisely the same way, but only in that particular zone. Therefore in that way we assume-and I am sure there is much good will-that there will not be any serious confrontation. Given our past experiences, incidentally, things tend to work themselves out because both sides are anxious to avoid difficulty.


POINT OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I assume there are no motions. I waited to rise on this point of order because I did not want to interrupt the minister with respect to his statement and the questions. I know he is busy.
I would like to raise a point of order now with respect to the motion under Standing Order 43 which I moved today. The motion read this way:
That this House requests the tabling of all documents, papers and memoranda on which the House of Commons staff salary revisions, tabled in this House on May 31, were based, particularly those which compare House of Commons classifications with public service classifications and those which explain the differentials between positions within the House of Commons.
The question on that motion was put by Mr. Speaker, and, unfortunately, some Liberal members said no. They have the right to do that. I regret it, but they have that right. My point of order is not with respect to that as much as it is to a statement which was made by Mr. Speaker in the midst of verbalizing his thought processes with respect to whether the motion was in order. It was not a ruling, because Mr. Speaker in fact allowed the motion to be put.
However, in the course of his remarks Mr. Speaker did say that there was some question as to whether there was jurisdiction for a member of parliament to raise such a matter. There was a question as to whether the jurisdiction lay within parliament or whether it was a matter between the government and the opposition. There was some question about whether there is a limitation of the rights of hon. members under Standing Order 43.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
In the course of the question period which followed 1 looked into the matter to find out how far one may go and what one may cover in a motion under Standing Order 43. The relevant Standing Order reads as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
I think the words of that order are quite plain. There is no question of jurisdiction, no question as to whether it is a matter between the opposition and the government in that regard. The question, the condition of the motion, and the condition which allows such a motion to be put, are purely and simply "in case of urgent and pressing necessity".
I have a caveat with regard to the verbalizing of the thought processes of Mr. Speaker leading to his decision to allow the motion to be put, because I think it is important that that right not be limited to any member. If there were any doubt about the question that we are dealing with, that is, the question as to whether or not there is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity involved, it is a fact that for the first time in living memory, I believe-perhaps I am wrong-the members of the staff of the House of Commons are picketing outside the building today.
I know nothing about the merits of the case or the rights of the case as yet, but I think I should say that it is important to the members of the House of Commons, to our relationship with the staff of the House of Commons, to our understanding of the situation, that the first step to be taken be the tabling of the documents. The House has decided that that is not so, but 1 hope that at some stage the House might consider changing its mind.
I rise to put that caveat with respect to the right of a member of parliament to use the provisions of Standing Order 43, its only limitation being that the matter be of urgent and pressing necessity, not the question of the jurisdiction under which the matter falls, whether it is the government's jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker, or of anyone else connected with the operation of government. Mr. Speaker found, by allowing me to put the motion, that that was the case today. But I want to make it very clear that it is important to the rights of all members of the House of Commons that there be no limitation on that jurisdiction. That was the purpose for which I rose. I wanted to make it very clear to the Chair and to my colleagues on all sides of the House.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pose as an expert but I would like to ask whether the hon. member, who is learned in the rules and practices of parliament, would not agree-and he need not answer this-that in considering motions under Standing Order 43 members should have a higher sense of obligation to recognize that the subject matter of the motions really be of urgent and pressing necessity, and that every time a frivolous, vexatious or trivial motion is proposed under that guise, it so debases the coinage that it makes a mockery of the

June 2, 1978
Order Paper Questions
whole procedure and thus makes valid interventions under this rule suffer the same fate as the trivial ones. Is there not a need for some informal reform of this ridiculous practice that we witness every day?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my friend is putting a question to me. I would be the first to agree that there are a number of practices of the House which should be reviewed, and I am glad to see the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) in the House today. He and I have discussed on many occasions the question of reviewing the practice of parliament in supervising and thereby involving itself in the control of government expenditures, the way programs are directed, and a host of other things. I think the same applies to the question raised by the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott). There are practices that should be changed, and I am glad he put the question to me.
I want to make it clear that on this occasion Mr. Speaker did not say that I had no right to raise the matter, nor did the minister by his intervention indicate that he felt thatwhat I had to say was trivial-in fact, just the opposite. But I wanted to protect the rights of members with respect to what I thought were, to put it mildly, a disturbing thought process by Mr. Speaker in dealing with this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member put his caveat to the House, and I am sure he does not expect me to pass judgment on what happened. His motion was allowed by the Chair. Not having presided over the question period or routine proceedings, and not having decided with regard to the presentation of this motion, I will refrain from passing judgment at this time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: Nos. 1,088 and 1,193.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the investigation by the RCMP into possible misuse of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Computer Centre in Montreal, Quebec by persons employed by the government on behalf of outside interests been completed and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) will charges be laid and on what date (iii) what are all the details of the results of the investigation and particularly, what is the part played in this case by Key Data Canada (b) if not, what is the anticipated date that it will be and is it the intention of the government to make all results available to the House of Commons at that time?
2.	Did such investigation involve Mr. Robert Kingsley, Director of the Regional Payment Centre, Montreal, Quebec, at the time and/or Mr. D. Mainville, Chief of the Computer Section at the time and/or Mr. Gabriel Beland, Quebec Regional Director at the time and, if so (a) what part did these individuals play in the incident (b) has it been confirmed, or otherwise, whether
[Mr. Abbott.}
or not an employee of UIC received a swimming pool in return for his co-operation and, if so, what is the name and job designation of the employee?
3.	Did the investigation determine whether or not certain employees were given twenty dollars in plain envelopes in an attempt to associate them with the venture and, if so, what are the names of all persons who took such envelopes?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: 1. No. (a) Not applicable. (b) As the investigation is still ongoing, it would be inappropriate at this time to speculate on what findings may or may not be made public.
2 and 3. See answer to part 1(b).


Mr. Andre: 1.	What is the Crown's precise financial interest in the Municipal Development and Loan Board as administered by the Department of Finance and on what date was such interest acquired, at what cost and for what reason?
2.	What was the book value of the Crown's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the Crown's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds, debt forgiveness and what is the Crown's total realized profit from such investment?
4.	In what manner is the Crown's interest represented (a) on the Board of Directors (b) in its senior management?
5.	Did the government make a policy decision in regard to the future disposition of its interest?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The questions that have been asked are not relevant to the operations of the Municipal Development and Loan Board. The board was established under the authority of the Municipal Development and Loan Act in August, 1963 to administer a $400 million loan program in accordance with the act, for purposes of promoting increased employment in Canada by providing financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities to enable municipalities to augment or accelerate municipal capital works programs. The salaries and expense incurred by the board and its staff were paid out of moneys appropriated annually by parliament. In June, 1969 the board had fulfilled all the responsibilities assigned to it under the act and accordingly terminated its activities as of that date. The board's last annual report was submitted as of March 31, 1969. Since 1969 the Department of Finance has been collecting interest and repayments of principal on the loans outstanding. The Crown's sole financial interest consists of the loans outstanding. As of December 31, 1977 the loans outstanding totaled $194,891,549.16.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 103 and 1,216 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
June 2, 1978


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Does the House agree that questions Nos. 103 and 1,216 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Herbert: What was the maximum number of casual or seasonal employees employed by each Crown corporation during the past twelve months and how many had been employed for a total period exceeding six months?
Return tabled.


Mr. Alexander: 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?
Return tabled.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, it is agreed from this side, but we would appreciate it if more questions were answered.



POINTS OF ORDER


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on February 10 I placed question No. 1,306 on the order paper and since then I brought to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that it had not yet been answered. It is a fairly straightforward question and I cannot understand why it takes so long to answer it.
Furthermore, on October 19 I submitted question No. 167, which was answered in part a short time ago. I say "in part" because the second part of my question asked what was the average salary level of employees in each Crown corporation. The number of Crown corporations listed in the answer is 38, but if we go to public accounts we find that there are at least 42 Crown corporations. 1 find that organizations such as the Canada Council, the National Museums Corporation, and the National Film Board are not even listed in the answer, and there is a gap of at least four corporations, in addition to the 386 organizations which are controlled, partially or wholly by either departments, agencies or Crown corporations.
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has become the champion of smothering.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Suffocating.


Benno Friesen: Maybe this is where he gets his practice. He can then advocate it when he goes to Washington or New York. But it would be nice if we could get answers in total rather than partial answers, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary to make sure that we get a complete answer to question No. 167.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, about the first point raised by the hon. member concerning his question No. 1,306, a glance at the order paper reveals that this question covers two full pages and has 21 subquestions, each one including several subdivisions. I want to assure the hon. member that we are now dissecting his question and trying to answer it to the fullest extent possible.
As for the second part of his comments, 1 want to tell the hon. member that we are constantly seeking to give the fullest answers possible, but we cannot guarantee that politically the answers will always suit opposition members.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, since there were some complaints about the number of questions answered, allow me to remind the House briefly that as of May 30, which is actually quite recent, we had answered 72.8 per cent of the questions on the order paper. That means there are only 468 left. We have answered 1,229 questions out of 1,697. This is an excellent average and it runs counter to what the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said two days ago, followed by the whip of the Progressive Conservative party, who is facing me and now seems to want to yell the contrary.
I want to establish clearly that we are making a sustained effort to give as many and as complete answers as possible, and our average figures prove that our attitude is not only a good one, but an excellent one.



MR. MAZANKOWSKI-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 1,074

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 1,074 which has been on the order paper since December 20.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the representations made by the hon. member and I will see what exactly is the situation.
6012

June 2, 1978
Income Tax Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 1, 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.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is a record. 1 called it ten o'clock last night, and today perhaps I can call it one o'clock. We can resume debate at two o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is agreed. It being after one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I must say that it has been rather interesting to observe the cross-fire which has been going on in the House, in the media, and in other areas. I know that the expressions on both sides of this issue are made with great feeling, because there is strong feeling, and the issue crosses all political lines. At the same time there has been some games playing, some jockeying for position and what not, but it seems that the minister's only defence in trying to explain this particular proposal is that if members oppose this bill they are deemed to be in bed with the separatists. Of course that is absolutely wrong. If the minister were correct it would certainly be well to observe that there are a lot of people in this country who are sympathetic to the separatist cause. That off the cuff defence must be dispelled, and it really is a weak defence as far as the minister is concerned.


Walter David Baker: Not only weak, it is contemptible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In spite of the all-out effort which has been made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and his colleagues on the government side to drum up support for this

legislation, and in spite of his attempts to explain it, along with the kind of drama that has unfolded, as well as the war of words which is being waged between the Minister of Finance and his counterpart in Quebec, one cannot help but observe that the positions are indeed solidified, and in fact there is a major confrontation developing. Throughout, the federal government continues in its mission to attempt to divide and conquer. In the process, I submit to you, sir, that it is not attracting any new wave of support.
One might sympathize with the Minister of Finance. I think it would be fair to say that he is simply a front man in this particular battle for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde). I repeat, the stand that the government has taken on this particular issue is not gaining any support. As a matter of fact the Globe and Mail of May 18, 1978, said as follows:
The federal government has made itself look like a dictatorial central government and it hasn't a defender in sight.
That pretty well summarizes the position of the support this piece of legislation has across the country.
The April 10 budget and this particular bill provide a classic demonstration of how this government has floundered over the past ten years. During that ten years it has battered the economy and has created a state of political instability. The budget and this legislation, in my view, should have served as a major catalyst toward creating a climate of stability and confidence. Instead, they have created a climate of confusion and uncertainty and have placed further strains upon Confederation.
I believe that the provinces quite correctly consider this to be another major intrusion into the provincial domain, without adequate consultation. I am sure all members of the House recall the western premiers' task force on constitutional trends. As a result of that meeting in Brandon in 1977 a report was published. At that time the western premiers documented some 50 examples of federal intrusion into the provincial domain. This year in Yorkton, during a similar conference held in April, the premiers again noted with regret nine further examples of federal government intrusion into the provincial domain. The governments that are representative of these provinces are not all of one political stripe. One needs only remind hon. members that there are two Progressive Conservative governments, one Social Credit government, and one New Democratic government involved.


An hon. Member:: There is a great dearth of Liberals.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Liberals are not there, and they will not be there for a long time as far as western Canada is concerned. There will be no question about that.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: A lost species.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: and purposes it was an extension of that new found spirit of cooperative federalism which was supposed to have emanated from the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa in February. However, this is what the western premiers had to say about that new found spirit of cooperation after the Minister of Finance brought down his budget in April. Again, in the communique which the western premiers submitted after their April 13 meeting, they said this:
The federal budget had directly contradicted the spirit of federal-provincial co-operation and consultation which the February conference had been intended to foster and could be prejudicial to ongoing discussions on national unity.
We all remember those very pious words and that profound proclamation about this new spirit and new generation of cooperative federalism. We can now only conclude that those statements were empty, hollow gestures. All they were doing at that time was tuning the machine for an expected spring election. After the budget, the Minister of Finance changed the rules of this scheme after it was introduced, but only for one province. Alberta was excluded originally and was not allowed to benefit from the rule change. The Manitoba government, as has been pointed out by other speakers, wished to use its share of the program used for purposes which it felt was best for the provincial economy, just as Quebec had done with its selective sales tax cuts. In the process, Manitoba was turned down.
The western premiers had further comments to make about this. I quote again from their communique arising out of the April 13 western provincial premiers' conference:
The premiers stressed that they were not debating the principle of the sales tax cut as a fiscal measure, but they were sharply critical of the unilateral and intrusive way in which it had been put forward.
That hardly resembles a spirit of cooperation in consultation. It is more like confrontation. It is more like arrogance and an insensitivity toward the powers of the provincial governments. They took very grave exception, and rightly so. The fact that the provinces did not participate in the decision concerning the federal compensation formula which has the effect of treating Canadian taxpayers differently, depending on the region in which they live, is certainly an issue that we find bothersome and irritating. This gets to the very heart of this whole fiasco.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) highlighted the problem when he said that in Bill C-56 the government has divided Canada into three distinct regions: Alberta is treated as an outcast with no benefits; Quebec is given unique and special treatment; and the other eight provinces are given varying degrees of benefit. We have a precedent whereby we deal with one province differently than with the others. We have a situation in which Alberta is not included as a legitimate participant in this whole proposal.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), who is supposed to be representing the interests of Albertans in cabinet, gave what I believe to be a somewhat incredible speech in which he seemed to scold Albertans for their prosperity. It reminded me of a modified version of a
Income Tax Act
former minister of agriculture from that province, Senator Bud Olson. He continually attempted to defend the government of the day, trying to sell it to the people of Alberta, rather than selling the problems of the people of Alberta to the government. After listening to the hon. minister's speech I have to say that he was much more effective in opposition than he was when attempting to defend this proposal. After listening to, or reading his speech, I think one will find that the defence seems to knock holes in the argument that Albertans need to have someone in cabinet.
The minister spoke of the discrepancy between the rich and the poor provinces and of how Albertans should be ashamed of themselves in requesting a better deal. He attempted to justify the government's treatment of Alberta in the provisions of the budget and of this bill. I should like to quote a passage from his speech at page 5696 of Hansard for May 24, where he said:
There is a logical reason why the Minister of Finance in his attempt to bring and hold our country together should address himself to the problem that exists in Canada, a huge tax rate in some provinces and a lower tax rate in other provinces. Similarly, in some provinces there is a high sales tax rate, and in another province there is no sales tax rate at all. The Minister of Finance, in my opinion, was quite right in addressing himself to that problem.
No one is denying the concept of and the need for equalization between the provinces; quite the opposite is true. It is something that is supported by this party, and indeed it was created under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The concept of equalization was valid then and it is valid today. There is certainly no argument about that fact. The problem which the minister states, is already being addressed under the concept and formula of equalization. We already have a very large equalization scheme which cost the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario something in the order of $2.5 billion in 1977-78, and will cost something in the order of $2.7 billion in this fiscal year. It is a costly program, there is no question about that, but it is worth while. It is the price we pay to maintain some semblance of balance in Confederation from a financial and economic point of view.
Another point which seems to have been overlooked in this debate-I am surprised that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce failed to make reference to it-is that it should be noted and not be forgotten that since 1973 Albertans had not been receiving world prices for gas and oil. Because of this, something in excess of $10.4 billion in revenue has been forfeited by the people of Alberta toward equalizing the price of oil and gas across the country. In effect, this amounts to a direct subsidy to the rest of the country at the expense of Alberta. Further, it should be recognized that the maintenance of the artificially low prices has had and will have some effect upon investment and upon the advancement of our technology in the area of further development of our energy resources.
Let us not forget as well the days when there was a major confrontation between the former minister of finance, the hon. Don Macdonald, and the government of the province of Alberta. During that period the climate did not augur well for the development of energy resources. As a matter of fact the
80045-14'/2

June 2, 1978
Income Tax Act
actions of that minister and of the Prime Minister against the province of Alberta bordered on a hate campaign. I can remember him describing the minister of energy of the province of Alberta as "dripping with venom", and other vindictive descriptions of that nature.
I do not believe there is any other major, important, natural resource that is extracted and sold in this country that does not command a world price. This must be looked upon as a benefit to Canada given by the people of Alberta. I should say one more thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that you do not hear Albertans complaining about this situation and reminding Canadians of it every day. It is a matter that I bring up today only to balance some of the misstatements and half truths that have been expounded in this House by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The minister spoke of the tremendous benefits the Syncrude project has brought to the people of Alberta, and there is no question about that. It should not be overlooked, however, the benefit that has accrued and that will accrue is not confined to the people of Alberta but is affecting all Canadians in terms of security of supply and in terms of attainment of self sufficiency in energy.
It should not be overlooked, either, that over $200 million worth of contracts for equipment and machinery was let to enterprises in the province of Ontario, nor that in excess of 500 contracts were awarded to 176 Canadian contractors worth close to $400 million, that is, contractors not only in Alberta but in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. The spin-off effect to the people of Canada has been enormous.
Let it not be forgotten that it was not only Albertans who were employed on this massive project; literally people from every corner of Canada worked on it and shared in the benefits. Of course that is as it should be, and no one is arguing about it. If further projects of this magnitude are undertaken I am sure the same conditions will apply.
Recently I had occasion to visit one of the CanMar drilling ships working in the Beaufort Sea on one of the Dome Petroleum projects. It was very interesting to me that almost the total marine crew came from Nova Scotia. Other people who were working on the rigs were from other parts of the country. When you have a resource that is being developed in one part of the country, one province, the benefit of that resource accrues not only to that province but to the whole of Canada.
The federal government has not been favourable to Alberta. It has been favourable and it has done what is necessary only when it was absolutely required for it to do so in terms of the national interest.
I am glad the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is here because I want to make reference to a project that has irritated the provincial government of Alberta. That is the Petrosar project. Just last week the premier of the province of Alberta again made a comment about that project. He pointed out that this project takes some 16 per cent of the
[Mr. Mazankowski.l
Canadian oil supply from Alberta and ships it to Sarnia below the world price, and with it a number of Alberta jobs.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Did he mention all the other jobs being created by Syncrude?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, that has been mentioned. Yes, the Ontario government and the federal government did participate in that venture. I also point out that before the ink was dry, some $200 million worth of contracts were let into Ontario for the supply of equipment and materials. It has been quid pro quo. There is no question about that.
Alberta is interested in broadening its economic base. It is vital that it establish a manufacturing base, given the fact that the resources which are the subject of the wealth of Alberta today are depleting resources. Certainly the economy has to be diversified. The premier of the province of Alberta said that the Petrosar project set the Alberta petrochemical industry back some five to ten years. He described it as one of the worst decisions ever made in Canada. As a national project, the premier indicated that Petrosar is a disaster.
As I said earlier, there is a genuine desire, and I must admit there is a need, for Alberta to diversify, to broaden its economic base, to do further processing of its natural resources and products of agriculture. The Petrosar project certainly stymied Alberta's efforts toward further expanding the petrochemical industry.
This House should be reminded of the fact that today, in terms of manufacturing activity, Alberta only accounts for some 5.3 per cent of the manufacturing activity in Canada. Ontario accounts for some 51 per cent, and Quebec 26 per cent. Between the two central Canadian provinces, they command some 77 per cent of the manufacturing activity of this country. It is difficult to overcome that reality. Nevertheless, every effort should be made to ensure that we can diversify and that we can establish an effective and efficient economic manufacturing base in the province of Alberta.
This is why members of the Conservative party feel so strongly about the Hall report. In the Hall report we have, in addition to a transportation charter, an economic blueprint which, if followed, should assist western Canada in furthering its manufacturing and processing activities, particularly as they relate to agricultural products. We believe it is important that we build upon our natural strengths.
I wish to quote from the May 15 edition of Maclean's in which Andy Snaddon, chief editor of the Edmonton Journal, commented on this very subject. I quote from page 12:
What Albertans really want is to develop their province so that when the oil and gas is gone they'll still have a strong economy. That means just input into tariff hearings, it means a national system where each province has better representation at the decision making level ...
As for Albertans, we kind of like being able to sit in on the game and play with the other fellows, now we've got some chips of our own. We don't have to hope the nice players from Ottawa and Toronto will give us a piece of their winnings if we're good boys. We kind of like it. And it makes for a better game.
June 2, 1978

What he is saying is that, in spite of it all, we have done reasonably well. No thanks to the efforts of the federal government, we have progressed and will continue to progress.
Another area that I as a westerner should not overlook is the high level of tariffs which the federal government has established over the years to protect central Canadian industry. It has been estimated, and this again has emanated from the western premiers' conference, that it costs western Canadian consumers an estimated $1 billion a year. This represents something in the order of $500 for every household in the western provinces in any given single year.
I simply put these things on record at this time so that this whole question might be put into perspective and all this might he taken into consideration. I suggest that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did a disservice to Canada in failing to tell the whole story about Alberta's real role in Confederation and its commitment to the unity and economic viability of this nation.
I also wish to comment on an assessment provided by the head of the C. D. Howe Institute, Carl Beigie, who in Calgary last month had this to say, and I quote from a CP story in the May 5 Globe and Mail:
Alberta will be the only so-called 'have' province in Canada within two months.
Mr. Beigie told a conference on economic and social trends in western Canada that under current government definitions, Ontario will move in the have-not range with the pending natural gas price increase. Unless the federal government changes its definitions, Alberta will be paying a large part of the Confederation bill.
Mr. Beigie went on to say:
Alberta cannot be a long purse to finance federalism. The people are getting tired of it and I don't blame them.
I am not sure whether that comment reflects accurately the opinions of the people of Alberta. Nevertheless, the obligations and commitments of Alberta to the rest of the nation are very clear. We do not often hear the kind of complaint Mr. Beigie has raised, but if Alberta is to be excluded from federal programs and from tax benefits such as the one we are debating today, I suggest their generosity and patience will run out.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have only one crutch upon which to rely in justifying Alberta's exclusion from the purchase tax measure. It is the new tax incentives for heavy oil and tar sands development, and I should like to deal with that aspect for a few moments.
First of all, there can be no question but that the development of new energy resources is for the benefit of Canadians as a whole. As for the government's concern for heavy oil, 1 must point out that ministers opposite discovered heavy oil only a couple of years ago. It is surprising, really, that we should still have a heavy oil industry in this country after all the discouragement it has received. It has only survived thanks to the efforts of various companies which have tenaciously held on through difficult times.
Income Tax Act
Throughout the debate, speakers on the government side have referred to this bonus which Alberta will receive. 1 think we ought to look at it from the point of view of the effect on the whole country if this source of energy is not developed. Based on National Energy Board demand predictions, Canada's oil imports will by 1985 be costing anywhere from $6.8 billion to $8 billion a year depending on the world price of oil. Payment on this scale will have a direct impact on our already precarious balance of payments position and further weaken the economy.
Jack Gallagher, president of Dome Petroleum, has outlined the effect which large foreign oil imports will have on the Canadian economy, in a speech made to the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies last October. He stated:
The economic impact of importing one million barrels per day of foreign oil at $15 per barrel has a negative effect on the economy of $5.5 billion per year. In contrast, using one million barrels per day of domestically produced oil at the same cost delivered in Toronto creates a positive annual economic benefit of $15.6 billion which includes payments to the various levels of government of $6.2 billion ... In addition to the economic benefit of $15.6 billion from domestic oil... (Canada would realize) a saving in foreign exchange of $5.2 billion per year."
Those are astounding figures. The calculations are based upon 1977 dollars, and $15 is used to represent the price of a barrel of oil up to and including 1985. If that price is adjusted to $20 the impact would, of course, be considerably magnified.
Against this background, the need to develop our non-conventional oil reserves readily becomes apparent. Yet the government has, I suggest, been dragging its feet in promoting the development of heavy oil upgrading plants. We all remember that five years ago there was an oil crisis affecting this country. It was a signal the government should have heeded. At the present time our first synthetic oil plant is coming on stream. Unfortunately, we have not made very much progress in the development of our resources in the heavy oil field or in furthering another Syncrude project.
It is true that a lot of bold and exotic promises have been made. The federal-provincial conference ended with a whole series of announcements concerning energy projects which were being considered. But that is about all. The provisions in the budget are a help, there is no question about that, but we must establish the priorities clearly. Do we want the oil to be produced, or are we mainly interested in obtaining a high level of return from royalties and taxation, in which case we shall get neither?
I have received a letter from the president of the Husky Oil Company which is interested in the establishment of a heavy oil upgrading plant in the locality of Lloydminster, Saskatchewan. He recognizes the initiative which has been taken by the government, but adds that unless the actual numbers which the taxation people come up with are somewhat unexpected, the provisions in the budget will not make that particular plant a viable entity. So the trade-off we were supposed to have been given in this budget as citizens of Alberta is, transparently, not too advantageous. I contend we ought to embark on an aggressive program to develop our heavy oil resources. Governments

June 2, 1978
Income Tax Act
must reduce their take if they really want production to expand. Royalties and taxes must be reduced.
According to a recent study undertaken by the Canada West Foundation, taxes and payments to all levels of government now represent approximately 70 per cent of the pre-tax profits of the mineral resource industries. This compares with 53 per cent only five years ago. Backing off on taxes and royalties imposed on the development of non-conventional oil reserves in no way represents a give-away to the industry. The "corporate welfare bums" charge certainly does not apply in this case.
Consider, for example, the proposal by a consortium of 21 companies, including Petro-Canada, to build a heavy oil upgrading plant in eastern Alberta. It has been pointed out that this $600 million plant cannot become viable under the existing royalty and tax structure. Before the proposal can move from the negotiating table to the drawing board, royalties payable to Alberta will have to be reduced by some $500 million, and federal taxes by the amount of $400 million. We have to ask ourselves: would the remission of taxation to this extent really represent a loss of revenue? The answer is, no. If the appropriate fiscal regime is not provided, the upgrader will not be built, the heavy oil will stay in the ground, and the government concerned would get no revenue at all. If, however, the plant is constructed under a revised royalty and tax structure, royalty and tax benefits alone will, over a 20-year period, yield $2,675 billion to the Alberta government and $2.05 billion to the federal government. Moreover, these figures do not even begin to take account of the spin-off benefits which such large energy projects would naturally produce, more particularly in terms of the impact upon the balance of payments and the security of oil supplies.
I might mention a project which is proposed by the Husky Oil Company for an upgrader in the Lloydminster area. This has been an "off again, on again" type of project. Quite frankly, the government of the province of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada have failed to provide the leadership necessary to get this project off the negotiating table and on to the drawing board.
Summing up, I reiterate my concern about the way in which the government has divided the country by this ill-considered measure. I protest strongly the terms Alberta is receiving under Bill C-56 and the rather shameful way in which government spokesmen have attempted to make Albertans feel they are something less than good Canadian citizens. As to the claim made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the provisions in the budget relating to the heavy oil industry will make up for the unfair tax treatment given to Alberta under the sales tax program, 1 do not believe it can be sustained.
Be that as it may, I believe that in spite of this government, Alberta will continue to shoulder its load and to do well. I know that Albertans will continue to be good Canadian citizens. If Bill C-56 has served no other purpose, it has done one
[Mr. Mazankowski.l
useful thing. I believe it has laid to rest once and for all the myth that is being spread around Alberta that the province needs a representative in this cabinet. If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) suggests that Bill C-56 is an example of how Alberta's interests are looked after, I can only conclude that this government has not learned very much since the period 1968 to 1972. During that period of time there were two ministers representing the province of Alberta and two government members of parliament. Subsequently all went down to defeat in the 1972 election simply because this government chose to ignore the concerns and wishes of Albertans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in the customary way I would like to be in a position this afternoon to begin my remarks on Bill C-56 by saying that I am glad to have an opportunity to participate in a discussion of this kind. However, participation at this particular moment is obviously with mixed emotions because I had hoped that the bill before us could have been read the second time some time ago, so that it could now be well on its way to becoming law in this country. Such progress with the legislation has not been possible because members of the opposition have been determined to stall it. Their actions, which I suggest have not been consistent with the best interests of Canadian federalism, have painted them, and particularly the Tories, into a tight and rather peculiar corner with the PQ separatist party in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: And with the Liberal party of the province of Quebec.


Ralph Goodale: That is even more true today after the developments of yesterday. I hear that hon. gentlemen opposite are not sitting too comfortably with that suggestion.


Walter David Baker: We do not like to hear a member mislead the House.


Ralph Goodale: I will get to that matter in just a moment and deal with the catcalls and heckling of hon. members opposite in some detail.


Walter David Baker: Don't mislead the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) has the floor.


Mr. Dick:: Speak the truth, Ralph.


Ralph Goodale: As I said, the point about the opposition parties being in a peculiar corner on this issue will be dealt with a little later in my remarks in considerable detail. However, I submit that that point was made, if it needed to be made any clearer, quite graphically when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and this government made two more proposals to the government of the province of Quebec in an
June 2, 1978

effort to try to resolve the difficulty. The proposals demonstrated once again that this government is determined to be fair, reasonable, and flexible.
Once again the Parti Quebecois said no to those proposals, and once again, as we heard this afternoon, that party in the province of Quebec has received the sympathy of the Conservative party in the House of Commons.
Before I get to the substance of that particular issue 1 would like to deal with some other measures contained in the April 10 budget. To my mind that budget was essentially a "good news" budget from the western Canadian point of view. It obviously did not allay all our concerns and deal with all our aspirations, but it did convey to western Canada a lot of encouraging news.
In this connection, and quite in contrast to some of the quotations read into the record by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who spoke just before me, I would like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post on April 12 of this year relating to the federal budget. The editorial is quite lengthy, and ends in this fashion:
It was not a throw-away budget, a cosmetic pre-election gambit or a copout. It was an exercise in realism giving full weight to the inherent discernment, intelligence and self-discipline all Canadians should have and use.
Nearly every major provision in this budget will have a positive impact in my part of the country, the prairie region. While the opposition political parties have been primarily negative about the budget, independent economic observers such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has a tremendous constituency across western Canada, and other groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Globe and Mail, the Financial Post, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix in my province, and the Regina Leader-Post, the newspaper from which I just quoted, have all responded essentially positively to the proposals contained in the budget. They have described the budget as being responsible and realistic, and they seem to be looking forward to the economic stimulation which is expected to flow from it. According to the most recent economic figures published not long ago, that stimulation seems to be growing.
Obviously, the measures announced by the Minister of Finance are not in themselves a complete blueprint for instant economic recovery, and they will not in themselves meet all of the economic challenges facing this country, but they will help to create the proper set of conditions for this strong and prosperous economy toward which this government is building.
It is important to note that we are succeeding in that work far more effectively than virtually every other country in the western industrialized world.


James McPhail Gillies: Nonsense.


Ralph Goodale: The first major thrust in the budget is the one which has been much debated on the floor of this House and across the country, the attempt to strengthen consumer buying power, to get more goods and services moving, and to create
Income Tax Act
more jobs by cutting retail sales taxes. All economists agree that that is the most effective level at which to make a cut because it has a direct, immediate, and obvious impact upon the price of goods on retail shelves. Since those taxes are imposed essentially by the province, a unique federal-provincial taxation arrangement was obviously required to make the cuts possible. The net result of this taxation arrangement, if it can be successfully concluded, will be a very significant saving for Canadian consumers, more than $1 billion altogether over the next six to nine month period.
I would like to refer again to some local commentary about that particular measure. If hon. members are curious about what this proposal will mean to a large rural constituency like mine in western Canada, or to communities like Weyburn and Estevan in the southeastern corner of my constituency, I refer them to a newspaper published in my constituency, called the Weyburn Review. Not long ago, in the April 27 edition of that newspaper, the newspaper undertook to survey a group of businessmen in that particular community to get their reactions to the sales tax proposal. The headline on the story in "Sales Tax Reduction Encourages Major Buys," and the subheading is "General Reaction Positive".
The survey of the business community in the Weyburn area done by this newspaper revealed a generally positive reaction. The chamber of commerce in that community, as quoted in this story, pointed out that this one measure in the budget alone could have the impact of saving half a million dollars or more for the consumers in that one community. When we extrapolate those figures across a constituency like Assiniboia, and include other communities across the province of Saskatchewan and across Canada, the magnitude of the saving for consumers and the importance of this measure become obvious.
Apart from the question of the economic impact of that proposal to cut sales taxes, the measure is also significant for at least two other reasons. First, it demonstrates that federal-provincial conferences, like the one held earlier this year-they began last fall and carried on throughout the winter and into the early spring, but I refer particularly to the conference held in February and the others which led up to it-can in fact work to the positive advantage of Canadians.
Second, I think the measure demonstrates once again that it is important in this day and age for us to have in Ottawa the kind of determined national leadership required to cope effectively with the threat of separatism in this country.
After we have dealt with the sales tax measure, the second major thrust in the budget consists of a series of enriched tax incentives in three key areas to strengthen the private sector of our economy without government interference. The areas affected include, first of all, the field of energy development, which has been discussed in the House this afternoon. While these measures in the budget are not, admittedly, a complete answer to the energy development challenges that we have in this country, they will provide a significant encouragement,

June 2, 1978
Income Tax Act
particularly for the development of heavy oil reserves in western Canada.
The second area affected by the tax incentives is the transportation system, again with special emphasis on encouraging rail improvements on the prairies and through the mountains to the west coast to try to alleviate one of the problems that has occupied a lot of time and attention in the House in the last couple of weeks with respect to grain movement to export positions. The tax incentives provided in the budget to assist the railways should help us to resolve the difficult bottleneck which exists from time to time on the lines through the Rockies.
The third area is with respect to incentives for industrial research activities which could be important, for example, for such western manufacturing firms as those producing short line farm equipment.
I think it is obvious from the points I have mentioned that this budget does have special significance for western Canada because virtually every one of its major provisions has a positive impact on the prairies. But there are two other measures contained in the budget which even add to that case. First of all, there is the provision which will allow two million Canadians owning registered retirement savings plans to have more flexibility in the way in which they cash in those plans and use the proceeds. As everyone knows, the law requires that RRSPs be wound up before the age of 71 and that the proceeds must either be used to buy a life annuity or be taken into income as a taxable lump sum.
With the new budget there are now two more options that are available, the purchase of a fixed term annuity until the age of 90, or the use of a new investment vehicle which has been created by the budget called the registered retirement income fund. For retiring Canadians and those who are planning now for their eventual retirement by purchasing a registered retirement savings plan, those changes will be welcome indeed; they recognize the kinds of representations that have been made on this point by Canadians across the country, including many in the constituency of Assiniboia.
Finally, as a special western emphasis in this budget I would mention the provisions regarding capital gains taxes. The existing rollover provisions exempting family farms from the capital gains tax have been widened by this budget to allow the same tax advantages for incorporated family farms. That is a move which, I am sure, many westerners have been suggesting for quite some time, and I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance has responded to the representations we have been making on that point. Obviously we must keep working with respect to the capital gains tax matter because more changes are yet required, but I think it is obvious that we are moving in the right direction.
It is instructive to take a look at the history of the development of the capital gains tax in this country. The capital gains tax theory or principle was first developed in the late 1960's and early 1970s in the ongoing process of tax review and tax reform. When the idea was first presented, particularly in the House of Commons, it seemed that once you had established
[Mr. Goodalc.J
the principle, there could not be many important exceptions to it. But over the course of time it has been demonstrated that substantial and important dents have been put in the idea that there cannot be any exceptions or changes to the fundamental theory or principle.
The first major deviation from the principle had to do with the family farm rollover which I mentioned a moment ago. It was a justifiable exception and one that has served reasonably well the farming community in this country, although I do not think it has yet been extended far enough. In the most recent budget, the extension of that special condition will apply to incorporated family farms as well as unincorporated family farms. Last year the tax law was changed in relation to capital gains taxes so that a farmer or a small businessman, for example, could dispose of a particular asset in order to reinvest in another capital asset of a similar nature. Previously that transaction was subject to the capital gains tax. Because of the change last year, that transaction is no longer subject to the capital gains tax in so far as the proceeds of the sale of the first capital asset are used to reinvest in acquiring replacement or similar property that the taxpayer intends to purchase. That is an important and useful change in the law and one that I most certainly support.
I think that additional changes in the field of the capital gains tax are most certainly needed, and I would like to suggest three ideas that I hope the government will seriously consider over the course of time because they are justifiable, particularly in their application to farmers and small businessmen in this country. First, I think of the valuation day problem which existed in 1970, 1971 and 1972. Everyone recognizes that in that period of time in western Canada capital values, for farmers and small businessmen especially, were artificially low because of the depressed economic conditions affecting agriculture, and in particular the grains industry. The problem with the capital gains tax now is that capital values have risen to more reasonable levels. Some would argue that the levels are excessively high, but they are considerably higher than they were in 1971-72. The fact of the matter is that that capital gain which is now taxable is artificially high because the valuation day value is artificially low, and this creates a particular burden upon farmers and small businessmen in my part of the country.
It could be alleviated to a certain extent by applying a formula of indexation to ease the burden of that low valuation day value. You could also take the other approach, if indexing is not technically possible to accomplish the job; you could apply an average over certain years, perhaps 1965, 1970 and 1975, and average the values together, taking those three years or a broader span of time, to get a more realistic base value upon which to base the capital gains tax law. But whether it is done by indexation, by the averaging formula or by some other method, we have to consider the problems created by that artificially low valuation day value across a great portion of western Canada.
Second, I should like the government to consider seriously the prospect of allowing farmers and small businessmen.
June 2, 1978

because of their peculiar economic position, their importance to the economy of this country, and because they do not have much choice about making major capital investments which they have to make if they are going to be in the business of farming or if they are going to operate their business enterprise, to be in a position of making a capital gain which is tax free by restricting it to a once in a lifetime opportunity so as to eliminate virtually all the speculators.
The principle of a once in a lifetime option is not something that is peculiar or unhead of in our taxation laws; it is a well recognized principle that goes back a considerable number of years. I think that the same principle that has been established in the past in our tax laws in other connections can well be applied to this case in relation to capital gains taxes, and it would help to alleviate the burden which falls at present on small businessmen and farmers.
Obviously some terms and conditions would have to be applied to the exemption. A logical condition to be applied to it is that the farmer or small businessman would have to be engaged in that enterprise for a certain number of years in order to qualify for the exemption, so that one could not simply become a farmer one day and claim a capital gain the next. There should be some condition applied to ensure that one is dealing with a bona fide farmer or a bona fide small businessman. You might consider the application of an over-all limit on the amount of the capital gain which would be exempted. For example, you might take an average-sized Saskatchewan farm as the basic limit that would be exempted from the tax, or whatever terms or conditions are required in order to make the provision fair. I think it is an option that is justifiable and I would like the government to take a serious look at the possibility of providing that once in a lifetime exemption from capital gains taxes to farmers and small businessmen in this country.
I have another proposal which is tied in with the issue of a once-in-a-lifetime exemption. It is a somewhat useful suggestion. It would be an innovative approach to the manner in which farmers and small businessmen are being treated in the acquisition of capital assets. The large capital investments farmers and small businessmen have to make in their farming and business enterprises should be treated as if those investments were contributions to registered retirement savings plans.
In many cases farmers and small businessmen do not have a choice about the capital they are required to pour into their enterprises. If one looked at the list of their capital assets, one would assume that they are enormously wealthy. That is not true or realistic at all. That amount of cash is tied up in a way that is of little use to them in a cash sense until they retire and sell their farms and small businesses. They look upon the potential income from the sale of their capital assets as a large portion of their retirement incomes. To a large extent those expectations are frustrated by the fact that they are required to pay capital gains tax on those assets.
Income Tax Act
If we were to treat the investments which they made during their lives in capital assets as if they were contributions to registered retirement savings plans, two important tax advantages would be provided. For the young farmer acquiring the land, he would benefit from a special kind of tax deduction on the principal and not just the interest of his land payments. When it came to the point in time for retirement, as a retiring farmer he would benefit from the same tax rules which apply to a person who is cashing in an RRSP. That would be a considerable advantage over the normal tax rules which apply to those circumstances at the present time.
I hope the government will give serious attention to my ideas: the question of a realistic valuation day value; the possibility of a once-in-a-lifetime exemption from capital gains tax for farmers and small businessmen; and the proposition of treating the investments of farmers and small businessmen in capital assets as if they were contributions to registered retirement savings plans.
Apart from those initiatives which I should like the government to consider for the future, the April 10 budget was very much a "good news" budget for the people of western Canada. The same is largely true for the rest of the country as well. Some people, particularly hon. members of the opposition, like to depict the Canadian economy always in the gloomiest and most negative of terms. Any objective analysis would indicate that Canada has shown a steady pattern of economic recovery from the worldwide inflationary shock of the early 1970s which brought on a global recession. That recession affected Canadians less largely than our neighbours in virtually all western industrialized democracies.
The economic boom of the 1960s and the early 1970s tempted all of us-workers, management and governments- to live beyond our means and demand more from the economy than it could sustain. By 1974-75 inflation had been pushed to critical levels, pricing us out of world markets and bringing on a surge of unemployment. Since the fall of 1975, strong remedial action has been under way. The anti-inflation program was launched at that time, and that action is working. Despite all the warts, bumps and imperfections, it has shown results.
Growth of government spending at all levels now is coming down, with the Government of Canada leading that trend. It would be encouraging if the provinces would do as well. Wage and other income increases are beginning to return to more realistic levels. The basic trend of our inflation is declining toward that 7 per cent target which was set for the end of this year.
A lower exchange rate for the Canadian dollar is helping to restore our competitive position in vital world markets. Nowhere is that more evident than in the grain and beef industries of western Canada. The trade deficit of $500 million which we suffered in 1975 has been turned around to a $3 billion surplus in 1977.
With respect to employment, we have had to cope with an unprecedented number of new people seeking jobs, including

June 2, 1978
Income Tax Act
the postwar baby boom, and with social and other desirable changes, a greater number of married women in the labour force. The actual job creation record of Canada is second to none in the world. Nearly 300,000 new jobs were available in this country in the past year. Our long-term average in job creation is in the range of 250,000 jobs per year.
There are sound, fundamental reasons for confidence and optimism as we tackle the economic challenges which still lie before us. Measures like those contained in the budget, and like those contained in the small business and research and development packages announced in the past week by government ministers, indicate that the government is meeting those challenges in a realistic and practical way. This will have a beneficial impact on all Canadians, and particularly in my constituency.
We have seen another rather amazing and unfortunate development in this debate on Bill C-56. We heard it reflected in some of the heckling by hon. members opposite at the beginning of my remarks this afternoon. Most of us who believe in federalism and one united Canada find it somewhat difficult to believe, but the evidence seems to be mounting that the Premier of Quebec and the Parti Quebecois separatists in that province have found a certain number of vocal allies in Ottawa who seem to be aiding their separatist cause.
Som hon. Members: You have helped the separatists.


Ralph Goodale: Whether deliberately or unwittingly-and I don't know which is worse-both opposition parties seem to be playing directly into the hands of Mr. Levesque.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: The latest focus of attention obviously is the sales tax provision in the budget which proposes a billion dollar reduction in provincial retail sales taxes with federal assistance. The basic idea was to bolster consumer spending power and to stimulate economic activity across the country. Since those taxes are provincially imposed, a special federal-provincial taxation arrangement was required to make immediate cuts possible. In essence, Ottawa offered to reimburse the provinces for most of their lost revenues if they in turn instituted a general sales tax reduction of 2 per cent or 3 per cent across the board.
The principle of that cut being a general one across the board is extremely important. The negotiations to set up that type of arrangement went on for three weeks or more prior to the presentation of the budget in the House of Commons on April 10. All of the provinces with the exception of Quebec agreed to the plan. For its own reasons, the Quebec provincial government declined to agree or disagree in the negotiations prior to the budget speech in the House of Commons. Essentially it refused to state a position one way or the other. Then two days after the federal budget speech, the Parti Quebecois government came forward in full detail with its own complicated plan, obviously a plan which had been worked upon in secret and without comment for an extensive period of time. No mention was made of it during the negotiations with the federal minister or the other provincial ministers.

Essentially Quebec proposed to eliminate its sales tax entirely on a few selected products which would have largely a beneficial impact in the province of Quebec. Instead of participating in a national effort to encourage economic stimulation all across the country by a general sales tax reduction, the PQ wanted to draw the federal government into financing a scheme biased in favour of that one province. Obviously that scheme would interfere with the free flow of goods and services across the country. It would tend to fractue the Canadian market.
Quite rightly, the federal government said no to the Quebec proposal. While provinces may choose to impose different sales taxes on different goods, which is their right clearly and unequivocally within the constitution, the Government of Canada should not contribute directly to the financing of those differences.
That is the essential and important point in this debate. The general sales tax reduction would essentially be neutral in its impact as between provinces, and it would not of itself contribute to different rates of tax on different goods and services in different provinces. Surely, that principle of non-discrimination between provinces is fundamental to Canadian federalism and to the maintenance of one common national Canadian market which is the federal responsibility.
The startling thing in all of this is that the opposition political parties have sided consistently with the PQ argument on this issue. Over the past two or three weeks the Conservatives have argued essentially in support of the Quebec government's notion that federal funds should be used to help different provinces build a kind of discrimination into the marketing of goods and services across Canada depending upon the province in which you happen to live. If the Government of Canada ever allows such a thing to happen with federal funds, Mr. Speaker, you can imagine where that would leave a province like Saskatchewan, for example; we would suffer very badly and so would the over-all national economy.
The tactics of the Quebec separatists on this particular issue are easy to understand. They want to break up the country, and they make no secret about that. Obviously, from that standpoint, they are going to make federalism as awkward as possible and they are going to make confederation as difficult as possible. As I said before, that was graphically demonstrated as late as yesterday when the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made two more proposals to the province of Quebec in an attempt to resolve the impasse, to try to find a way out so that the federal principles involved in this issue could be protected along with the provincial aspirations of Quebec. That adds up to approximately five proposals altogether which the federal government has put forward for consideration, and it is significant in this particular instance, as in the others, that it was the federal minister who had to take the initiative to call the provincial minister. The Parti Quebecois once again rejected the proposals put forward,
June 2, 1978

which clearly indicates their determination to make the federal system in this country difficult, awkward and hard to manage.
The Parti Quebecois' position, however, is fairly clearcut and easy to understand. What is less easy to understand is the pro-separatist stance that has been taken on this issue by the opposition parties in this House. That such a stand would be taken by a supposedly federal political party is simply beyond comprehension, except perhaps for the political mileage they might hope to gain from taking that kind of posture.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true. It is dishonest.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, despite the braying across the way-and obviously I have touched upon a very sensitive point with members of the opposition, who do not like the facts of this case to be put before them-it is important to put their position in relation to this particular case in its proper context and to look at the position on important federal-provincial issues taken over the course of the last few years. Just after Mr. Levesque was elected premier of Quebec in the fall of 1976, there were a number of reports-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Which you caused.


Ralph Goodale: -about federal Conservatives trying to woo his support within that province in an attempt to benefit from the political impact of the PQ electoral machine when a federal election might be called. The opposition denies that there was anything to those reports, but still, for some reason, those reports persisted then and persist yet today.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1977 a former member of that party decided that he had had enough, and he quit the Conservatives to become a Liberal. I am referring to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). It is significant, and the minister repeated his point just a few days ago, that one of the main factors in his judgment in determining to leave the Conservative party was the instruction he received from his former party, whether it was expressed or implied, that he was not to criticize Mr. Levesque, he was not to embarrass Mr. Levesque, he was not to cause him any difficulty because perhaps the Conservatives could benefit from the PQ electoral machine in that province. Of course, the Conservatives denied that there was anything to that, but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Goodale: -constantly reiterates that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Assiniboia has the floor and I suggest we listen. You will all have your turn.


Ralph Goodale: The remarks I am making, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the Conservative record on federal-provincial issues have a very direct bearing on Bill C-56. They help to explain the posture they are taking on the sales tax issue.
Income Tax Act
Let me refer to a third instance of the Conservative party posturing with respect to federal-provincial relations. In the five federal by-elections in the various Quebec constituencies just one year ago last month, PQ organizers were said to be actively working for federal Conservative candidates. It is significant that all the Tories lost, but again they denied there was anything of substance or significance going on between the PCs and the PQs.
I invite you to recall, Mr. Speaker, that last summer and last fall the Conservatives, day after day in the House of Commons, were attacking the security services in this country and particularly the Mounties. They harped on that issue for literally months on end, and then two commissions of inquiry were established to investigate all the allegations. One was created by the Government of Canada and the other was created by the PQ in the province of Quebec. Predictably, the Tories have consistently criticized the federal commission, along with the RCMP, and they have supported the commission appointed by the PQ in Quebec. But the PCs were then and are still saying that they and the separatists have nothing in common.
Most recently, during the spring and early summer, we had the issue of the speculation on the Canadian dollar as the dollar was moving down earlier this year. Day after day the financial critics of the opposition would rise in their places and ask questions about why the dollar was declining, and part of the explanation given was the political instability in Canada caused by the existence of a separatist government in one very important province. The Tories said that that was not important and that it was not significant.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the dollar began to rise. It rose fairly steadily for a few days until the finance minister of that separatist government in the province of Quebec made a statement about the possible development of the Quebec dollar as opposed to the Canadian dollar, and the Canadian dollar began to dip again. You would think that the members of a party which is so concerned about the Canadian dollar, a party that pretends to be concerned about federalism, would be on their feet instantly asking questions in this House about the statement made by the finance minister in the province of Quebec that caused the most recent decline in the Canadian dollar. Did we hear a word from the Conservatives on that issue? There was not a peep from them, which really betrays where they are in trying to curry favour with that government in the province of Quebec.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the sales tax issue, and where are the PCs? They are squarely in the corner with Mr. Levesque and the finance minister, Mr. Parizeau.


An hon. Member:: And Claude Ryan.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Ryan's proposal was rejected just yesterday.
The PQ recently indicated that perhaps they were going to get involved directly in the next federal election campaign. I wonder for whom. I doubt they will be working for the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, but I suspect they may be

June 2, 1978
Income Tax Act
looking to some Tory allies to give them some comfort and some support in their quest to make confederation and federalism in this country as difficult as possible.
The posture of the Tories on the sales tax fits neatly into a rather important pattern, which we have seen over the last couple of years. The denials, the heckling and the catcalling are fairly transparent and pretty weak in trying to deny those allegations, in trying to indicate there is no connection between the Tories and the separatists. The denials look pretty transparent and pretty weak indeed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Boy, are you ever fighting for your seat in Assiniboia.


Ralph Goodale: In contrast to the position put forward by the Conservatives in the House of Commons, I am pleased and proud to stand with a party which is committed to Canadian unity in a clear and unequivocal way. I suggest that Bill C-56 demonstrates that, and I in fact support it.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) who, I am told by all informed people, will not be back after the next election. Of course, it will be a great credit to this House if he is not. I think it disgraceful that a member will get up in this House and accuse loyal Canadians who have been elected by their constituents to represent them of being separatists. He should apologize. He should withdraw that remark.
For the first time in my life I understand why this country is separating: it is because of what we have just heard as a typical, true Liberal speech-if you do not agree with the Liberals, you are a separatist. I want the hon. member to withdraw that statement right now. Withdraw it right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to withdraw that statement against me and my party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that is not a point of order but a point of debate.


James McPhail Gillies: A point of debate?


Mr. Kaplan:: I listened carefully, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia. He did not accuse members of the opposition of being separatists; what he argued was that the tactics they have been adopting have been helping the separatists. There is a considerable difference. There certainly was no assertion on which the hon. member for Don Valley claims a question of privilege.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not right.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my friend from Toronto just attempted to say to mollify the feelings of the House. Those feelings should be mollified all right but not for the reasons the hon. member put forward.
I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. It is an insult to parliament. More than that, I would remind my friend as he considers whether he should withdraw it-and I think he should upon reflection-that the leader of his party, the Prime Minister of this country, not too long ago said that all parties in this House of Commons, all members of this House of Commons, supported the cause of unity and togetherness in Canada.


Mr. Campbell:: Prove it.


Walter David Baker: You are not helping anything, Mr. Campbell.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he refer to a member of this House by his riding.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not want to hurt the feelings of the people in the riding.
I think it borders on the reprehensible for a member of the House of Commons to rise in his place and accuse any member of this House of siding with and aiding and abetting those who would try to break this country apart. I have high regard for the hon. member for Assiniboia, although we have our partisan differences. I want that regard to remain at a reasonably high level within those partisan differences, but that will not be the case if this kind of idle accusation, cheap partisanship and meanness is allowed to flourish on the floor of this House of Commons.
I join my friend the hon. member for Don Valley and ail members of this House in asking the hon. member to apologize for what, upon reflection, he must consider most unparliamentary language.


Mr. Neil:: Insulting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 should like to suggest to all hon. members that the time to raise the point of order was when the hon. member for Assiniboia was speaking, not now.


James McPhail Gillies: It is a disgraceful day in the House of Commons.


Mr. Lachance:: I think that the point raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is not a valid reason to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) to apologize to the House. I think that the question of privilege has been clearly defined by the Deputy Speaker, but in my opinion the member for Assiniboia has not used unparliamentary language. Possibly several members opposite do not agree with what he said.
June 2, 1978


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that the Chair has already ruled on the point of order and has gone to the hon. member for Don Valley.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to speak on this bill today after listening to the diatribe we have just heard, although it has been useful because it makes clear to the people of Canada that the debate on this bill is much more important than just a debate on the ways and means motion.
The action of the government, the nature of the statements of this gentleman from somewhere in Saskatchewan, Assiniboia-


Mr. Benjamin:: We are not bragging about him.


James McPhail Gillies: -shows that he has no understanding of what Canada is all about, no understanding of what parliament is about, no understanding of the division of responsibility under the constitution, no understanding of the democratic process, no understanding that reasonable people can disagree and still love their country, no understanding that there may be a different approach to a problem. Instead he throws vindictive and disgraceful remarks against other members of the House of Commons.
There was a time when the people of Canada thought the Liberal government under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) could deal with the national problems of Canada. What has happened over the last few weeks, as this debate has demonstrated clearly to the vast majority of Canadians, is that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Liberals, are shown to be out of touch with Quebec. They do not understand Quebec's problems or aspirations and are ill-equipped to deal with the most important problem to face Canada since confederation-whether this country is going to stay together or not.
The approach taken recently by the Minister of Finance indicates that the government does not understand what confederation is all about. It is quite clear, as far as the sales tax is concerned, that it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government of this country obviously is not concerned about interfering in the jurisdiction of the provinces. When the Minister of Finance stands up and says he got agreement for his measure, his statement is patently false. He did not get agreement; he talked but he did not get agreement. To be so naive, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were, as to push ahead under the circumstances boggles the mind.
With all the problems that we have in this country, with all the tensions we have in confederation, and all the things all of us, including those in the Progressive Conservative party, are trying to do to keep this country together, what could have been the reason for the Minister of Finance to take the position he did on sales tax in this budget? We can search our minds for an explanation, Mr. Speaker. What could it have been? Has he been so long away from Quebec in federal politics that he has no understanding of the aspirations of the
Income Tax Act
people of that province? Surely, if he knew anything about the handling of dissent in the last 20 years on the North American continent and indeed all over the world, he would know that governments have had to learn to deal with dissent. He must have known that by doing what he did he was going to exacerbate separation in this country.


Walter David Baker: Maybe that was his reason.


James McPhail Gillies: I do not suggest, as the hon. member for Assiniboia seemed to be trying to suggest, that the Minister of Finance is trying to bring separatism into Canada. I do not think that is true. I think it is outrageous that anyone would make that suggestion about any member of parliament. There is no question, however, that the lack of comprehension about how to deal with a dissent situation has led the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to bring forward, to move forward, the cause of separation in Canada. They have done so because they do not understand the problem.
To move into Quebec, to move into a provincial jurisdiction, when the minister of finance of that province has said "We do not want you in that jurisdiction," to me is reprehensible. It was a mistake. Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Levesque have made clear what they want to do with this country-they want to separate. There is no secret; that is their aim. The reason they want to separate is that confederation, they say, is not working. The reason they say confederation is not working is that the federal government is intruding too much into provincial jurisdiction. Why would a minister of finance move again into provincial jurisdiction? It does not make any sense. There is no explanation for it.


An hon. Member:: You don't know the Parti Quebecois politics.


James McPhail Gillies: I know the Parti Quebecois politics very clearly. The Parti Quebecois politics are very simple.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley has the floor. We will be here for a long time if these interruptions continue. Hon. members will all have their time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: No one has to study very hard to know the politics of the Parti Quebecois. Would anyone dispute that the politics of the Parti Quebecois are to take Quebec out of confederation? That is their aim, and they have made it clear. Do hon. members not understand that is what they want to do? They have said it many times and they have tried to do it many times. They want to break up Canada. Before I was in parliament 1 never had any doubt about that in my conversations with members of the Parti Quebecois, and 1 have no doubt about it now. They want to break up Canada. I want to keep it together. I think we are better off as a nation than we

June 2, 1978
Income Tax Act
are separate. I am sorry, but it is quite clear to me that the action taken by the Minister of Finance led to an increase in the conflict between the people of the province of Quebec and the rest of this country. It was a devastating wrong move to make. Indeed it was reflected for the people of the province of Quebec when every single member of their legislature voted to condemn what was done here.


An hon. Member:: And Claude Ryan outside.


James McPhail Gillies: And Claude Ryan outside. So that there is a message from the province of Quebec, a message so clear and that says "Look, we object to this federal intrusion." Why would a federal government do it when we are trying to hold the country together? Probably the reason is reflected in the speech made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He does not understand that the country is made up of regions and parts with different aspirations. It is a tenuous confederation that we pulled together. He does not know-he comes from western Canada-that the alienation of western Canada is tremendous. It started for a number of reasons. But what moved it ahead? It was John Turner, the former Minister of Finance, when he unilaterally refused to permit the deduction of royalties in the federal income tax calculations for oil producers, which was another intrusion by the federal government into the responsibilities of provincial governments. Here in debate for two or three weeks we have a measure put forward by the Minister of Finance that was a mistake to start with. There was no agreement. I do not care whether we are talking about the province of Newfoundland, the province of Nova Scotia or the province of Prince Edward Island-any province at all; this sort of intrusion is intolerable if we are to keep the country together. To intrude into a province's responsibilities from the federal level, that province's agreement must be obtained. The minister did not have that agreement, and he should have backed off and taken a different tack on the budget. It has done nothing for the economy. All it has done is exacerbate the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. It has demonstrated, without any sort of doubt, to all the people that the federal government, this Liberal cabinet, obviously does not understand what this country is about. It obviously cannot keep the country together because of the approach which they use. Everything they touch goes wrong as far as dealing with federal-provincial relations is concerned.
There has been a decline of unity in this country under the leadership of the Prime Minister the like of which we have never seen. Having made a blunder of mammoth proportions in what he and the Minister of Finance decided to do, the means they have used to try to correct it have been ludicrous.
What we now have flowing from this blunder is the development at the federal level of a system of taxation that is different for the same people in the same income groups across the country. We have the denial of a fundamental principle of taxation that, in the same jurisdiction, people in the same taxable income position should be taxed the same. The machinations which the Minister of Finance has gone through trying to say his proposals are the same is foolish. He argues

that all he is doing is giving room for the provinces to reduce their income tax. They will get the additional revenue that they need when they lose the sales tax. He says because he cannot get agreement in the province of Quebec, he will mail a cheque to the people of the province of Quebec for $85. Now there is some talk about $100, but the net result is the same.
Let us make it clear once and for all so we will not hear this come up again that there is no economist in the world who would_ support the proposition that the incidence or the burden of a sales tax is the same as the incidence or the burden of an income tax. They are not the same. No matter how often the Minister of Finance gets up and repeats this error, it does not make it true. The burden of taxation-and now I am talking precisely in terms of public finance administration-on a sales tax is different from the burden of taxation-using the term "burden" in the technical sense of an income tax-is different. So now we have two different tax situations developing in different parts of the country. They are not the same.
In addition, of course, for the people of Quebec, the way in which the Minister of Finance is approaching the problem is incredibly inequitable. His original plan was to give them a cheque, but the plans change day by day.


An hon. Member:: You have changed.


James McPhail Gillies: I have never changed on this issue. On this issue the minister talks about sending a cheque to taxpayers on the tax roll as at December 31, 1977, but the problem is that the people who pay income tax are not necessarily the same people who pay the sales tax. Putting it another way, the burden of sales tax on people who do not pay income tax is infinitely higher than the burden of the sales tax on people who do pay income tax. So it is unfair, unjust and inequitable.
The minister of finance for the province of Quebec is perfectly correct in saying this is an unfair, inequitable way to do this, just as he is totally correct in saying that the sales tax is in his jurisdiction and that the province can operate any way they want-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott) is rising on a point of order.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, could I be permitted to ask a question?


James McPhail Gillies: Yes.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, first of all, is he saying that the sales tax is exclusively within provincial jurisdiction? Secondly, with regard to the formula that was arrived at with the nine other provinces to give them income tax points credit to get back the moneys they lose on sales tax, is that not identical to what is proposed for the province of Quebec except that we do not have an agreement to collect taxes? I would like the hon. member to explain that if he can.
June 2, 1978


James McPhail Gillies: I am saying that they are not precisely the same at all. Mr. Speaker, will this be deducted from my time limit?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: We will give the hon. member an extra minute.


James McPhail Gillies: They are not the same. I am sure the hon. member understands that the burden of a sales tax paid by the people in the province of Ontario is different, from the burden of an income tax. There is a different rate, a different proportion. A sales tax is not progressive; in fact, it is regressive. It is different. So that if a person gets a cheque for $100 in Quebec and another person receives a $100 rebate on the sales tax in Ontario, the burden of those taxes on the individuals is quite different even though the $100 is the same. That is the point 1 am trying to make. That is the point which makes me squirm day after day in my chair as I listen to the Minister of Finance saying they are the same thing. They are not the same. The burden is different.
The second question, if I recall it correctly was: Where is the jurisdiction of the sales tax? There is a federal sales tax. My own view would have been that if the Minister of Finance wanted to move on the sales tax, he should have moved on the sales taxes under federal jurisdiction. He would not then have had this problem with any province.
If this argument is that the reason you want to move on the sales tax is because you want to have a direct attack on prices right away and stimulate consumer demand, he should have moved on the federal sales tax which has been an irritant in a variety of industries and a variety of places for a long time, particularly in the building industry. If he wanted to move in the sales tax field, he had a whole area to move on in the federal jurisdiction.
The question is often asked, is the cut going to be passed on? How do you make sure the provincial tax cut is going to be passed on? You don't. That is one of the difficulties with the sales tax. If the goal, as the Minister of Finance has said over and over, is to reduce prices and stimulate consumer demand as quickly as possible, and you want to act in the sales tax area, he had a large federal jurisdiction, a large amount of money to work with.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Four billion dollars in federal sales tax.


James McPhail Gillies: That is correct. Again, it seems very peculiar. I am not sure why he would risk the danger, and I use the word carefully, of a confrontation, which you really had to know would come because of the position that has been put forth by the PQ so often. Why would he risk that danger when he was not going to achieve anything?
One can go back, if one is a student of budgets, to try and find out which is the worst budget that has ever been drawn. That is sometimes more interesting than trying to find out which was the most effective. Some people would argue that the budget drawn by Mr. Gordon some years ago was politically naive. However, I am sure history will say this most recent
Income Tax Act
budget is the worst budget that has ever been presented to the people of Canada. This budget is the worst in the sense of what it does to the unity of the country. It is worst in terms of the fact that it will have no effect on the operation of the economy. It is worst in the fact that it is introducing the principle of a different burden of taxation on different people in the country who are within the same jurisdiction.
In addition, if one generalizes beyond that, did the Minister of Finance take the right approach to the economy in preparing his budget? One can make a very strong argument, and it has been made in many places, that the economy has changed so much from the way it was in the fifties, sixties and seventies that the traditional way of attacking economic problems, normally called the Keynesian method, the macro-economic method of government expenditure, sales tax and income tax and so on, is no longer proper.
I am one of those who said in this House a year or two ago, and 1 say it again, that the day has passed when you can really make significant changes in the way in which your economy operates with those particular tools. The way in which you make approaches to getting this economy working again is by dealing much more significantly with individual areas of the economy, looking at it sector by sector.
I must say 1 felt encouraged when we had the federal-provincial conference last January. I thought coming out of that conference was the idea that the way in which the economy was going to be moved ahead again was to look at the different segments of the economy and do something in order to stimulate them so they were effective. That is the type of budget making which we really need to have.
It is a long time since the government introduced the concept that we must do something about regional disparities in this country. The governments of those periods deserve credit for equalization payments and for the creation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. However, 20 to 25 years after the start of these programs we should be moving to a situation in this nation where we do not have areas of low economic activity to the extent that we still have in the country.
If such programs were doing what they were supposed to do-and I use this area as an example-Atlantic Canada would no longer be an area of extremely high unemployment and slow economic growth. We should have been able to evolve policies to turn that area of the country around so that it would be a viable, strong, economic region.
If we had the right policies, there is no reason in the world why we should not have in this country one of the great fishing industries of the world. We have as much coastline as almost any country in the world.


Walter David Baker: More.


James McPhail Gillies: Some say more. However, we in this country do not have a fishing industry that is one of the greatest in the world. I say this with respect to my friends from Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada.

June 2, 1978
Income Tax Act
We have no shipbuilding to speak of. Now that we have the 200-mile limit, why have we not developed, and why did this budget not address itself to the problem of creating, a viable fishing industry? Along with it we should have a viable shipbuilding industry, not building mammoth ocean tankers but building the ships that are necessary for the fishing fleet. Why did the budget not go in that way?
It is only when the government tackles the various segments, sectors and problems of the economy in this way that the economy will start moving again. Whether you are looking at the fishing industry or shipbuilding in Atlantic Canada, the mining industry in northern Ontario or northern Manitoba, the manufacturing of automobile parts in southern Ontario, or the shipment of forest products out of British Columbia, you will see that what is patently needed is an examination of each of these sectors. When that is done the appropriate policies will make it possible for all areas of the nation to become viable and prosperous.
Most economists in the world are saying that the world ought to be on the verge of an enormous upswing. The day of the Club of Rome is drawing to a close. In fact, the general feeling by many is that we are on the verge, because of new technological change, new energy changes and so on, of starting on another great Kondratieff cycle. Kondratieff was a Russian economist who believed in long cycles, and his theory suggests that the world might now be on the verge of an upswing based upon great new amounts of investment. Prosperity from 1950 to 1975 was basically propelled by consumer spending and redistribution of income.
We have the opportunity now to cash in on the great new investment booms that are going on all over the world. How sad that in this country, which ought to do most in this area, nothing is happening. How sad that in 1978 a Minister of Finance should bring down a budget with not one scintilla of a new idea about how to get this country moving.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like on behalf of members of parliament, and if necessary personally, to file a caveat with respect to the most unfortunate and unworthy remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) during the course of his speech, and to reserve, if that should become necessary on examination of the record, a question of privilege.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The hon. member asked me to look after his interest because he was obliged to catch a plane to the west. He heard
(Mr. Gillies.]
something about being accused of being a coward by some member of the opposition. He, too, would like to see the record on that comment and perhaps review his own comments. Therefore, I join in asking to reserve on this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Chair will take the matter under advisement.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Shame on both of them.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we shall proceed, by unanimous consent, to the resumed debate on Notice of Motion No. 25. I ask unanimous consent for the preceding motions to be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that items Nos. 13, 3, 7, 9, 2, 18 and 12 stand by unanimous consent and that we proceed with item No. 25?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 27, 1978, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of having parliament adopt a measure authorizing payment of an allowance to housewives w-ho remain at home to take care of their family instead of joining the labour market, the purpose being to ensure a global income corresponding to the family's needs by providing an additional family income to that earned by the father.
Mr. Charles-Eugcne Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I was present in the House on February 27, 1978 when my colleague from Bellechasse listed the reasons which had prompted him to introduce the motion which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of having parliament adopt a measure authorizing payment of an allowance to housewives who remain at home to take care of their family instead of joining the labour market, the purpose being to ensure a global income corresponding to the family's needs by providing an additional family income to that earned by the father.
Several members expressed their opinions on that occasion and generally they were in agreement, except for one hon. lady who expressed objections which I simply cannot endorse, particularly as those objections were voiced by a female member. However, I do not want to belabour those reactions we noted at the end of the debate on the motion. The important thing is to show the soundness of that motion and try to direct the legislation so that Canadian housewives will enjoy a decent
June 2, 1978

allocation allowing them to provide an additional family income to complement the earnings of the father and, as I suggested earlier, corresponding to the family's needs. In this uncertain age in which we live, the home and everything it represents remain the focal point in our society. In Canada, the wife and mother remains the centre of family life even though her contribution to the development of her country from farming society to an industrial and urban society has greatly changed her way of life.
Studies have been made to determine the number of working married women and the reasons why they work. We should ask ourselves about the circumstances which have brought our society to create a female manpower of nearly two million in Canada.
Following seminars on this issue which were called "Women at Work", it was suggested that this situation was the result of automation, urbanization, social acceptance and changes in social needs. The unanimous opinion of working women is that no mother leaves her children needlessly and they generally admit that they would rather be at home, but they add that they must have another income to maintain a proper home for their children. Economic reasons are the most often mentioned by women workers, especially those whose husbands are low wage earners, that is who earn less than $6,000 a year. It is easy to conclude that the reasons why married women seek outside work are economic in nature. The great majority of women who work do so to improve the standard of living of their family.
At this time when our political leaders are looking for answers to the problem of unemployment that they do not seen to be able to solve, it would be a good idea to encourage housewives by giving them a fair income, which would make more jobs available for those who have a lower family income. Legislation which would provide a salary for housewives would give evidence of an understanding attitude on the part of the authorities towards all the wives, and especially those of the farmers who must work long hours to take care of their children and do their part of the farming chores. Jacqueline Lemay sings: "Half the world is a woman." Could it be that our society discriminates even against the disadvantaged women, who account for half of our female population? We seem to think that rural women still work only for the glory of God and not to earn a good living.
In the February 22, 1978 issue of the newspaper La Terre de Chez-Nous, I read a letter written by Mrs. Blandine Saint-Cyr, assistant at the rural commission AFEAS, Nicolet section. I think it might be indicated for me to quote that letter which describes well the work of women in rural areas. It is really very hard to describe the situation of women in an agricultural milieu. To be the wife of a farm producer is to work constantly in co-operation with one's husband, without ever getting a salary because one is not entitled to it. In the past, women did much more work on the farm and out in the
Housewives' Allowance
fields. Today, because of mechanization, a rural wife takes a more active part in the decisions concerning the business and outside affairs. She is more interested in the farming techniques to better understand and participate in the fairly important investment decisions which farming involves. In many cases, the women are also the ones who take care of the accounting. For that, they have to get additional training, take courses and attend meetings dealing with farming. They also have to take care of the family and do the housework. Rural women are not indifferent to school problems; they have to see to it that their children get a good education to enable them at a later date to have skills or a profession. To do so, they have to attend meetings and learn about the new teaching methods.
In spite of her many obligations she is also a member of the school board or the recreational committee. She finds it necessary to join other women of the urban community and this is why she is a member of an association like AFEAS and others. Some years ago, the members of that association made a study on women working with their husbands. They realized that many of them were not aware of the provisions of their marriage contract. With that study women have been made more aware of their situation.
I believe that the farmer's wife really works in co-operation with her husband as she participates in the decisions of the business and its day to day operations and in certain cases she is even co-owner with her husband. This occupation is very close to nature and very pleasant but it does not allow you to take a few weeks' rest in the south. This was the conclusion of the letter from that lady.
I also had the occasion to read a release published some time ago in 1970 concerning the housewife and the labour force. The release said, and I quote:
We should consider housewives as members of the labour force and the value of the services they render in their home should be part of the gross national product.
Such action would improve the image of housewives and reduce the frustration of women in North America.
In a speech at the North Amercian conference on labour statistics, in Houston, Texas,... the Director of the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labour of Canada, Miss Sylvia Gelber said that women working at home should be considered as members of the labour force.
And I agree with this opinion. Further, she made a very timely remark that I wish to quote as I found it perfectly logical:
Miss Gelber humorously pointed out that if a man hires a cleaning woman her services are included in the gross national product. However, if later he marries that woman she will continue to perform the same work, but the gross national product will be reduced since her work has no monetary value.
And yet there is not much difference as far as work is concerned. Whether or not he is married to the cleaning woman, she does the same work at home. I wanted to add those few words about the motion because, considering what is happening in various countries, the discussions on the matter and the inquiries made for several years I feel it would be

June 2, 1978
Housewives' Allowance
normal that the wife or the mother be rewarded some way or another for her work. It would be quite normal in our modern world where we often hear about social security. Therefore well balanced wages should be paid to the mother and this is why I support the motion. I dare hope that the government will finally decide to do something to try and really improve the lot of the wife and mother.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to have an opportunity this afternoon to participate in this debate. The motion addresses itself to a very serious problem in our society which is growing in dimensions and which is demanding more and more attention. Unfortunately, the problem does not seem to be very high on the list of priorities of the government. I am talking about the problem of unattached females who are forced, because of inequities in our social welfare system, to live in poverty. We have the spouse's allowance, and there are currently about 75,000 Canadians who are availing themselves of this. However, that does not solve the problem of unattached female pensioners. The motion which has been introduced by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) gives us an opportunity to dwell on that problem for a few moments.
There are a number of reasons why I believe that the hon. member has addressed himself to this urgent problem. Let us look at the family in society. The family is the centre, the core and the keystone of our society, and it is under attack like never before. There are a number of factors which contribute to this situation. There is a trend toward urbanization. Most Canadian people live in cities, and our cities are growing. The majority of Canadians live in big cities. The problem of the single parent is a growing problem, and it is having an impact on family welfare. Then there is the problem, because of inflation and economic conditions, that spouses are being forced into the labour field. The result of all these things means that the family is under attack, and children are the ones who suffer most.
On the other hand, what about the traditional family situation where one spouse works and the female spouse stays at home and becomes the homemaker? What happens to her? What encouragement or incentive does society provide to carry on the traditional family situation? None. Indeed, we throw disincentives in the way by not permitting the homemaker to qualify under the Canada Pension Plan. If the homemaker could qualify under the Canada Pension Plan, that would solve many of our poverty problems among pensioners and, especially, unattached pensioners.
The statistics are frightening. According to Statistics Canada, over 50 per cent of unattached female pensioners in Canada are living below the poverty line because they have nothing to fall back on. They have no spouse's allowance and nothing to fall back on except old age assistance. If they are too young to qualify for that, they have to resort to provincial welfare. If we were to take the enlightened step of allowing the

homemaker to qualify under the Canada Pension Plan, we would be satisfying two very important social objectives. On the one hand, we would be protecting the family unit because the family cannot survive without at least one parent being home as a homemaker. It cannot survive as a healthy family unit. On the other hand, we would be addressing the problem of poverty among unattached female pensioners.
My own family situation comes to me as an example. If my wife were to leave the family unit, I would have nobody to take care of my six children. The family would lose the maternal influence of the mother in the home, and I would lose the services of a qualified housekeeper. I could solve the latter problem by going to the labour market and paying out a substantial weekly or monthly amount for a housekeeper. That would not solve the other problem regarding maternal influence, but for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan why can Canada not recognize the role of the homemaker? I say "homemaker" out of deference to the fact that not all homemakers are females. In Canada there are 10,000 males who are homemakers.
Homemakers could qualify under the Canada Pension Plan in a very simple way. The deductions which are made from the family income-and my family income is my salary-could cover both spouses for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan. This would ensure that when my wife reaches the pensionable age and the children have gone off to raise their own families, my wife would not be forced into the humiliation of having to fall back on the means test welfare system we have and old age assistance.
It would ensure a certain amount of dignity for the retiring female spouse. It would ensure a reasonably adequate income for both spouses, if we take into account both Canada Pension Plan benefits coupled with old age assistance. Hence, we would be able to eliminate the spouse's allowance, which does not really satisfy the situation now in that it unjustly ceases after the death of the older spouse, a situation to which I hope this parliament will address itself before too long.
It would also ensure a reasonably adequate income, and you would be able to eliminate in the process the spouses' allowance, as I have said, as well as the guaranteed income supplement. The guaranteed income supplement, as we know, is obtained after a means test by a person who does not enjoy the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan and can only fall back on old age assistance and, by way of subjecting himself or herself to a means test, obtain the guaranteed income supplement which will give him or her an additional $109 a month. We can eliminate that procedure by making the homemaker eligible for the Canada Pension Plan.
Ultimately we will have to take steps to protect the family, and I would say that this should be the first step in that direction. The growth in the rate of marriage breakdown in Canada, the growth in the rate of divorce and the growth in the rate of malnutrition among Canadians is frightening, a fact that was revealed in this affluent society of ours in a study
June 2, 1978

commissioned by this government on nutrition in Canada which is now gathering dust on the shelves of the bureaucracy. Malnutrition is a serious problem in this country, especially among our children, since we have a situation developing in this country of single parent families with inadequate income; of single parents having to remain home with the children, or perhaps even being forced out to work; or the situation which I have already identified where both spouses are forced into the labour market because of inflation and the economic condition of the country today. All these situations result in the innocent, the children, having to suffer.
So it follows that just as we introduced some time ago into this country a universal family allowance program, surely we should follow with the next logical step and introduce a program which would encourage one of the two spouses to remain at home to ensure that the family is properly looked after in terms of nutrition, in terms of health care, and in terms of the supervision and the responsibility that goes with raising children.
The situation today is such that we have the blot, the scandal, the disgrace on the face of Canadian society of women being forced to live in poverty because their life expectancy is considerably longer than that of their male spouse. The result is that when their male spouse dies, they have nothing else to fall back on except old age assistance. They do not have old age allowance because it dies with the older spouse. Surely we as a society, as the mover states in his motion, should recognize the importance of the family, and hence the importance of the homemaker to the family, and provide incentives whereby the homemaker would be able to remain with the family to provide for all these things that are necessary in raising a family today.
I would find it difficult to put a price on my wife. There is no way I can replace the maternal influence that she provides in our family. If I were to lose her, I would have to pay $10,000 to hire a housekeeper, and that housekeeper would be entitled to the Canada Pension Plan which I would have to pay and she would have to pay. Therein lies the anomaly of the whole situation. Surely it would follow logically that we as a society should recognize that the homemaker, usually the female spouse, is performing a very necessary function in society, one that can be measured in monetary terms, as I have indicated; and it would seem to me to be relatively simple to add a provision to the Canada Pension Plan whereby the principal income earner of the family would have deducted from his or her income the necessary amount to provide Canada Pension Plan benefits for the homemaking spouse. It is simple justice. It would address this scandalous problem of poverty in Canada with our older unattached people, most of whom are females.
What can we say for a society that does not take these necessary steps to protect the very keystone of society, the family? The greatest threat to the family unit today is the threat brought about by the economic conditions of world and domestic inflation which forces both spouses to go into the labour market, or the threat to the family brought about by
Housewives' Allowance
the demands of modern society, the urbanization of society, resulting in marriage breakdown, again causing the family unit to be under direct attack and causing considerable suffering among the children. This is a situation which will reflect on our future society.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) shows great compassion when she makes speeches outside the House. Recently she made a speech to the National Conference of Canadian Pensioners in Nova Scotia. She made another speech recently to the Second International Congress of the World Federation for Public Health Associations. In all of these various public speaking engagements she expresses great compassion, and I am sure she is a very compassionate woman. I as one member of the House would like to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare express these same sentiments in the House, and I would like to see her translate these sentiments into legislative form. She could not make a better beginning than to bring amendments to the Canada Pension Plan to make it possible for benefits to be paid to the homemakers in this country.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of speaking in this debate on motion No. 25, a debate which I have been looking forward to joining for quite some time because I think this is an important aspect of our social considerations and one that tends to trouble me in certain aspects. Because of this it is important that, first of all, I review the wording of the motion as the initial background to my remarks. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of having parliament adopt a measure authorizing payment of an allowance to housewives who remain at home to take care of their family instead of joining the labour market, the purpose being to ensure a global income corresponding to the family's needs by providing an additional family income to that earned by the father.
I should like to congratulate the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I have to say honestly that of all the people in the House whom we like and admire, he is certainly one of my favourite colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: I think we can say that for a lot of us he reflects the character of his party. He is a man of rather old fashioned values and of gentle sentiments, except perhaps, like his party, in certain areas of justice, such as capital punishment. He is a man who would put forward this type of motion rather naturally because certainly he is a family man, a man with a large family, as we all well know. I do not mean that sarcastically, I mean it in a very real sense in regard to this motion. I am sure he has a great sense of value embedded in this motion. There is no question about the need for assistance, or at least understanding and support, in this area.
As the previous speaker stated, in our modern society with all its benefits one of the casualties or the fallouts is the family with its pressures, particularly those on the children. We are

June 2, 1978
Housewives' Allowance
aware of new family problems these days which are costly to our society. There is a need for some adult to stay home and give support to the children a good part of the time. Traditionally that role has been fulfilled by the housewife, the female spouse.
In this day and age due to a change in participation rate in the employment situation, it is becoming increasingly questionable how many housewives wish to stay home. Also it is uncertain how many housewives expect to be reimbursed or compensated for staying at home and playing the role of homemaker. That role is very satisfying to many women. Generally it is agreed that marriage and families are partnerships, which is enough of a reward. Also it is agreed that financial arrangements can be worked out between family members.
We must consider what effect a measure such as this would have on the economy. An adjustment would be necessary if financial remuneration was paid to homemakers remaining in the home, especially on a full time basis. In strict but sincere mechanical and administrative terms, how would these duties be measured? What would be a fair remuneration and compensation for the economic value of homemakers?
Economic activity is only a part of human activity. Our social accounting procedures and rewards should have recognized this. An economic service has been defined as one which may be done by someone other than the person benefiting therefrom. One economist has estimated that the monetary value of the housewife to her family is equal to the sum of her income from work outside the home and the replacement cost of the services she provides in the house, less the value of her personal consumption. Obviously this is a rather complicated subject, especially when the necessary details are considered. Some economists are arguing that the allocation and efficiency of non-working time may be more important to economic welfare than working time. These economists are trying to deal more directly with the sources of utility or well-being by estimating the dollar value of non-market activities.
This is being done in various ways in different centres. As a proxy for the gross national product, one economist has applied the actual costs of domestics for a year to the number of families with two or more members. Some economists have carried out elaborate studies which included the mistaken assumption that full time female employees do no housework. The time budgets of some 30,000 persons on 99 items in 12 countries were studied in 1972. These showed that married women with paying jobs are overworked in comparison with employed men and housewives.
In Canada, Hawrylyshyn of Queen's University, Kingston, has been doing interesting work on evaluating household activities from an economist's perspective for Statistics Canada. From his review of international studies, he concludes in general that it is found that the value of household services is about one-third the size of the g.n.p. which, to say the least, is a very substantial amount. I believe that the current g.n.p. for Canada is approximately $200 billion a year. It may be ranked with agriculture, industry and services. He makes a
[Mr. Philbrook.l
good argument for including this substantial sector in a complete generalized input-output framework to assist us in understanding the whole system, of which the market is a part.
Walker and Gauger at Cornell University in the United States have studied the potential contribution to the g.n.p. of valuing household work through the market costs of functions, the work status of the wife, the number of children, and the age of the youngest child. Estimates of time use in specific household tasks were used for each category of the wife as noted above. The total annual values of the contribution of the wife were calculated with a value per family unit for their samples and an annual national estimate. Several years ago, Gauger calculated the value of the annual services of a wife whose only child is 12 to 17 years of age at $5,300; while for a wife with four children, the youngest under one year, the value was $8,400. Those facts are technical and complicated, but they are important background information.
I mention these studies to illustrate that recognition of housework in the calculation of national accounts can be done and should be considered. Society would then have better information on the quantity and the relative monetary value of unpaid work which indeed may constitute an important sector. People could make informed choices based on their economic, social and psychic costs and pay-offs. Canadians could learn not to take for granted the tasks performed by millions of unpaid persons who contribute so much to our collective well-being.
I remember a cartoon not so long ago in the New Yorker magazine. It showed a woman with curlers in her hair, sipping coffee and reading a magazine. The remains of breakfast were still on the table, the garbage was exposed, and the house was in utter chaos as the husband entered the door. The caption read: "Remember you were wondering what I do all day? Well, today I didn't". There is dirty as well as satisfying work being done by women in the home every day to make our lives pleasant and comfortable. We should not consign this work to women alone, and we should recognize what is being done when it is being done.
My own experience dictates that we are taking a much more enlightened view toward the home situation these days. Certainly husbands do not hesitate to pitch in more that they did in the past. I do not know which social problem the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) had in mind when he proposed payment of an allowance for housework. I agree with him that every help should be given, all recognition should be given, and security should be assured for persons who are not available to work outside the home because of family responsibilities.
Also I see the need for much greater variety in the organization of our work life. We have begun already successfully to utilize flexible time as an important part of our work arrangements. There are other areas which should be explored more thoroughly. We have not yet reached a stage where part time work has been rationalized as a good working practice which would combine high productivity and fair return to workers. It is difficult to reach a general public consensus on this. Obvi-
June 2, 1978

ously it is a challenge for our unions, businesses and governments.
Approximately one-quarter of the female labour force currently is employed part time, but many must give up the fringe benefits which the rest of the labour force enjoy simply because a system for part time work has not yet been agreed upon. Regularized part time employment could benefits parents and enable them to utilize their skills and contribute to the family income and activities. In this way they would no longer be part of the isolated, lonely group we are learning about who have few contacts during the day while at home with their children.
Here we are getting down to the nub of the problem in a very social sense, in a personal human sense. Many mental health experts are currently recommending part time work for young mothers to help them overcome the sense of deprivation of not using their education and prior training, and to cope with the lack of contact and stimulation which they experience when they become new mothers. Is it not said that western industrial society has made motherhood a lonely, isolated state? There are efforts that society can make to enhance community life and reduce that isolation and the problems that go along with it, such as the emotional upset, alcoholism, this litany of the social problems we are all familiar with and associate with the problems of mothers or homemakers.
I agree with the hon. member for Bellechasse that many families need more income than the father currently earns, although in many cases it is a question of whether they do need the income or they simply need to rearrange their concept of lifestyle to stay within that particular income. It is no secret that we have committed ourselves to exploring all avenues through our income security and taxation system to ensure that families, who despite their best efforts do not have enough income and experience hardship. We are concerned about the sole-support working mothers, two-fifths of whom have incomes which place them in hardship categories. This is another aspect of the problems posed by an increasingly affluent society, another aspect of the paradox of our present way of life.
It would be ironic for us, Mr. Speaker, to agree with a motion to send women back to that so-called "women's place" because we now have unemployment. This situation was not caused by women. We need women along with men to help solve the problem. We need women in our government as well as in all sectors of society in planning and decision making responsibilities. Women and men of all ages can contribute and benefit our society as responsible family members and workers as well as good citizens. The hon. member has stated that he believes in equal pay for equal work. It is very difficult to enforce that principle if one believes that women do not really belong in the work place.
Labours of love, devotion and care should be rewarded by society, but the question is how and by whom, by what method of transfer? These are important questions this House should
Housewives' Allowance
debate further. I thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to debate these important matters in this House with my hon. colleagues.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. It strikes me that it is a subject which is a great deal more important than some of those that have been raised in many of the debates we have had in this House. It seems to me we spend too much of our time dealing with alleged barn burnings and very little time dealing with basic, substantial matters which affect the homes, families and lives of most Canadians. I commend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for introducing this motion.
It is a motion which, of course, has within it an attempt to increase the equity in our Canadian society, and it is very timely in that respect. I believe that most western industrial nations have been moving fairly rapidly over the last 15 or 20 years toward this goal of equity, toward making sure that all members of society occupy a reasonable, equitable position and, generally speaking, toward some kind of guaranteed annual wage. This is a step in that particular direction.
Unfortunately, most countries, ourselves included, ran into some problems in the mid-1970s, from about 1973, 1974 on, whereby most of the western economies were badly affected by a very massive shift in dollars to the OPEC areas, and as a result most of these economies are in very weak shape. Canada at this particular point has a deficit of $11 billion. There has been much talk about this, and about having too many social security measures transferring too many dollars from one pocket to another. I do not support that particular contention. I believe that these kinds of transfers are extremely important and that this debate is important in that respect.
I am surprised to hear the opposition parties, particularly the Tories, talk of the need to cut back in some of these areas; for example, to cut back family allowances. I am also surprised, in dealing with this motion, that no one has mentioned the fact that the cost of this proposal is fairly substantial. However, the motion is certainly worth dealing with and I personally have believed all along that we should be moving toward some sort of guaranteed income.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for St. John's East on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: I was just wondering if the hon. member would permit a question, Mr. Speaker. He is a very honourable and reasonable member of this House, and I do not think that he would want to mislead it. This party has never advocated cutting back the family allowance. Our party is firmly committed to the universal concept of the present family allowance program.

June 2, 1978
Housewives' Allowance


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) who wants to cut back the family allowance.


Paul Edmund McRae: I do not think that I can be corrected on this because I believe in some of the speeches made in the leadership race within the Conservative party these particular issues were raised.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't give us that kind of malarkey.


Paul Edmund McRae: I think there are all kinds of people who have said this, but certainly this has been one of the things that has occurred. As a matter of fact, I think it was the subject of debate in this House in the past that some of the leadership candidates did make these proposals.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is not true.


Paul Edmund McRae: That is to say, it was said by some of the leadership candidates in the Tory party.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Minister of Public Works in your party said it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Fort William has the floor for the purpose of making a speech, and I suggest we all listen.


Paul Edmund McRae: I would be glad to look back at the references I have, because it did come up, as a matter of fact, before in the connection that there were references to reducing-


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, especially in private members' hour when there is the tradition here of non-partisanship which makes this hour so productive, but the hon. member is misleading the House. He has not accepted my word. I tell him now that this party has never advocated a cut-back of the family allowance program; we are firmly committed to the existing program and to the universal concept of it, and nothing to the contrary has ever been advocated in this House by any of my colleagues. He must accept that, but perhaps he is a little confused because his own colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has said just this very thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for St. John's East that that is not a point of order but a point of disagreement between two hon. members. The hon. member for Fort William.


Paul Edmund McRae: At some particular point I would like to debate this point with the hon. member. I do not have the references here, but I do not accept the fact that nobody in the opposition party has advocated this particular position. However, I will be

glad to debate the matter with the hon. member at a later date when I have looked up my references. In terms of the-


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in the confusion and shouting from the other side, perhaps I missed hearing the hon. member say that he accepts the word of the hon. member for St. John's East, which he must do under our rules. I missed hearing him say it, and I wonder if he would repeat it louder so that we could all hear it.


Paul Edmund McRae: I accept the statement of the hon. member. However, I do not accept the notion that at no time has no one in the Tory party advocated, in some way or other, steps to reduce the family allowance. I cannot accept that as a statement. I would be very glad to discuss the matter in this House because I believe I can find some references in this respect.
In terms of this debate, I would like to focus on two separate areas in the very short time that is left. One of them has to do with the nature of the family, and this is a basic area that the hon. member raises in his motion. The other matter, concerns the employment of women and the need for employment. I think these are two relatively important areas.
As someone who spent 22 years in the education field as principal of high schools before coming to this House, I share the great concern about what is happening to the role of the family and the home in society. 1 think that for a long time schools were victims of society thinking they should take everything on. Family responsibilities tended to disappear into the schools. The schools tended to become bureaucratized to some extent and in many ways they simply were not able to carry out the functions society was loading on to them.
It seems to me there is a traditional role for the family in society but I think there have been some changes in thinking about housekeeping and the role of the mother which should be taken into account in the present day. One of the major changes is that more and more women are getting equal education with men. The level of education is rising and very often full time housekeeping duties are not adequate to meet the desires of a particular person. Due to new gadgets and more equipment, homekeeping is somewhat less onerous than formerly. Family size has decreased considerably since the introduction of the pill.
There is a whole series of reasons why women in the home are looking for some other kind of employment. I cannot accept the notion that the only reason women are working today is that they cannot afford not to work. I think a great many women are working because they enjoy the satisfaction of being independent and because they are able to become involved in activities in which they are interested and for which they are trained. I think it is wrong to assume that we
June 2, 1978

can return to the kind of family structure we were involved in in the past.
We have to keep some of the foregoing in mind when looking for ways to solve the problem of remuneration for women in the home.
There has been a general feeling that if the participation rate of women in the work force were not so high, we would have many more jobs available for the young people coming into the labour market and therefore we would not have so much unemployment. There may be some truth in that but it is a relatively small factor.
School population in this country has increased from 2.7 million in 1951 to 6.3 million in 1971, or by 230 per cent. This is the shocking figure that leads to the one million people unemployed. It is not the fact that we are not creating jobs at a fast enough rate. In fact, we are creating jobs faster than any other country in the industrialized world. The fact is that there is a tremendous number of young people now in the work force. If you compare, Mr. Speaker, the 230 per cent increase in the number of people going to school with the 30 per cent or 35 per cent increase in the participation rate, you will see that we have a factor which is very serious. School growth in that period was seven times the rate of growth of the population.
I think we ought to consider the possibility of work-sharing, particularly for many married women in the work force who would like to spend more time in their homes and the many women at home who would like to spend time in the work force. Putting the two together you get the interesting notion of work-sharing and perhaps, more specifically, pairing.
There is a good reason why government should be looking at this method of solving some of our employment problems. We should be trying to match the people who want to do both
Housewives' Allowance
those things. Some studies that have been done on pairing indicate that the productivity of a pair is far greater than that of one person doing the job. When I was a school principal I found that two people sharing a full teaching load did a great deal more marking. There was a great deal more work done and the quality was excellent.
I should like to speak about several other aspects of this problem but I see that time is running out. I think we should look carefully at the idea of some kind of guaranteed annual wage. An aspect that has a good deal to do with women in the home is the notion of a guaranteed annual role. There are people in our society, women at home and people doing voluntary work, who should be supported. The notion of a guaranteed annual role that would have attached to it a guaranteed annual wage is worth looking at.
In the long run I think we have to look more carefully at the whole question of work in our society, at the relationship of the family and


Stanley Howard Knowles: And in the long run you talked it out.


Paul Edmund McRae: I am sorry if I have run out of time, Mr. Speaker. There is another member who is ready to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The Chair would like to suggest that, since we had a very quiet Friday afternoon, all hon. members and all members of the staff have a nice quiet weekend.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1). '
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 5, 1978