1978-06-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the Liberal backbench member of parliament for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) announced in his press release of Saturday, June 3, that the "Government of Canada will initiate a special, immediate investigation into the efficient use of prairie grain handling and transportation facilities" which "will be undertaken by an independent analyst with proven experience and expertise", and in light of the fact that the government has spent $1.7 million on the Hall report, long regarded as the blueprint for improving the transportation of grain by rail and the economic position of western Canada, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That this House immediately instruct the Minister of Transport to make a statement on motions explaining this new, so-called investigation as announced by the hon. member for Assiniboia, who to parliament's knowledge is not a member of the cabinet and, furthermore, if the silence of the Minister of Transport is an indication of approval of this press release, that the minister explain why he has added another nail in the coffin, burying the recommendations of the Hall report.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can only be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the breakdown of diplomatic negotiations between Canada and the United States on fishery questions which could result in the U.S.
imposing countervailing duties on Canadian fish marketed as to 80 per cent in that country, involving a value of some $450 million a year, and since this confrontation has occurred as a result of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) taking charge of the negotiations with the U.S. himself, in replacement of Mr. J. Allan Beesley who had headed the Canadian side, with the result that a botch has been made of the Canadian case, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Prime Minister be requested to advise the House on motions as to contingency plans of the government in the event of the imposition of countervailing duties on Canadian fish products by the United States, and that the Prime Minister apply the principle of equidistance to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by insisting that he keep his distance from the negotiations between the U.S. and Canada, and that the Prime Minister direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to bring J. Allan Beesley back to Ottawa to take charge of the Canadian side of the negotiations immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion would require unanimous consent before it could be put. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House applauds the Minister of Veterans Affairs for having introduced last week a bill to increase the basic rate of the war disability pension-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that applause has been noted.
-which the House was pleased to pass through all stages in less than an hour, and this House now calls on the same minister to expedite his review of the 48 per cent rule which applies to the pensions of the widows of disabled veterans, it being the view of the House that where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent there should be a pro rata pension for his widow as a matter of right, it being clearly understood that this House would pass such legislation, also, in one hour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 6, 1978
5.0.	43


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, under the terms of the Standing Order, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency as a result of a news report in today's Ottawa Journal to the effect that the government is considering the appointment of more persons from outside the regular foreign service as Canadian ambassadors and mentioning, also, the names of a number of those who are under consideration for such appointments and who are not members of the Department of External Affairs. 1 would, therefore, ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the House whether this report is accurate and, if it is, what are all the reasons that the government is extending the policy of denying well-earned promotions to career diplomats who have faithfully served the Government of Canada for many years and have earned the right to such promotions by means of their loyalty, knowledge and ability, and that an immediate policy be introduced to recognize those many persons who have given so much in the service of their country as members of the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction 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.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering the overwhelming support from all sides of the Ontario legislature late last week at second reading of a private members' bill to enshrine French language services in law in Ontario, and considering this parliament's support for reasonable and just treatment of both official language groups across Canada, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House urges Premier Davis to proceed with the said legislation not only to bring justice to more than one-half million Franco-Ontarians but also to demonstrate at this time of national unity crisis support from Canada's largest English language province for fair and reasonable treatment of official language minorities.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate, 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.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark:: Stuart Smith said no.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the desirability of making certain that the power of the CRTC is not being used for partisan political purposes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the Minister of Communications, after suitable investigation, inform the House, tabling any necessary documents or correspondence, that yesterday's request to radio station CJOR for 80 hours of the tape of Ed Murphy's reaction line show was not in any way caused directly or indirectly by a dispute between the government House leader in the Senate, Senator Ray Perrault, who is being sued by Mr. Murphy in the B.C. supreme court as a result of inflammatory remarks reportedly made by Senator Perrault over radio station CKNW with reference to Mr. Murphy and his best-selling book "A Legacy of Spending" which, as the House knows, documents in a factual way the waste and mismanagement of this government.


Mr. Speaker:: The 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.


FISHERIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the fisheries dispute between Canada and the United States now appears to have expanded into recreational fisheries, and in view of the fact that new recreational fishing techniques, such as electronic fish-finders, sophisticated down-riggers, etc., are being used in recreational fishing, particularly with regard to west coast salmon stocks, by U.S. boats, I move, seconded, by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment re-examine the present fisheries regulations in the sport fishing area with a view to regulating

June 6, 1978

the use of new sport fishing techniques and licensing of tourist fishing in ocean waters.


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


Mr. Chretien:: There is always fluctuation in an open market economy like ours. Of course, the economy has changed its pattern and at this time there is more emphasis on services than on manufacturing. It is a phenomenon that is not only Canadian but one that we find all around the world.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the context of the just released May lay-off figures showing that almost 4,000 Canadians were laid off in May in addition to those who were laid off in April, and also in the context of the rather strange speech given by the Minister of Finance to the CMA last evening in which the minister indicated that businessmen in Canada on many occasions are given a ten-point tax advantage compared with their counterparts in the United States, would the minister indicate to the House why we are having these continued lay-offs in Canada, and has he any particular suggestion as to how the situation can be corrected?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are always some problems in certain areas of the economy. However, I think the hon. member could have mentioned that there was an increase of 12.6 per cent in car and truck sales in Canada from May to May. I said in my speech in Toronto that, contrary to the rumours spread around by the hon. member, when we do a thorough study of the comparison between the Canadian tax system and the American tax system, we find that our tax system for corporations is very competitive with the American system: it is even better.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the May budget of four years ago, Mr. Turner, referring to the manufacturers' and processors' incentives that the government of the day had given to the various businessmen in Canada, said that he anticipated a great expansion in industry. Four years later, in April of this year, we find that we have 18,000 fewer people working in manufacturing in Canada.
Would the minister indicate if he feels that the incentives given the manufacturers and processors at that time have not worked; or, if he feels that they have worked, would he indicate why there appears to be a lack of confidence to which he referred last evening when he was speaking to the CMA?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister indicate whether he is entirely happy with his budgetary stance at the present time and does not contemplate any changes, notwithstanding the fact that not only were there 4,000 persons laid off last month but 3,000 of them were laid off in Ontario alone?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We had a budget recently, and I just gave an example of provisions in the budget that are working very well. For example, the fact that we have cut the sales tax on cars has produced dramatic results, as well as the fact that we had an increase of 12.6 per cent from May to May.


BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS ON GATT PROPOSALS
John Carnell Crosbie: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister attended the NATO meetings in Washington and it was expected that he would be discussing with the other leaders at those meetings the questions of the GATT negotiations, particularly in view of the fact that the Americans have taken the position that there must be substantial agreement by July 15, that their authority to negotiate will run out at the end of the year and in view of our serious economic problems. Did the Prime Minister have any bilateral discussions on that subject last week and, if so, with what effect and with whom?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no attempt, and no intention on the part of any of the participants, to discuss the matters in the context of the NATO summit held in Washington last week. I did have some bilateral meetings or discussions with other leaders, some of whom will be attending the summit in Bonn in the middle of July, and I did express views there about the importance of not only looking at short-term improvements but at medium and long-term improvements in our economies, including trading patterns.


John Carnell Crosbie: In view of the fact that the government's figures show a loss of 80,000 manufacturing jobs between the end of 1974 and the end of 1977, and in view of the difficulties that we are having in the television industry, where the sale of Canadian TV sets has fallen almost 30 per cent and where
4,500	jobs have been lost in the last several years in that industry alone, as well as serious declines in furniture and other industries and, as the Science Council points out, deindustrialization is posing a real threat to Canada, can the Prime Minister tell the House what is his strategy at the GATT negotiations to protect Canada from further injury to the manufacturing industry and a further loss of jobs, particularly

June 6, 1978
Oral Questions
in view of the July 15 deadline? What is our strategy to avoid harm to ourselves and to our productive sector?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the Minister of Finance just replied in answer to a previous question, within a free economy there are moving patterns of development. In the case of Canada, we like to see jobs created in all sectors, but the trend nowadays in most industrialized, advanced societies is to create more jobs in the service sector: this is happening in Canada. In so far as the rate of creation of jobs is concerned, we have told the hon. member before that between last year and the same time this year some 330,000 jobs were created in Canada. That is a faster job-creation rate than exists in any other industrialized society.


John Carnell Crosbie: The 4,500 people who have lost their jobs in the television parts manufacturing industry would be interested to hear the Prime Minister's figure of the number of jobs being created. They have lost 4,500 jobs. Could the Prime Minister tell us, in relation to that particular industry, why the government has not taken action such as the successful action the United States has taken to reduce its imports from Japan in April by 60 per cent and the over-all importation of television sets by 30 per cent by using voluntary import quotas? That is the step the United States has taken. It is one of the great manufacturing countries of the world. Why has the Prime Minister's government not taken similar steps? When will he direct his minister to take some steps to save this industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been following the debates on international trade, he would have seen that the government took various steps to get agreement from other countries trading with Canada on their export quotas to Canada. As a general direction in Canada, which is a trading nation to a much larger degree than the United States in the sense that a larger percentage of our wealth comes from trading than in the United States, it is important to maintain a general principle of free trade in every direction.
Rather than asking the economies of the world to go toward greater protectionism by quotas or by tariffs, we are going in the other direction. We have confidence that the Canadian economy, given a fair chance of competition with other nations, will meet that competition and will excel in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Recently, the federal government produced a glossy and expensive booklet on the need for affirmative action programs for women in

the private sector. God knows, it is badly needed, particularly when we see how women still are being treated in the work force in places like Fleck Industries.
Considering that the government has done virtually nothing about affirmative action programs at the federal level, can the minister explain what seems to me to be rather obvious hypocrisy in terms of the government's position on women, when we consider that the position of permanent director of the women's bureau of the Department of Labour has remained vacant for more than two years?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will check into that situation as to the precise reasons. I would advise the Leader of the New Democratic Party, however, that Dr. Sylva Gelber, of whom I am sure the hon. member and other members of the House are well aware, moved from that position and became a consultant to the deputy minister of labour. Thus, her services are still there. She is very active in terms of the contributions she is making to the women's bureau.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister really did not answer the question. He knows that Dr. Sylva Gelber, to whom he just referred, is the former permanent director. My understanding is that she is very concerned that a replacement has not been appointed for two years. If the government is serious about coming to grips with women's problems, particularly in places of work in Canada, can he give us some commitment that her replacement will be appointed soon?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I informed the hon. member that Dr. Gelber is still with us. I will check into that and advise the hon. member why the vacancy has lasted so long.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps she is still with the government, but she is there in a consultative capacity. The minister knows full well that that position demands a permanent director.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. On May 25, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the minister to ensure that the government, under the provisions of section 19 of the Human Rights Act, issue a directive to the British American Bank Note Company to pay attention to the anti-discrimination provisions of the federal law in dealing with the 25 female members of the Ottawa Steel Plate Examiners' Union. Since the minister said that he would look into this matter, has he done so? What follow-up action has he taken?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have referred it to my officials. I regret I do not have a report
June 6, 1978

from them today, but I will have it for the hon. member forthwith.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the cost of beef, fresh fruits, vegetables and lodging-even under control-has gone up recently by as much as 28, 29, 16 and 7 per cent respectively, would the minister be willing to introduce legislation to counteract the effects these higher costs are having on a day to day basis on low and middle income families, and set up a discounting system for all Canadian-made products?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it would be appropriate at this time to set up such a system which is favoured by the hon. member's party. I suggest that on April 15 last we returned indeed to a normal economy where opposing forces determine market prices, and it was the nearly unanimous desire of the House that we should put an end to the controls and return to the same market as in the pre-control years.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO CURB INFLATION
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misunderstood my question. I have no intention of speaking of controls, but the fact remains that low-or medium-income families have to face those price increases almost daily. If my memory serves me right, and I imagine the minister remembers it as well, during World War II the government of the day adopted a compensated discount on several Canadian products; more recently, in 1972-73, the then minority government applied a compensated discount under the form of a 5-cent subsidy on each quart of milk, which both consumers and producers welcomed. So, I simply ask the minister, and I think the matter is urgent, that the government take steps to thwart inflation which is a constant threat to the economy of low- and medium-income families.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks and suggestion. I do not think it would be realistic, at this time, to think that we can do now what we did for a short time a few years ago through a special milk program, but I take due note of the suggestion of the hon. member.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, the minister could be more realistic than to allow people to be hard up in a country where milk
Oral Questions
and other produce are just thrown away. I think it would be far more realistic to solve the problem.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF SECRETARY-GENERAL OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE.
Mr. Speaker:: Before carrying on with the question period, may I invite hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Mr. Georg Kahn-Ackermann, who is here on an official visit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the admitted weak position the government has taken in pursuing a clear policy on economic boycotts, which was evidenced in the Prime Minister's speech to the United Jewish Appeal, is it the Prime Minister's position that the only leadership he can bring to this serious problem is to focus the public spotlight on any company which is refused government trading support? In other words, are we to have legislation by press release now, and how does this affect a company which does not apply to the government for support through EDC for financing or insurance? How will this policy apply in that case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is expressing his own view when he says the policy is weak. If he looks around the world, I believe he will find that Canada and the United States are the only two countries which have policies in this regard, and those policies are not considered weak by people who want to trade in the Middle East.
If the hon. member looks at the report tabled by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, he will Find that a great many companies were forced to come around and respect the government's policies and not respect the boycott clauses. He will see that the policy has had effect in many cases. Beyond that, the hon. member is expressing an opinion. It is the opinion of the government that government assistance in some way is practically imperative in respect of trading in the

June 6, 1978
Oral Questions
middle East, and those companies which do not have assistance from the Government of Canada and its various agencies have a very difficult time trading there. That is why we believe our policy is effective, and the facts demonstrate that it is.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister realizes that Canadian companies which operate in this policy vacuum are subject to extraterritorial pressures, and that what they are crying out for, really, is a policy from this government that says: We cannot comply with your certificate requirements because it is contrary to Canadian law.
Why does the government not have a straightforward policy that says: It is contrary to Canadian law and we cannot comply because we will have serious sanctions brought against us if we do comply? That is what the companies want, and if they have that there will be more trade in the Middle East, not less.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is an argument made by the hon. member. It is obviously not an argument supported by his party as policy, otherwise it would be stated as policy.


Charles Joseph Clark: It has been stated.


Mr. Fraser:: Get the facts straight.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are a lot of excited people on the other side, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just because you misstate the facts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish they would look at the report tabled by the minister: they would see what effect the policy has had and they would realize that the companies in Canada that want to trade with the Middle East do need the Canadian government's assistance, and we say they will not have it unless they do not adhere to boycott policies. We are having an effect.


An hon. Member:: "Do not adhere"?


CANADA COUNCIL
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It concerns the fact that Canada Council grants have been given to such organizations as Pulp Press, of Vancouver, publishers of a book called "Minimanual for the Urban Guerrilla", and the tabloid "Strike", of Toronto which, incidentally was banned at the Bologna art fair in Italy two days ago. Will the minister tell the House what reasons justify the granting of public funds to organizations such as these which advocate terrorism, kidnapping, kneecapping, legshooting and murder?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is only fair to point out that when the grant to which the hon. member refers was issued, the publication "Strike" had not appeared and the organization concerned appeared to be devoting itself entirely to matters of cultural concern. As a result-


An hon. Member:: What kind of culture?


John (Moody) Roberts: As a result of the change in the nature of the publication to which the hon. member has referred and as a result of representations which have been made in this House and outside the House, I have written to the Canada Council to draw to their attention the concerns of members and the concerns of the public, and I am waiting for further information.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary for the Secretary of State arises from remarks he is reported to have made a few days ago to the Senate and Commons committee concerning public access to government information, and specifically to reports stating that he said he was in favour of freer information, and I quote his words, "rather than on the side of holding back".
How does the minister reconcile such a statement with his utterance, widely quoted in the press, in a speech to the Toronto Liberal forum on May 10, 1978, to the effect that as long as he is Secretary of State, members of parliament will not be allowed information on the reasons for the giving or otherwise of Canada Council grants, a thing which, if done, would probably prevent such things as the incidence of "Strike", and so on?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the point that I was making in the speech in Toronto was that there is a distinction to be made between over-all policy considerations and the day to day administration of independent agencies such as Canada Council, particularly in relation to the granting process. Parliament has not given me the power to interfere in the day to day grant process. It is not a power which I wish to have. There is a considerable degree of difference between ranging through the files of the Canada Council in order to influence the way in which those decisions are taken, and access to information which is necessary for the conduct of public business.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he does not have the power to interfere with the Canada Council, yet a moment ago he said that he wrote to the Canada Council with regard to a specific grant. I ask him, is he prepared to conduct a full investigation of the Canada Council to determine how many other such instances there are like the Pulp Press and the tabloid "Strike" and a number of others that anyone in this House could mention, an investigation long overdue and long needed; and will he not allow input from members of parliament and others across the country as to how these decision-making processes are arrived at?
June 6, 1978


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think that most members understand what my role is in relation to the Canada Council. It is not to give direction; it is to act as a means of communication between the House of Commons and the Canada Council. I, therefore, do bring to the council's attention representations which are made in this House. I do not direct it on the decisions which it takes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact the appropriations committee of the United States Congress has once again included the unacceptable Lonetree reservoir in its 1978 appropriations for the Garrison River diversion project, which would result in water from the Missouri River system entering the Hudson Bay river system, I would ask the minister if he and his officials are, first of all, cognizant of the Lonetree reservoir being reintroduced into the 1978 appropriations and whether the Canadian government is planning to make representations to the U.S. government indicating that the Lonetree reservoir is totally unacceptable to the Government of Canada and the citizens of Manitoba.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, I believe it is the same as the one addressed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Lisgar. I provided him an oral answer as well as a follow-up in writing. I can do the same thing, and if there is anything further that reflects on the hon. member's question, I would be glad to amplify later.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the minister said previously that he does not intend to approach Congress directly at this time, arguing that it would be counterproductive and that the representations were simply too numerous. I would ask the minister, in view of the fact representations have been made through diplomatic notes by the Canadian embassy in Washington, and that once again Manitobans are faced with the Lonetree reservoir- which has been our major objection- whether, now that these avenues have simply not brought about the desired results, he will be making direct, personal representations to the authorities once again spelling out the disastrous effect the Lonetree reservoir would have on us.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one would have to ask what was involved in the word "authorities". I believe that we have, to the best of my knowledge, covered all the appropriate avenues within the administration itself. Earlier, the hon. member made some reference to direct representations to Congress. I am doubtful that that would be appropriate in the sense that I expect the hon. member is referring to. On the other hand, I have, on another subject, made reference to the appropriateness of the use of the interparliamentary commit-
Oral Questions
tee where members may make representations. We would be glad to facilitate that if it was deemed to be an appropriate route to follow.
I can assure the hon. member that if there is a judgment that some further work should be done, or some further representations made, then we will be glad to do it. But I think the hon. member recognizes that there is a distinction between a government-to-government representation and representations directly to individuals in the Congress.


AECL NUCLEAR WASTE PROGRAM
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence I will put it to his parliamentary secretary. It concerns an agreement that was made between Ontario Hydro and AECL where $90 million to $150 million was provided for a new nuclear waste program.
Given the fact that this matter was referred to the standing committee in December, and we have had 19 meetings, with two more to come, given the fact that the Hare report was severely challenged by the president of the Geological Association of Canada, and given the cynicism that exists as between many people in this country and AECL, would the minister consider delaying any further action until the standing committee has reported and, in the case of Ontario, until the Porter royal commission has reported?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring those representations to the minister's attention.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him if the government is aware of the hunger strike being conducted in Chile by the relatives of some 2,500 Chilean citizens who have disappeared since the overthrow of the Allende government.
In view of a similar hunger strike being conducted in a number of Canadian cities by Chilean refugees residing in Canada who are concerned about the fate of their relatives and friends, would the government consider directing the Canadian ambassador to Chile to make inquiries as to the fate of these
2,500	Chilean citizens?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the hon. member's suggestion.

June 6, 1978
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


PUBLICATION OF AUDIT REPORTS ON MISCLASSIFICATIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. We now know that there are audits, some of which are bench audits, with respect to personnel administration. We had an audit regarding the Ottawa-Hull area and now we are having an audit across the country with respect to classification and all that it means in terms of misclassifica-tion.
Would the President of the Treasury Board advise the House whether, in fact, the reports which will stem from these audits will be open for the public; and if not, why not? I ask this question because if they are not open to the public, I would say that the minister is dealing in cover-up and secrecy and depriving the Canadian people of the right to know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -how big a problem this country faces.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, the examination of this problem is under way but is not yet complete. The first audit, which was conducted in 1976, was based on some experimental criteria which are now being examined as to their accuracy. The second audit, setting aside the personnel policy people, is being conducted outside of the national capital region. Until I get the results of that, I cannot make a commitment as to what action we will be taking. I will make a decision then as to how much of this can be released and how much cannot, in light of the fact that the original was an internal audit. I would not think it would be subject to disclosure because of its nature. The total policy will be dealt with openly, any recommendations will be announced and every opportunity will be given to explore their validity.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of my question was quite correct: the minister is dealing in cover-up. He is talking about these reports being confidential and says he intends to see to it that there are recommendations. I am not interested in recommendations; I want to know the whole truth, and so do the Canadian people.
Apparently the minister is now discussing this whole matter with the Alliance in order to determine whether or not they will red-circle and how they will solve this particular problem. Is the minister telling me that following the discussions he is having with the Alliance and other representatives of the public service, they will not be allowed to see these reports. Is this what he is trying to say? If so, any consultation that he is having right now is nothing but a farce. I hope he can remove my fears in this regard. Will all these reports be made public to the Alliance and the unions which are interested in this very serious matter? If not, we are not holding any meaningful negotiations with them.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the reason not to release the internal audit memorandum report is simply because of the nature of the experimental criteria that were developed for it. It was never intended for that purpose. AH the information, the results, the proposed action to be taken, is a matter of open discussion with the Public Service Alliance. Indeed, I have made known to the House the general thrust of that action with regard to the first report. As the hon. member knows, we were prevented from taking full red-circling action for quite some time because there was a case before the Federal Court about that which was not resolved until March. Subsequent to the resolution of that matter we were in consultation with the Public Service Alliance and, if necessary, consultations will take place with other unions. They are fully aware of the situation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They are not aware of the whole truth.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is with regard to an application presently before the CTC, by Canadian Pacific Airlines, respecting the consolidation of licences.
In view of the minister's announcement on behalf of the government, is it the government's policy or desire to use this approach respecting regional and transcontinental carriers? Can the minister inform the House today what the decision of the government is, and whether it is the government's position to intervene directly and allow this kind of licence application to proceed, or will the CTC act in this matter as they have in any other licence application?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I do not interfere, and the government does not interfere, in matters before the CTC. These proceed in the ordinary way.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said publicly that he favours this kind of approach. Can he tell us whether he has conveyed the government's intention in this regard to the CTC, and has he asked them to proceed with the hearing? The application has been before the CTC for some time and they have been procrastinating because of the peculiarity and the nature of this licence application. Does the CTC know what the government's intention is with respect to this kind of licensing procedure in future?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may be confused by the fact that there was some comment after the CTC made its decision on the acquisition of Transair shares by PWA. In commenting on that and on the question of whether I had any problem with this additional influence of PWA in the over-all western region, I did make a comment about the probable wisdom of strengthening our regionals. That has
June 6, 1978

some general application and is part of an over-all policy that we are gradually putting in place. It was not in relation to any current application before the CTC.


INDUSTRY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question concerning the current situation with respect to the countervailing duties collected by the U.S. department of the treasury on Michelin tires manufactured, as the minister knows, in Nova Scotia.
Can the minister tell me if he has been negotiating an end to this unfair situation which has cost this vital industry nearly $7 million since it was first imposed? Can the minister tell us what he has done since he assumed this portfolio to try to bring an end to this unfair practice?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that that case is before the courts. We are supporting the Michelin argument before the courts in the United States at the present time.


GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO END U.S. PRACTICE OF IMPOSING COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I believe is also familiar with the Michelin tire situation. In connection with representations which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has mentioned, has the minister made any effort to inform the U.S. authorities that this unfair situation which they say is caused by inappropriate government aid, as the minister knows, to Michelin tire, is no more unfair, unique or different from some of the aid that is given to similar U.S. industries? Can he respond and give any further information about his efforts to end this practice which is reportedly inspired by the UAW and the United States rubber industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking, in the first instance, whether I have made recent representations specifically on this case, I have not done so personally. However, it may be that the department is drawing upon the standard position of the government which may have conveyed that to the United States authorities. In a general way, I have had frequent talks about the Michelin case with the United States authorities regarding non-tariff barriers and related questions, and I have made precisely the points which the hon. member has enunciated today.
Oral Questions
I will be glad to take another look at the matter, and if something can be achieved by repeating these views more specifically, I will be glad to do it. In a more general way, the whole question of non-tariff barriers and the reaction to assistance for regional development is being considered in the GATT round as one of the matters on which Canada feels very strongly and on which we are trying to get considerable relief.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY WHETHER OFFICE BUILDING IN GASPfi PENINSULA IS PART OF DECENTRALIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment tell the House whether his decentralization program still includes the erection of a building in the Gaspe Peninsula which would centralize the services that his department wants to provide for fishermen and fish producers in eastern Quebec and in the Magdalen Islands? Will he make his projects public in the near future?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago we started a decentralization program towards the regions where the fishermen live, in order to facilitate consultation and communication between them and the officials of my department. A few weeks ago, I announced a similar project for the Gaspe region. It is my hope that we will be able to implement it during the summer months.


LABOUR RELATIONS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Labour. Yesterday, apparently, the minister stated to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association:
We are now on the threshold of a major breakthrough to consultation at the national level, on an ongoing basis.
He was referring to a tripartite form of discussion among management, labour and government. Today, the head of the Canadian Labour Congress seems to be taking quite a different position and in fact intends to repudiate what the hon. minister said yesterday. I ask the minister, can he tell the House whether his statement of yesterday was made with the support of the Canadian Labour Congress, or was it just an expression of a pious hope on the part of the minister?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity yesterday afternoon to talk with the president of the CLC. He had received a copy of the speech and he had no objection to it at all. The hon. member may wish to

June 6, 1978
Oral Questions
check this, but I believe he was referring to a statement which was alleged to have been attributed to me with respect to tripartition. Although it is my personal feeling that as a concept it does not derogate from parliamentary democracy and is a worthy one, apparently the statement was attributed to me that I had met with him last week and we had discussed this concept. That, of course, really did not take place, nor did I say that, and that matter was clarified to his satisfaction.
Mir. Fraser: Might I ask the minister, then, about his optimism in this respect? I think he went on later in his speech to talk about the hope of setting up some kind of mechanism later this summer which would in fact be a tripartite form of mechanism. In his discussions with Mr. McDermott, or any other labour leaders, did he receive any particular support for this? Could I ask him, also, whether this is in any sense a moving away from the minister's former position, at least, that he hopes to establish a multipartite national forum?


John Carr Munro: I understand Mr. McDermott himself has said he will be happy to sit down with government at any time in the hope that something might be accomplished in terms of his membership, and would always be able to carry on in terms of consultative arrangements with the labour movement and, for that matter, with the business community. I still expect that to be true. Whether it will be formalized in some kind of structure to ensure continuity remains to be seen as a result of discussions. I think much of the controversy surrounds the word "tripartite", because some attribute characteristics to it which are really not justified in the circumstances. So I think the controversy could be undermined considerably if we just start to refer to consultative arrangements and consultative mechanisms. That is quite satisfactory as far as I am concerned.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State: it relates to the tabling this morning in the National Assembly of Quebec the long-awaited white paper on culture by the minister for cultural development.
In view of the fact that this is a very detailed and comprehensive survey of the present and future scene in Quebec, covering a wide area of cultural definition, can the minister inform us, because of his own internal study, the Selcock study, and the importance of a federal statement with respect to culture, whether or not thought is being given either to expanding the terms of reference and the opportunities for input into that internal study or whether, in view of the fact that it may well be near completion, that study will be made public by way of some kind of policy statement.


John (Moody) Roberts: I can tell the hon. member that the internal study to which he has referred is not yet close to completion. I am still hopeful, though I do not necessarily expect, that it will be finished by September. We shall, of course, be looking closely at the Quebec white paper which, as the hon. member has indicated, is quite lengthy and comprehensive, containing some 400 to 500 pages. We shall assess it carefully in relation to the work that we ourselves are doing in the department.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: One of the recommendations favours a provincial copyright law which again raises the whole problem we have experienced in terms of the failure of the national copyright law to adequately protect authors and publishers in this country. The minister is well aware of this situation.
I ask whether he has had any success in persuading his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, either to enforce the copyright law more aggressively which does not seem to be acceptable to the legal officers, or whether amendments will be introduced on an immediate basis which will clear up at least some of the difficulties and offer real protection to Canadian authors and publishers.


John (Moody) Roberts: As the hon. gentleman knows, both my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and myself have been active in seeking ways to find a means of testing in the courts the present copyright provisions the effect of which is contested. I hope and expect that either he or I will be making some announcement about this in the near future.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement to the CMA in Toronto last night, in which he expressed disappointment with the reaction of the Canadian business community to changes favouring the private sector, would the minister tell us what indications he has that the private sector has failed to respond to any stimulus offered by the government and what he expected should have been done by this time?
[ Translation\


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that with all the incentives we have been offering the private sector over the past two years they would have rushed in to occupy the field we vacated for them, and I am somewhat disappointed by the level of investments in Canada in general at this time, but I hope they will understand-

I was very pleased last week, for example, that this thing I have just mentioned was taken up by the president of the
June 6, 1978

Royal Bank, who said that if the private sector did not move quickly to fill the gap we have made for them to operate with much more room, perhaps it would be a lost cause for them in future.


William Gordon Ritchie: Does the minister contemplate any further moves in the near future as far as the private sector is concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think we have made a lot of moves. If the hon. member would read my speech of yesterday, he would see, for example, that the level of taxes imposed on Canadian corporations is lower than in the United States.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and it relates to the abysmal lack of leadership displayed last week by the government of Ontario when the premier said no to a bill on French language services after it had been approved on second reading. Will the Secretary of State discuss the matter with his counterpart in Ontario to help revive a sense of confidence in Ontario's will to participate with a positive attitude in the national effort to achieve linguistic and cultural equity?


John (Moody) Roberts: I share the regret expressed by the hon. member at what I consider to be a rather cynical and shabby action on the part of the provincial premier last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: I have to tell the hon. member, also, that the discussions and relationships I have had with the provincial minister of education have been both cordial and helpful. We have, indeed, in the not too distant past expanded and accelerated our efforts in conjunction with the province of Ontario in relation to second language education in an important and significant way. I thought I had brought some figures with me in relation to that aspect, but I did not. I promise to communicate them to the hon. member as soon as possible.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. As the minister knows, his department has laid 24 charges of alleged violation under the Canada Labour Code safety provisions against a Crown corporation, the Cape Breton Development Corporation. What I am concerned about is a statement by Mr. Matheson, reported in Friday's paper, that the media were
Oral Questions
informed of this before he and the executives of the corporation were informed. Is Mr. Matheson's statement true, or false; and if it is true, why was this action made known to the media first?
I want to ask the minister whether it is true that Mr. Matheson, who is president of the corporation, did not find out about it except through the media. I find this statement disturbing. Mr. Matheson also said, "I find it very disturbing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question to ask, will he please put it.


Andrew Hogan: Is it true that this information was given to the media before the charges were made known to Mr. Matheson, as he claims in the article in Friday's paper in Nova Scotia?


John Carr Munro: I am sorry; I did not grasp the first part of the hon. member's question.


Andrew Hogan: Over the weekend the minister's department swore out 24 violations under the Canada Labour Code against a Crown corporation, the Cape Breton Development Corporation. What I am concerned about is a statement by Mr. Matheson, reported in Friday's paper, that the media were informed of this before he and the executives of the corporation were informed. Is Mr. Matheson's statement true, or false; and if it is true, why was this information given to the media first?


John Carr Munro: I cannot account for the media being informed. I can say that to my knowledge no one in the department or in my office connected with the department had anything to do with informing the media of these charges.


Andrew Hogan: I have a supplementary question for the minister. The hon. gentleman knows that today he received a telegram from the district president of the United Mine Workers of America concerning the state of industrial relations in Devco. Will he do his best to bring about a meeting such as requested by the president of the district?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have received a telegram from the president of the United Mine Workers. We have already been in touch with other ministries he is interested in meeting toward effecting that objective.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fort William, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He has been standing up for 15 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar will want to correct that last remark. It is quite inaccurate.
80045 - 1 9
Privilege-Mr. McRae PRIVILEGE

June 6, 1978


MR. McRAE-PROCEEDINGS OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a member of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. On December 1, 1977, that committee was given a reference from this House to report on the management of nuclear waste, the Hare report.
Since that time the committee has had 19 meetings. There have been many challenges to the report. A particularly strong challenge came from the president of the Geological Association of Canada, which we take very seriously since that particular challenge deals with the geological work that has to be done in order to bury the waste.
The committee made an interim report on March 15 because it felt there might have been an election, in which case the committee wanted the work to go on, if the session ended, into a new parliament. It is my understanding that in their report the committee indicated that, in the interim, the government should consider doing research on the matter. Two more meetings are scheduled for next week. The committee's work has been revived.
Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) tabled in this House a document entitled "Canada-Ontario Radioactive Waste Management Program" which, in my opinion, completely upstages the work that the committee was doing. That document states that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Ontario Hydro have signed agreements to do work, research and otherwise, on the waste totalling between $90 million and $150 million.
Ontario Hydro has gone ahead in spite of the fact there is a Porter royal commission in Ontario looking at this very matter. AECL has gone ahead in spite of the fact the standing committee of this House is also looking into this matter.
As a member of that standing committee, I believe I have a question of privilege in the sense that I attended most of the 19 meetings where this was being very seriously considered. In fact we are still looking at it. The committee work is not finished, yet for all practical purposes decisions have been made. The contracts have been signed. Also, we must remember the approximately 150 people who wrote briefs, appeared before the committee, and so on. In my opinion, all that work is for naught.
If I have a question of privilege, I would be willing to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), that the action of AECL be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I think members on both sides of the House share the concern, anxiety, and feeling of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) that perhaps the members of that committee have been duped into some facade or charade as far as coming up with meaningful answers is

concerned. Even if we do, we do not know whether the government or its agencies will pay any attention to them.
I think the hon. member has a very real point. Certainly it will be up to you, sir, to decide whether it is a question of privilege. Whether it is or is not, under the block system set up to facilitate the meetings of the standing committees of this House, the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, which is looking at this matter, did have scheduled this afternoon a meeting which I understand has been unaccountably cancelled.
That committee could meet this afternoon, in 22 minutes, or at its scheduled time in any event. If it does, I hope that the members of the opposition will have the support of the government members on that committee to summon immediately the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) so that we can have an explanation of why that standing committee of this House is being bypassed.
I am certainly very pleased to receive the support of the Liberal member for Fort William on this matter. I hope he can convince some of his colleagues to do exactly that this afternoon.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to this question of privilege on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). I do so briefly.
I do not see by any argument put forward that a case has been made for a question of privilege. I think at the outside the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) stated that it might be a grievance. I question whether there is even a grievance.
My argument is rather straightforward. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the very committee being talked about, the committee it is alleged is being upstaged and bypassed, presented a report to the House of Commons on March 15 this year. Let me remind the House of one of its recommendations. I quote from the committee report:
Your committee further recommends that the government, given the existence of radioactive waste materials in Canada, consider the advisability of having the appropriate governmental group or agency expedite a program of research and development in nuclear waste management.
That was the recommendation of the committee, that the government have suitable governmental groups or agencies expedite a program of research and development in nuclear waste management. That is precisely what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced yesterday. Therefore I have difficulty seeing there is a question of privilege or, indeed, a grievance.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the defence put up by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) is very convincing. Here is a committee of this House which made an interim report in March, suggesting that further research be continued. That committee has not completed its work.
June 6, 1978

As has already been stated, a meeting of that committee was scheduled for this afternoon. When I inquired why it had been cancelled, I was told it was because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was out of town. If I were in his position, after the report he tabled yesterday, I would be out of town too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Parliament of Canada and a committee of this House have been bypassed. The witnesses who appeared before the committee and those who are still to appear have been made to look ridiculous, because it is not merely now a matter of a contract with respect to some research. This is the first phase of a long term contract for the location of sites, setting forth the responsibility of the Government of Canada and the government of Ontario.
This is not merely talking about research. The first phase is research. The long term implications of this agreement into which AECL and the government of Ontario have entered commits us to a program which is under study by a committee of this House. That is making a farce of the committee and a farce of parliament. It is trying to convince the people of Canada that, before they took this extraordinary step, there was some democratic input into the decision. There has been none.
I think we are being fooled, and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) has a definite case of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to be a rather broad consensus that the members of the committee and perhaps parliament have a grievance to take up with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). It has been very clearly and very forcefully expressed on the ground that it is a grievance, but surely it is not a question of privilege when in fact the minister has taken a step which he is entitled to do under the rules of the House.
Second, on the ground that it is a matter within the committee, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has suggested that the committee ask the minister to come before it and explain his action. That seems to me to be a useful interim step before the matter arrives here on the floor, perhaps as part of a committee report in which it may come up again. If indeed it turns out that, after this step has been taken, some further argument on privilege exists, I would be only too glad to hear it at that time, but I cannot find privilege at this point.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I seek the unanimous support of the House to revert to motions so that I could move a motion and so that the committee could meet this afternoon and summon the minister?


S O. 75C
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 cannot very well give the hon. member permission to revert to motions. We have not got there yet.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 75C I move, seconded by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald):
That, in relation to Bill C-56, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill; and
That at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, any proceeding before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion, it being moved in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 75C. Debate pursuant to this motion now begins and, under the rule, has a duration of two hours.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on the evening of April 10, I made a budget speech in the House. Then there was a six-day debate on the budget. After several votes, the budget was passed by the House of Commons. I then introduced the bill now under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and we have now entered the tenth day of debate at the second reading stage. Under the terms of my motion, we will have had 11 days to debate the bill on second reading. There will then be the committee of the whole which will study each one of the 60 clauses in this bill. Then, we will have third reading. Here we are in June and we have already spent 16 days on this bill.
Moreover, we have other bills to introduce in the House of Commons, including Bill C-48 resulting from the budget and concerning customs and excise, a bill I will introduce tomorrow on orders of the day and through which we want to simplify the operations of small businesses by reducing their capital gains tax and also by allowing income tax deductions for people who invest in small businesses, and there is also a bill which the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) wants to introduce in the House and other legislation. Because of statements by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that he would do a filibuster, the opposition has refused to co-operate with the government. I am making use of the Standing Orders to allot some of the time of the House to
80045-19y2

June 6, 1978
S.O.	75C
dispose of this bill. Moreover, this debate has gone on ad nauseam in the House. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself have replied to dozens of questions concerning this issue and there remains no problem of principle to settle.
First of all, the opposition asked us to send a cheque of $226 million to the Quebec government. Since then, the Quebec government has abandoned its friends in the opposition and no longer asks that the $226 million be sent directly. Then, it was suggested last week that a tax collection agreement could be entered into with the Quebec government but they never intended to give anything in exchange to the federal government. Considering that since 1954, the Quebec government, bent on upholding the principles of provincial autonomy, has always assumed its own responsibilities with regard to income tax collection, and considering that after reading the morning newspapers, it already becomes obvious that it no longer wants us to proceed with tax collection on its behalf, we will resolve the only remaining problem when we come to Clause 30 of the bill, that is devising a way to compensate Quebec citizens because we have been unable to come to an agreement with their government.
We did propose a formula which appears in Clause 30 of the bill. Instead of using the 1977 taxpayer rolls as a basis for proceeding with a tax reduction, I suggested at that time that income tax be lowered so that a $100 fiscal abatement could be granted to the taxpayers for the year 1978. Now, we will decide on that, following whatever direction the debate might take, when we get to clause 30 but it seems absolutely useless to pursue the matter now.

I would like to make a few points regarding the budget. Very few people have spoken about the measures we have put forward which must be made law. It was published today that, because of the present economic circumstances and the fact that we reduced by 3 per cent the sales tax on automobiles and trucks, there has been an increase of 12.6 per cent in the sales of automobiles and trucks this past year.
Many people have said over and over again that the way I have chosen to cut taxes across the board for all items is wrong. This morning I saw a report to the effect that retail sales in stores increased by 4.9 per cent in April. What is very amazing is that in B.C. the increase was 16 per cent. It was 4.6 in Ontario; and in Quebec, where the Quebec government chose to do things its own way, there was a decrease of .8 per cent in sales in the month of April. The truth will come out when all the figures are available.
The measure we have proposed is a first in the history of Canada. This is the first time a minister of finance has gone across the land and talked to all ministers of finance to try to develop a consensus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Everyone agreed that on the afternoon of budget day I would call them, and they would say yes or no to
[Mr. Chr6tien.l
my proposition. Every minister of finance complied with that gentleman's agreement, everyone but one. After that, Mr. Speaker, I had to proceed.
As there was no agreement with Quebec, the Prime Minister and I said that we did not want to penalize the citizens of Quebec who have to pay a very high sales tax, so we decided to find a way to return the money that we have set aside for them in the budget. Now the question will be debated and settled when we reach clause 30. I think that under the circumstances enough time was lost in the House by the people who do not care at all about what we are trying to do, to develop, for the first time in this land, economic policies in conjunction with the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The opposition was very quick to jump in bed with the people who have only one goal in mind, namely, to destroy the Canadian Confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no problem with the constitution. I recognized on the first day of the consultation that the sales tax was a provincial matter, because I consulted the provinces. I made a proposal to which eight of the provinces agreed and with which one has disagreed. They can do whatever they want in their jurisdictions, and in fact they have done what they wanted to do, and I have not intervened. But I have to do what I want to do in my own jurisdiction. What I did on the night of the budget was to reduce the income tax of all the citizens in the other provinces. I do not want to penalize the people of Quebec because Mr. Parizeau saw fit not to join the national scheme, because it was an occasion for all of us ministers of finance in this land to develop a new mechanism for participation by the provinces in the economic policies of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, Mr. Parizeau wanted to maintain the status quo to try to prove a point, but I am not for the status quo. I tried, in the spirit of the meeting of first ministers in February, to develop co-operative policies among the ministers of finance, and today I would like to thank all the ministers of finance in the land who have agreed with me in the spirit of collaboration and co-operation following the first ministers' conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: But of course, as was the case at the first ministers' conference, after three days of debate the premier of Quebec saw fit to grandstand and to quit just to try to make his case for nothing. Why was he there if he did not agree to anything? The same thing happened with my proposal. I acted
June 6, 1978

in good faith and in the best spirit of collaboration in trying to evolve new economic policies for this land, but of course Quebec, in a self-serving attitude, tried to throw a wrench into my scheme.
I am very sorry that members on the other side do not think at all about what it was all about. They are just preoccupied with trying to score some political points, but the people of Canada will judge them very severely for just playing politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have just had another of those pitiable, shameful performances by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: When the Minister of Finance gets into trouble, he wraps himself in the Canadian flag and says that everybody who is criticizing him is criticizing the country. "What is wrong with that?", asks one deposed minister in the back row. What is wrong with that is that it is fundamentally dishonest and it badly serves the cause of federalism, when a minister of the Crown is wrong and when he is accused of being wrong, not to answer the accusations, not to deal with the evidence, but instead to dismiss all of his critics, ranging from Claude Ryan to the Toronto Globe and Mail, if you can think of a compass that large, as separatists.
What is of interest here is that the Minister of Finance by his actions, by his unparalleled incompetence as Minister of Finance, has set back severely the very process he celebrates of co-operation with the provinces. He admits his own incompetence. He stands up in the House of Commons and tells us once more that he went into an agreement which required the agreement of the provinces, knowing he did not have the agreement of the one province which he knew was going to stand up and hit him if he tried to bring in a measure to which they had not agreed. That is naivete, it is simple incompetence, and it is a serious disservice to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We will have an opportunity to discuss this matter at some length later on, unless the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his henchmen intend to introduce closure clause by clause, because what is of interest here is that this is not even normal closure. Normal closure applies when the government thinks it is right, when the opposition thinks it is wrong, and when the government uses its power to force its way through. In this case the government does not even pretend that it is right-the government knows that it is wrong. Yesterday the Minister of Finance in the House admitted that he knows he is wrong. He admitted that he is going to back away from the proposal to which we take exception.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is flexibility.


Charles Joseph Clark: He is certainly flexible. We oppose this measure for one major reason. I do appreciate hearing the Minister of
S.O.	75C
Finance confirm that he knows he is wrong, confirm that he is going to back down on the proposal which has held up debate in the House.
We are opposing this measure for one major reason, that is, that it invades the jurisdiction of the provinces. The minister has said he will change that, and he just repeated it. But he will not tell us how he wants to use the most extreme power of parliament to force us to accept something the key contents of which we do not know. Is provincial jurisdiction going to be respected here? Is the government abandoning its proposal to pay a direct cheque to everyone in Quebec and not pay a direct cheque to the citizens in other provinces? Is the economic stimulus to the province of Quebec to be delayed for a year? The government will not say, yet, sir, those are the questions that the whole dispute is about. If the government answers those questions in a way that respects provincial rights, and in a way that treats Quebec as it treats the other provinces, then there would be no need for closure. But this government would rather abuse power than use simple common sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This bill embarrasses the government. They made a serious mistake in acting as though they had agreement, when they did not have it. They made another mistake in the Prime Minister's stubborn refusal to admit he was wrong. Now they have to back down. They are discussing new arrangements with Quebec. They should have done that weeks ago and not delayed the business of parliament debating a bill which they knew they would have to change. Now that they are forced to back down, what they should do is to withdraw the bill for two or three days and to amend it. That is what they would do if they respected parliament. But they do not, so we have closure.

And why resort to closure? It is not because the debate has dragged on; on the main motion, there have been 10 speakers; four Liberals, four Progressive Conservatives and two NDP members; on the amendment, we heard 25 speakers, eight of whom were Liberals. The minister wants to close the debate before some other Liberals are compelled to speak. Most of all, he does not want parliament to hear the views of the hon. members for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), Matane (Mr. De Bane) and Compton (Mr. Tessier) about the infringement of provincial rights.

The use of closure is just one more indication of the incompetence of the Minister of Finance. He talked about his record in bills. He has introduced six bills in this session and he has had to invoke closure on two of them. He promised an employment tax credit, then he took three months to write the bill and another three months to get the forms out. That proposal was supposed to generate 50,000 new jobs-it generated only 1,900. His inability to see the trap that Quebec set for him created this problem, which has seriously harmed the cause of federalism. It is this government, by its foolishness

June 6, 1978
S.O.	75C
and stubbornness, that has set back the cause of federalism and given momentum to the Parti Quebecois.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, why not withdraw the bill temporarily, allow the minister to make whatever changes he can and let parliament deal with other matters in the meantime, and then bring forward an amended bill that parliament, the government and the provinces can accept? This government is too stubborn to admit to being mistaken. Closure is at times invoked on a matter of principle; but in this case its use is dictated by the stubbornness of the government.

A government is judged not only by the things it does but by the way it uses its power. This is a government which condones secret trials in Canada. I see the Prime Minister is smiling. This is because he was the author of the action. This is a government which imprisons innocent citizens without charge. It is a government which now uses a form of closure to force through parliament a measure which the government knows is wrong and knows it is going to change. That is an abuse of the rules of parliament. It is an abuse of the role of the provinces. It is an abuse of the rights of the citizens of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). In so doing, I want to make it clear that there are times in debates in the House of Commons when a responsible government will introduce such a motion. It is in the rule book. It is there for use by the government to make a decision as to when a debate is over. If the opposition is still going on with what it regards as a relevant debate, and if the government can make a good case to end it, the government can decide to exercise that responsibility and bring the debate to a conclusion. But if there ever was a circumstance where closure was completely inappropriate, surely this is it.
The original proposal made by the government in principle was accepted by all of the other provinces. It was amended in detail to accord with the basic principle that it was satisfactory for the federal government. The province of Quebec came along and made a proposal which was fully in accordance with the principle of the bill and was fully in accordance with its constitutional responsibilities, but it consisted of a process which made the federal minister feel he was outmanoeuvred politically, and the federal government said no. Because the federal government wants a partisan battle is no reason to play games with the federal system in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is exactly what is involved in this matter. A few minutes ago the minister indicated in the debate

that the Quebec government made its proposal after the fact. With all due respecl I say to the minister that it was not up to the government of the province of Quebec, or the governments of any other provinces, to reach an agreement according to the time table imposed by the federal government. In an area of jurisdictional authority which is within provincial domain, surely it is a right of the province of Quebec, or of any other province, to negotiate a deal which meets its legitimate constitutional interests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I say that with all the emphasis I can. The province of Quebec was constitutionally right in its judgment. Also it was pragmatically right in terms of the details of its proposal and the ideas put forward. If any of the other provinces had wanted a delay, they would have been entitled to the same kind of delay. In a matter as fundamental to the federal system as this, I cannot understand how the Minister of Finance could have brought in a budget offering this type of deal to the provinces without all provinces being in agreement in advance, particularly considering the situation in the province of Quebec at this time.
At an earlier phase in this debate I gave credit to the minister. I repeat that credit now. I meant it earlier and I mean it now. I give him credit for involving the provinces. In a federal state when it is necessary to take stimulative measures involving fiscal policy, the time to start using this system imaginatively is long overdue. Indeed from time to time the federal government brings in a measure which has direct impact in an area of provincial jurisdiction, such as in this case. It is important for the minister to consult with the provinces and arrive at an agreement so that we can manage our federal state much more efficiently and competently from an economic point of view. To the extent that we have received some innovation from the Minister of Finance in these circumstances, I repeat that he deserves credit.
At the same time I cannot overemphasize my own view. Certainly it is one which is shared unanimously on this side of the House, as well as by many people outside the House who are not opposition party members. My view is that the Minister of Finance made a colossal political blunder and a colossal misjudgment of political reality in this country when he brought in this measure without the agreement of the province of Quebec. He should have recognized that this area is particularly sensitive to the province of Quebec, not simply with the present government but indeed with preceding governments such as Union Nationale governments and Liberal governments of that province. This is demonstrated by the fact that he sees himself in opposition not only to the existing provincial government of the province of Quebec but to all opposition parties as well. It was a colossal error in judgment on the part of the Minister of Finance when he brought in this measure.
The question we are dealing with is whether closure is legitimate now. Is it? I cannot think of a worse time to invoke closure. There is no pressing priority. The federal government indicated that an agreement has not been reached and that it is
June 6, 1978

still discussing proposals with the province of Quebec. It is asking us to buy a pig in a poke, which is an old metaphor that is entirely appropriate, especially when one considers clause 30. We do not know what the amendment will be. Why could the government not accept the proposal I made in all sincerity two weeks ago when I moved a 30-day hoist, rather than the traditional six-month one? I moved that 30-day hoist to provide us with a cooling off period, perhaps to arrive at some agreement on this central matter.
Why could the government not accept the argument which has been made by all parties in the House? That argument was reasserted today by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). All we have to do is put this bill aside. We do not need to pass it in its present form. In fact, we should not pass it. The argument indicating that we in the opposition are holding up parliament is absurd. The people who are holding up progress in parliament now are the Government of Canada, not the opposition parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: All the government has to do is withdraw this bill.
I do not doubt that the Minister of Finance is sincere when he indicates that he is talking about it and that they are going to bring in an amendment. If he has some hope that it may yet be agreeable to the province of Quebec, why does he not use his common sense and put this bill aside? Then we could move on and discuss other measures, instead of the government invoking closure and using its majority to pass a bill which will be amended down the road. In fact, we do not even know what the substance of the amendment will be. I do not think a good argument could be made for invoking closure at this point. As I have said, we should simply stop debate and go on with other measures.
In conclusion, 1 want to say that my party still believes the legitimate constitutional position argued by the province of Quebec in this case is an acceptable one. The minister made special deals with British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and all the Atlantic provinces. He was prepared to be flexible with those regions. Why in God's name is he not prepared to be flexible with the government of Quebec?
When I say that we should give the government of Quebec every cent it is entitled to and not one penny more or less, just as every other province has received, I do not speak alone. The Saskatchewan minister of finance is prepared totally for the Minister of Finance to write out the cheque and send it to the government of the province of Quebec. The government of Saskatchewan realizes constitutionally that it negotiated one package which was acceptable to it. Also that province realizes that the package acceptable to Quebec is different in detail but similar in principle. The same constitutional point holds: Quebec should receive its fair share. I say to the minister, get busy, write the cheque, drop this bill for now, and let us get on with the other work.


S O. 75C
[Stage Direction]

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I never expected that this action would be proposed to put an end to the debate on this very serious question. A short while ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said in his remarks that this debate had lasted long enough since his budget was presented on April 10. I admit that the proceedings on this matter have been going on for some time, but we must admit that it is a very important issue and that it should not be dealt with lightly, if we want to avoid making a tremendous mistake that would further prejudice the harmony in our country.
In my opinion, the proposal put forward by the Minister of Finance, as I indicated earlier, flies in the face of our constitution. The fact that we most urgently need to draw up a new constitution does not mean that the Minister of Finance may well violate the present one. He must respect it pending a new one that will determine more precisely the rights and responsibilities of the provinces as well as the rights and responsibilities of the central government. Mr. Speaker, in my view, Bill C-56 is some kind of an all-encompassing bill. It is somewhat the government's habit, when it wants to get the House to pass an unacceptable measure to integrate it into a bill including other acceptable measures in order to embarrass the hon. members. I find these practices deplorable, and I cannot condone them. Again, I ask the Minister of Finance to amend clause 30 of the bill in order to respect provincial jurisdiction. The minister has repeated many times that through this measure he wants to increase consumer purchasing power.
I am very happy about that, everyone is, but he used means that violate the constitution; that is why the Quebec government and all parties represented in the National Assembly oppose this bill, as I do; as a member of the Canadian parliament coming from Quebec, I must oppose it-which I am doing in a positive way-I am convinced the Minister of Finance stepped out of line. If he only took one step back, he would fall in the right place. The whole country would be pleased and would say "There goes a great man, the Minister of Finance". He recognized that he took a step in the wrong direction but he stepped back and starting from there he introduced another measure. I suggested and discussed with him last week the possibility of decreasing or cancelling completely the tax at the manufacturers' level which falls within federal jurisdiction. When I put the question here in the House, even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said it was an excellent idea. It might even be the ideal formula. However, we are afraid that wholesale dealers will take advantage of the situation to increase their profits.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance that he is quite well supported by economists and competent officials who are surely able to prevent those who would try to take advantage of the situation from increasing their profits at the consumers' expense. I promised that I would bring him this

June 6, 1978
S.O.	75C
week a bill which was prepared by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives a few years ago, a bill which explains fully how to implement the formula we advocate. I shall bring him that bill this week, perhaps tomorrow, if possible. The minister promised me he would give it serious consideration. Then, if that legislation can be implemented in Canada, and I am sure it can, the minister could not say that we have nothing to suggest to solve the problem and to prevent wholesale dealers from taking undue advantage of the tax cut at the manufacturers' level. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the government's decision to avail itself of the provisions of Standing Order 75C to end the debate and prevent hon. members from trying to convince the Minister of Finance to find a formula more flexible and respectful of the jurisdiction of the provinces and more specifically of the province of Quebec.
No matter what the minister may say, Mr. Speaker, the other finance ministers are in agreement, but this is not the first time it has been said in Canada that Quebec is not a province like the others. Quebec is the only French-speaking province in Canada and as such it is different from the other provinces. But it does not seek preferential treatment: from the economic point of view it wants to be treated by the central government just like all the other provinces. There is no doubt that the proposal the Minister of Finance has made is unacceptable because it flies in the face of the constitution; I therefore oppose this use of closure and we shall vote against this motion.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, what I find disturbing about what I hear today is that we are forgetting the essence of the debate, and what the debate is all about, namely, the economy of our country. Our economy needs that boost, support, and confidence being offered by the imaginative and innovative budget, together with a co-operative approach that has never taken place before in the history of our country. This has been on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) who has consulted with the provinces.
It is not an easy or simple thing to talk with ten premiers or ministers of finance and obtain unanimity. They all realize they are big boys. They know what is at stake and that it is important the economy move forward with some cohesion, and that is exactly what the Minister of Finance was endeavouring to achieve, and to a large extent has achieved, except in one case.
That one case did not really involve the economy or the matter of cohesion. Indeed, it involved something almost in the reverse; stalling, delaying, not giving answers, and not proceeding, not because there was fundamental disagreement or an unwillingness to co-operate, and I realize that everyone cannot think precisely in the same way, but rather because those involved took the opportunity to help build their policy in order to demonstrate that they could only work within a framework

of sovereign association-a status that is quite different and does not depend on co-operation, courage, and innovation, such as shown by the Minister of Finance. That is something my friends opposite fail to understand.
We have here in the proposals of my colleague the makings of a way to maintain the momentum that is being built up in the economy. We have also the makings of the faith Canadians and people outside our country need, but which has been so badly shattered by the financial critic of the official opposition, in particular, and others from the other side. They have created a lack of confidence that has resulted in the lack of stability of our dollar. It has now returned to a reasonable state of stability, where it belongs. This is what has to be nurtured and preserved.
There are elements in the budget that will assist in providing impetus and the courage to exploit opportunities by the small business community across our country, a community which is so vital to our existence. The budget includes opportunities for research and development. The 150 per cent write off is not only a tax concession in itself for needed research and development, but is as well a signal to the businessmen and women of this country that this government has faith in them and in their ability to be innovative, and intends to back them up. It is an indication that this government wants them to be imaginative and get on with the job. This is followed of course by other announcements by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan), which give further indications in that regard.
The important thing, Mr. Speaker, is to get on with the job-not to haggle amongst ourselves in what is a fragile world economy and one in which we have to compete desperately-to get on to other bills proposed by the Minister of Finance. For example, there is the provision for the write-off against future income of investment in small business, an extremely important element that I hope even the opposition can grasp. It is that which is called glove money in some cases, but I call it confidence money. It is money that brothers, parents, friends put up to invest in an entrepreneur's business, but cannot do so in many cases because it is hard earned money from people with small estates. This will at least give them the hope that if they are not successful they can write it off against future income. I mention that, not to take it out of context in this debate, but to put it in context, because these are all interrelated.
The monkey wrench is being thrown in not for reasons that the budget has been brought in and these new measures have been brought in, but for measures quite irrelevant to that, to demonstrate that provinces cannot co-operate with the federal government and with other provinces for the good of the entire country. That I find sad, and I think most people in the province of Quebec would find it sad too.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, that this bill be supported and that we get on with the business of the budget, that we move on to those other areas that need our attention, and that we
June 6, 1978

deal very realistically with the issues that are at stake here, which are whether we can work in co-operation and harmony in controlling the economy of this country, particularly at a time when it needs every bit of co-operation and support it can get. It is important that we allocate our time sensibly, get on with the job, and run the economy as it should be run, to the best of our ability with the greatest spirit we have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I appreciate that perhaps the hon. members opposite do not understand, but the fact is that they are helping to destroy the confidence that we on this side of the House have in the people of this country, in the businessmen and women of this country, and in the potential of this country, which is very great indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the minister said as he began his remarks that what this debate was all about was the economy. Well, I would say to the minister that what this debate is about is the incompetence of this government, the incompetence of this government in the way in which it has handled the economy, the incompetence of this government in the way in which it approaches federal-provincial relations, the incompetence of this government in the way in which it runs the business of this parliament. That is what this debate is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is with a great deal of concern that I rise to speak on this motion today. I expressed my concern earlier in the debate when the bill was before the House, but I am doubly concerned today that we have a very unpopular bill, a tremendously unpopular bill that is about to be railroaded through the House by the motion of closure which we have before us.
What we have to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that closure is the ultimate weapon in parliament, a weapon to be brought in only in extreme situations. We have to ask ourselves is this such a situation? We have seen bills debated here for four, five six weeks, even months without closure being introduced. This is a bill which has been debated for a mere 25 hours, and now the government is imposing closure, imposing closure on a budget bill, a money bill, a bill dealing with the spending plans of the government. As such, it it a very important bill, one that it is the duty and role of parliament to examine and study extremely carefully.
It is the duty of the opposition, of those on this side of the House, to question how the government spends its money, and that is what we have been doing over these past days- questioning the government, asking for explanations, looking at the various measures in this bill. I might add we have been getting very little in the way of explanation from the government when we have raised these questions and doubts.
S.O.	75C
We have questioned in particular the one ludicrous measure in this bill that has received unanimous rejection from coast to coast, not only rejection by all members in the opposition parties in this parliament, but by people right across the country. It is clause 30 which has caused the government so much embarrassment, a measure designed to give direct tax rebates to the taxpayers of Quebec. That measure is the reason behind this closure motion being brought before us today. The government is invoking closure in order to get that embarrassing measure out of the way, and hopefully, so it thinks, out of the minds of the people, and out of the daily press where it is a continuing reminder, day after day, of the government's ineptitude and its lack of ability to handle the economy of the country.
This tax rebate which was conceived to replace a program that the government was unable to coerce the government of Quebec into accepting is an inept and clumsy solution to a problem that never should have arisen. It would never have arisen if the government truly understood the workings of the federal system. What the government has done in this debate and through this measure is to show that it fails to understand how a federal system should really work. As a result, what we have is closure, trying to sweep this ill-conceived measure under the rug.
This direct income tax rebate scheme is not only ill-conceived, it is modelled on an idea that is outdated and was outdated when it was first mentioned some ten years ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but laid to rest at the Victoria conference and not resurrected since, until the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) put their heads together and brought about this disaster.
As I pointed out when I spoke on this matter earlier, the question of direct tax rebates to taxpayers in lieu of provincial participation in a federal-provincial agreement was raised during the period of the constitutional review between 1966 and 1971. The problem centred on what to do when a province did not want to join a federally initiated scheme upon which most of the other provinces had formally and officially agreed. At that time the Trudeau government proposed making payments directly to individuals. That proposal was attacked by every province in this country, including those which are strong supporters of a vigorous central government. It was seen to be completely unworkable and was unanimously rejected and, what is more, it was also rejected unanimously by the joint parliamentary committee on the constitution in 1972.
The Prime Minister accepted the overwhelming rejection that his proposal met with at that time, and he never tried to use it as a mechanism in federal-provincial programs. What I ask, sir, is what has changed now to cause this unwieldy proposal to be dusted off and put to the test at such a delicate time in our country's history, at a time when sensitivity is the most required ingredient in federal-provincial relations? Why did the Prime Minister think that he could do now, without consultation, what he could not do ten years ago, with consultation? I am at a loss to answer this, Mr. Speaker. I do know, and I want to repeat what a former premier of British
6108

June 6, 1978



[Stage Direction]
Columbia, Mr. Bennett, said ten years ago about this proposal. They were prophetic words indeed. He said, "If you introduce such a proposal you are going to play provincial governments against the federal government and you are going to break up this country and not build up Canadian unity. You are going to make for disunity."
The seeds of disunity have been implanted and nurtured by the government's intrasigent policy of proceeding with a method, such as it is doing, which was rejected ten years ago by all provinces and which has been rejected now by all parties in the National Assembly in the province of Quebec, and indeed by all outlets of opinion in the province of Quebec. This is a method which seems designed by this government to push the province of Quebec further into isolation.
Not content to introduce this divisive measure, the government is compounding the matter by ramming it home through the mechanism of closure. It has thus, in one move, dealt a double blow. It has attacked the roots of parliament and it has attacked the roots of our federal system. In this way it is demeaning the rights of individual members of parliament, and it is demeaning the rights of the provinces. Not even this government, with its penchant for stepping on both parliament and the provinces, has pushed its arrogance so far before. Today is surely a watershed in the arrogant life of a tyrannical government.
I say to members on the government side of the House that they should realize that in voting in favour of this motion of closure they are voting not only against the basic tenets of our federal system, but they are voting against the total membership of the National Assembly of the province of Quebec, and indeed they are voting against the overwhelming wishes of the people of the province of Quebec.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate as I support without any reservation that motion for closure, and I believe it is essential to place it in its proper background and recall the reasons why the government chose that course of action. Although I may not be as close to the Parti Quebecois as the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), my past experience makes me very close to provincial Liberals and I shall explain to the hon. member for Joliette why they had to take that position. But first, Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain why we chose that course of action.
Last January and February, when the provincial premiers and the federal government met at their conference, several of my friends, officials of the Quebec government with whom I discussed, everybody agreed about the problem we had to face and, considering the uncertainty caused by the high unemployment level, we had to encourage consumer spending to facilitate our economic recovery. Of course the government had

several means at its disposal. One of them was tried in January and February, that is a personal income tax reduction. Then there was the federal tax cut advocated by the Social Credit member for whom I have much respect. But the main beneficiaries of that measure would have been manufacturers and retailers rather than consumers. Yet all experts, including economists who are among the most ardent supporters of the Parti Quebecois, told to the provincial ministers and the federal minister that, considering our objective, the best means at our disposal was a sales tax cut. That stand required a lot of guts and a sense of innovation on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), considering the determination of the Parti Quebecois to demonstrate that federalism cannot work.
The Minister of Finance had the guts to try that method. He consulted the ten provincial ministers. Obviously it was not easy, Mr. Speaker, and in our country where 75 per cent of manufactured goods are produced in Ontario and Quebec, where British Columbia's share is between 10 per cent and 13 per cent of the production particularly in the field of export plywood, there is consequently only 12 per cent left of the manufacturing production to be shared between seven other provinces and two territories. It then became unthinkable for the federal government to ask the provincial ministers to decide on a selective tax rebate. Where could Saskatchewan and Manitoba have effectively and efficiently applied such a selective measure?
The Ontario finance minister, Mr. Darcy McKeough, understood it and this is the reason why he accepted a tax rebate across the line. It is clear that with a selective measure, the two provinces which would have benefited most would be first Ontario and then Quebec. Yet the Ontario finance minister agreed to participate in a national scheme in order to serve the national interests. Those of our colleagues who are now talking about the constitution in this debate, I have to call them "constitutionalists." These are people who are playing some kind of a minuet without exactly knowing the tune to which they are dancing. In view of the fact that with the counter-proposal from the Canadian Minister of Finance, Quebec had the opportunity of spending that 1 percentage point which they were asked to inject, and spend precisely in those sectors which they chose, namely these four soft sectors.
As for the Quebec consumer, if we take for instance a family of 4 persons with a $10,000 income, we realize that with an overall reduction of 3 percentage points, and I am now adressing my remarks to the Progressive Conservative members who are changing their views just about every day, such a reduction of 3 percentage points on all items would increase the purchasing power of low-income people for more than a tax reduction applied only to four sectors. So, Mr. Speaker, the finance minister chose that method because, it is socially more equitable and economically more consistent with the over-all interests of the country. Mr. Parizeau has refused with his usual open-mindedness. Not only has he turned down our
June 6, 1978

proposals and decided not to negotiate for the past three weeks, not only has he refused to come to us with a counterproposal but he has played politics and applied a tax reduction of 8 percentage points on four sectors, Mr. Speaker and I am not convinced that the Quebec government is applying the right solution there.
Nobody, from Quebec in particular, has mentioned that since quotas were imposed on footwear and clothing we are having difficulty even supplying all retailers in British Columbia and Alberta, and I would like the Leader of the Opposition when he is in British Columbia and in his own province of Alberts, to tell the people, the retailers there who are making things tough for us in Ottawa, I would like him to tell them that he approves and encourages the decision made by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce under Mr. Jean Chretien, to cut imports.
Mr. Speaker, the most important thing at this time in these four sectors-they have orders-is for the government of Quebec, if it is looking for effective action, to make available to them a little more risk capital. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has set a program whereby we finance, not only in Quebec but across the country, 90 per cent of the studies made by those industries with a view to analyse the problem in a given company. Following that grants and loans of up to $1.5 million will help the industry to make a recovery. Unfortunately some companies are still going bankrupt not for lack of orders but because they produce at a loss, for instance instead of selling a pair of pants with a $1 profit, they lose 50 cents. What is required is not necessarily more orders, but the rationalization of their means of production. Mr. Speaker, if, instead of playing partisan politics, members of the opposition wanted to fully discuss the problem of those four sectors, they should come to me and I will give them a few pointers which will help them to speak more intelligently in Quebec.
Here is another thing. Mr. Speaker, when we took on that economic problem of getting the economy going again I would remind members of the opposition who want to bring the constitution into the debate that they all agree up to now that the federal government should be the one mainly responsible for the economy in this country. Now, in spite of the extensive decentralization advocated by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who does not know what he would decentralize, the fact is that the federal government collects only 40 per cent of taxes in this country, while 60 per cent are collected by provincial and municipal governments. Now, and here I shall follow the line of thought of the hon. member, if our government really wants to act in a responsible and effective way in a field where everybody agrees it should act, that is in the economic field, the hon. member should admit that with 40 per cent of taxes, he cannot speak of decentralization because with a little less money, the government will become inoperative to such an extent that it will no longer be able to play its role. I would understand then that he became a separatist, because it



[Stage Direction]
is better to cut out the dead wood and take a new approach. Mr. Speaker, we have compared apples with oranges in this debate. Obviously, the hon. member for Joliette enjoyed flirting with the Parti Quebecois. He did not need the sales tax to do that; he had started long before. When the hon. member for Joliette who, after all, is still a Quebecker and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that he should back down, I believe that the hon. member for Joliette should consider all the options that could be valid and truly helpful for Quebeckers instead of coming up with a new solution every day after reading the editorials in the morning newspapers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain the position of the provincial Liberal party and of Mr. Ryan. Mr. Garneau, who was the economic adviser of the Liberal party up to the leadership convention, decided to support the federal government, and his new leader did not really examine Mr. Chretien's counter proposal in which he asked that the federal reduction of 2 per cent be applied on all the products, after which the province would be allowed to apply its 1 per cent reduction in whatever area it wished, and unfortunately, he did not have time to consider the proposal made during the weekend on the Thursday before the leadership convention and he took the position that I would have taken myself if I had been in his place. However, Mr. Speaker, he took this position on the advice of the Liberal member for Bonaventure, Mr. Levesque, who explained to him that when the Union Nationale, other good friends of the hon. member for Joliette, was in power and the Liberals made up the opposition in Quebec, on four different occasions, the provincial Liberals supported the federal Liberals, and after consultations, dialogues and negotiations between the Union Nationale and the government in Ottawa, the provincial Liberals looked as though they had adopted a holier-than-thou attitude and had been more federalist than the federalists in Ottawa.
Mr. Levesque, and I want to explain this to Mr. La Salle who is a good politician, Mr. Levesque explained to Mr. Ryan that it would be very dangerous to support openly the federal Liberals in case there was some sort of compromise which would give Quebeckers the impression that if the Liberals had been in power in Quebec rather than the Independentists, Quebec's share would have been less. However, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Joliette should certainly recognize this, it remains that Mr. Ryan has effectively suggested a formula that the Minister of Finance accepted last week, whether or not it is a rebate, and the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head in disagreement. That is why the government wants to implement this proposal this year rather than next year. The Leader of the Opposition says that those $85 cheques will not help the poor, but next year about 100,000 fewer would be helped. But the Leader of the Opposition will certainly understand that the Liberal government, always the champion of the underprivileged in this country, had to-
80045-20'/2
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1978
S.O.	75C
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his allotted time has expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the new Liberal leader in Quebec will not read the words of the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle), because judging from what he said, you would think that Mr. Ryan is stupid rather than intelligent. Apparently, he had not understood the minister's proposal correctly, that is, Mr. Levesque had apparently misled him and finally-No, frankly I think Mr. Ryan is more intelligent than that and I intend to trust Mr. Ryan more than the hon. member for Chambly who just tried to teach us a lesson at his government's prompting. Like all the others in front of me, he toes the party line.
I repeat today that because of this guillotine imposed by the government, this is a very sad day for the members of this House and particularly for the members from Quebec, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not believe in the arguments put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the hon. member for Chambly in his malicious comments, saying that we are yet more hon. members who want to please the Quebec separatists, refusing to recognize that the Minister of Finance faces a unanimous National Assembly and a unanimous official opposition proposals. Would it be then that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister alone hold the truth in the matter?
Mr. Speaker, I think we have proof here of disconcerting and unbelievable treason with regard to the fundamental question. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the ten minutes allotted us will enable the hon. members of this House to reject this motion for closure, motion that is odious in a parliament such as ours, and on a debate that deserves some continuity.
The Minister of Finance has the gall to move a motion of closure, knowing full well that there is still unanimity in Quebec, at this very moment, and when he tries to make out a solution is forthcoming within hours, and asks us to support this motion of closure, on a bill which is inacceptable in principle, even less so for Quebeckers, I say, it takes nerve.
I also wonder how it is that the 60 Quebec members opposite are hiding behind the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I am well aware of the fact that they are usually elected on the Prime Minister's coattails. I think that in view of the present situation, they are panic-striken and are more worried than they care to admit. It would be timely to repeat what so many Quebeckers asked me over the weekend: "Where are those valiant Quebec MPs who are supposed to defend our rights in Ottawa? Let those gallant Liberals who had pledged to carry
[Mr. Loiselle (Chambly).l
out the Prime Minister's promise of a just society stand up and be counted."
And what about the hope generated by the arrival of those three doves at the House of Commons, two of whom have already left for more secure havens and the third, according to the last Gallup poll, is in a bad way but would rather put up with anything than quit. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Finance had to make concessions in view of his colossal blunder, his clumsy negotiations and attitude. Of course, the government will boast of their flexibility, which they have not shown any sign of over the last ten years, and all of a sudden, on realizing they have painted themselves into a corner they will claim to be open-minded. We have been pressing the Minister of Finance, for the past two months, to consider and reply to Quebec's proposal.
Can anyone in this House argue that the Quebec government's proposal on behalf of those sectors where problems are the most acute was a bad one? As I said before, for the sake of the so-called unanimity in the National Assembly, they will keep manipulating people with comments of all kinds, such as the ones the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle) made earlier. I do not want to give him more importance than he has. This debate started two months ago and 1 think it is the first time I have heard him say anything on this matter. Obviously, he has been well briefed and instructed by members of his party. Perhaps the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) will make a few comments presently. I hope he does. I heard him say that this proposal of the Minister of Finance was a political catastrophy. The next day he almost clapped his desk to pieces after the Minister of Finance defended his stand. That worries me a little, but this afternoon he has another chance to shape up and I trust he will. Other members on the other side have also expressed their disapproval and they are absent today. I suppose they have other responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance referred to flexibility in connection with our unyielding and fierce position for the past two months, but he had to change his mind and alter his proposal, and thanks to us on this side of the House, the Quebec finance minister and the provinces will not be hoodwinked and forced to accept the dictatorial measures of the federal government. Today he speaks about flexibility, but it only proves his weakness and his ridiculous incompetence from which he is absolved by the Prime Minister each time he answers a question we put to him. I never thought the Prime Minister would go that far.
As a responsible head of state, we have been asking him for the past two weeks to take up the matter personally, since his Minister of Finance has shown his incompetence. Well aware that the Minister of Finance could no longer negotiate with his Quebec counterpart, the Prime Minister has declined to assume his responsibilities and call a meeting with the Quebec premier. He has not done so but encouraged his Minister of Finance in his colossal error; now they are telling us that no

special arrangements are to be made whereas we know perfectly well that on the initial proposal there have been some arrangements with certain provinces. But in the case of Quebec, arrangements are alleged to divide the country and undermine federalism. This is the kind of comments some people conveniently forget. As soon as we opposed the bill, the Prime Minister charged all supporters of the Parizeau proposal with undermining federalism. The Minister of Finance stated that that proposal was likely to divide the country but when the provincial parties headed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Biron and others and the unanimous opposition on this side and some other sectors of the economy joined the official opposition side, the Prime Minister did not dare repeat his charges in this House. He was less brave here than he was with the media at the time of his first press conference. The Minister of Finance also changed his attitude many times but he tried almost every week to make us believe that we just wanted to support a proposal by a government with very particular option.
Mr. Speaker, at no time have we supported the Quebec government for political reasons. We have supported what we felt were Quebec's interests, and we have fought for a basic principle whereby under a new federalism, the provinces should be allowed to discuss this issue freely and participate in a decision as important as the one proposed by the Minister of Finance. But these negotiations which are said-


Mr. Roy (Laval):: That is exactly what they did-


Roch La Salle: I have just heard the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) who will certainly vote for closure and put a gag on all members without hearing first about the forthcoming solution. Of course, we are all anxious to find such a solution, and a responsible government would certainly have dealt differently with hon. members who are as eager and willing to safeguard Quebec's interests. I suggest that we were entitled to expect a better performance than the one we have witnessed for the past two months.
I know full well, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister was facing an election call two weeks ago, the position of the Liberals influenced the decision he had to take in terms of an election call which was postponed to a later date, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebeckers in this House will raise on this closure motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is based on a Standing Order which was passed by this parliament precisely to avoid any



[Stage Direction]
counter abuses. Under this standing order, a minister sponsoring a bill in the House can, by way of a motion, put an end to the debate at a given stage of the study of any bill when it is required by the interests of society and the state, when it seems obvious that the opposition parties are more interested in playing politics than in the subject matter of the bill at stake and that they ignore the well being of the collectivity. So the question arising out of this motion is whether or not the Minister of Finance is justified to resort to a rule which is part of the standing orders of the House of Commons of Canada to limit the debate on the second reading of a bill containing 59 clauses spread over 66 pages.
Now, what we have witnessed during the past ten days, when we were supposed to discuss the whole bill and when actually most interventions dealt only with clause 30 of the bill, is that about ten days have indeed been spent so far merely rising against and attempting to politicize a situation without even trying to suggest really concrete and useful proposals. In the course of that debate which has lasted for ten days now at the stage of second reading, I have never heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) or other members of other opposition parties concerned with that issue come forward with some useful suggestion in an attempt to solve what was at the beginning a problem, a matter of principle which is now settled and might have become a simple matter of finding the best way to transfer the money. Not a single constructive suggestion has been made, only destructive and negative criticism.
I find that unacceptable and irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, from people who suggest they want the good of Canadian citizens. I can see that the opposition leader is trying to tell me something. I will be happy to give him a briefing after I finish my short statement, Mr. Speaker, in order to correctly explain to him the principles which are contained in Bill C-56 and which he apparently missed completely. Instead of trying to support the cause of the Parti Quebecois, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should endeavour to demonstrate that right from the start of this controversy there was evidence of pettiness on the part of one of the provincial ministers of Finance, that there was a lack of honest cooperation on the part of one of the provincial ministers of finance while the nine others, who were consulted by the federal Minister of Finance, agreed on a helpful solution for the Canadian economy.
They allowed the Canadian government to intervene in a field of provincial jurisdiction, namely sales taxes. They allowed the Minister of Finance to reimburse them the equivalent of two out of three points of general sales tax cut in Canada. However, the Quebec minister of finance dozed through the three weeks of negotiations. He sent his officials. He came. He took part in the discussions. He did not take a stand, that, from the start, it must be pointed out and can never be stressed enough, Mr. Speaker. That was unacceptable
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1978

[Stage Direction]
meanness on the part of a provincial minister of finance, that can only be explained by the objectives pursued by the government of which this minister of finance is a member, that is, destroying our country and proving that federalism cannot work. I suggest it is irresponsible for a Leader of the Opposition of a Progressive Conservative member from Quebec to side with a Minister of Finance who resorted to such pettiness. Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), yelling from behind the curtains, that I should accuse Mr. Ryan. All Mr. Ryan did was to support a motion dealing with principles. As I said, this goes to show that the hon. member for Joliette is not aware of all the facts, or he does not fully understand the situation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member standing behind the curtains not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor. If he wishes to speak, he may ask to be recognized.


Yvon Pinard: The unanimity in the Quebec National Assembly was on the principle that Quebec should not be prevented, notwithstanding Mr. Parizeau's meanness, from implementing selective tax cuts. And moreover, notwithstanding Mr. Parizeau's mean trick, the National Assembly supported the principle of requiring that the Canadian government compensate Quebec for up to $226 million. Those were the principles involved, and to all intents and purposes, those principles are now settled, because the Canadian Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) stated very clearly that he had no intention of meddling with the PQ's selective cuts, and that indeed his intention was to compensate Quebec for up to $226 million. Those were the only principles involved, those were the principles that were supported by all parties in the Quebec National Assembly.
But now the problem is totally different. It has become much less important. It is a mere problem of implementing a formula for rebating those $226 million. This is quite different, Mr. Speaker. It is no longer a matter of principle, since the principles have been dealt with. The battle for the principles has been waged. Notwithstanding Minister Parizeau's unacceptable meanness, the Minister of Finance showed plenty of flexibility. He finally said: Listen, you refused to agree as the other provinces did, and we will not intervene in the area of provincial sales taxes. We did so in other provinces, because the provincial ministers of finance were in agreement. Mr. Parizeau, you failed to inform us of your dissenting position, but nevertheless, we certainly realize today that you will not allow anybody to interfere with the provincial sales tax, so, do whatever you wish, Mr. Parizeau. Take it off on four items, suppress the tax on children's clothing which you enacted yourself a year ago, do away with taxes for an additional two years if that is what you want. It is your business, it is your privilege, do whatever you want.

In Ottawa, we accept to pay you back $226 million, but we will pay that back within the limits of our own jurisdiction. We will pay that back to you by way of a reduction in federal income tax paid by Quebeckers, which is exactly the formula used in the other provinces who accepted our intervention in reducing their provincial taxes while compensating them, because in the other provinces, a taxation area is simply liberated and that this is what we propose to do, either by sending a cheque to each and every taxpayer in Quebec or by compensating the province by way of a tax rebate which could be granted by the end of 1978. Those are only matters of procedures, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned it a while ago and, in my opinion, this implies no litigation as to principles.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the mini-leader of the opposition who is smiling. What would have been his position if on budget night every province had accepted a general three per cent reduction of their sales taxes? Of course, Alberta would have accepted even if this province has no sales tax, as it has done. What would have been his position if every province had accepted, except Ontario, and if three days after the budget, Mr. McKeough had publicly declared: I did not accept this program from Ottawa even if Quebec and the other provinces accepted it. I do not want those three per cent across the board, I want to reduce my provincial sales tax on cars. I unilaterally decide to reduce my sales tax on cars and 1 am asking Ottawa to send me $226 million. What would have been the position of the mini-leader of the opposition in such circumstances? What would the hon. member for Joliette have been yelling in such circumstances? What would they have done with the principles which they claim to be advocating, Mr. Speaker? I would be curious to see their attitude. However, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that they are now resorting to politicking. But they should not deceive themselves. It is not by taking up the doctrine and causes of the Parti Quebecois that they will stand up for the true interests of Quebeckers. And I insist on that, Mr. Speaker. I wish to say to the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the opposition that Mr. Parizeau, the minister of finance, has acted shabbily because he wants to distort the system and prove that federalism is inefficient. I maintain that he is irresponsible.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for parliament. It is always a sad day for parliament when a government uses its majority to invoke closure. When this form of closure was introduced by this government ten years ago, we were told that Standing Order 75C would rarely be used because of the provisions of Standing Orders 75A and 75B. Yet we have seen no attempt on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) or the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to explain to this House that attempts were made under 75A or 75B to get a sensible allocation of time for this bill, or to have any sensible negotiations in order to get on with this bill.
June 6, 1978

The hon. member who just took his seat has demonstrated one thing here today with his defence of the government-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, precisely because I know the standing orders, I wish to remind the hon. member that Standing Order 75C provides for previous negotiations with the representatives of opposition parties. Those negotiations were held and failed and this is why we are justified in proceeding today under Standing Order 75C. Therefore, the alleged facts are not true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is a matter of debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I hope that is not going to be taken off my time. The hon. gentleman who just made that intervention should know the rules because he is the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. However, the fact of the matter is that Standing Order 75C is an arbitrary guillotine which is to be used rarely in this House, and certainly not the way it is being used in this case.
Nobody will question the right of the government majority to bring any question to a resolution after what it considers a reasonable time. We accept that, and we accept the fact that governments should rarely invoke the procedure of closure. However, by the same token, no sensible person would question the right of the opposition in the House to use every parliamentary device at its disposal to prevent a bill from going through when the government knows it will never be enforced and when in fact it is unenforceable.
We know this bill will have to be changed before it gets to third reading because it cannot be implemented without the advice and consent of the province of Quebec. Yet we are faced with this invocation of closure, knowing full well that within a few days the Minister of Finance will rise in his place in this House and say that there has been an agreement with the province of Quebec and that the bill will have to be changed.
Why not withdraw the bill now and sit down and negotiate sensibly with the province of Quebec toward an agreement which can then be incorporated in this bill and brought before this House? It would then receive expeditious passage. However, that is not the way this government operates. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lumley) talks about filibuster. Let me remind the hon. gentleman of a few facts.
We have had nine days on this very important bill. This bill has within it very divisive elements which will divide this country. It is the most divisive legislation we have had before us since this government came to power ten years ago. We have had nine days on this bill, and four of them have been
S.O.	75C
short days, that is, Wednesdays and Fridays, when parliament sits only in the afternoons. During those nine days there have been 18 speakers from the official opposition and 15 from the government side of the House, and the parliamentary secretary talks about filibuster! The hon. parliamentary secretary, for whom I have the greatest respect, has demonstrated a unique capacity in this House to speak out of both sides of his mouth.
We as a parliament are faced with the invidious prospect of having before us a bill with 59 clauses and over 60 pages. It is a very important tax bill which is currently being negotiated in the public press and in the public media by the Government of Canada and the government of Quebec. Surely that has to be a situation which is unprecedented in the history of any parliamentary democracy.
This bill flies in the fact of a unanimous declaration of the National Assembly of the province of Quebec. The parliamentary secretary tried to stickhandle his way around that one. He made Guy Lafleur look like an amateur. He should get the award for being the most valuable player of the year for his performance in trying to skate around the fact that the newly elected leader of the Liberal party in Quebec has come out against this bill and against this government's high-handed and arbitrary manner of dealing with the provinces in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Eighteen members of the official opposition have participated in this debate. If the government has its way-and it will, because of its majority-there will be many of us on both sides of the House who will be denied the opportunity to speak on this bill.
This is one of the most important bills to come before the House, with all its elements built in for disunity, for tearing this country apart, at a time when the government should be expressing great sensitivity. But it is pretty hard to demonstrate sensitivity and arrogance at the same time, and if this government has demonstrated its ability in one area, it is in the area of arrogance in dealing with the provinces.
We saw an example of this in the House a few days ago when the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) made a fundamental change in the housing policy of this country. He admits himself that it is a major shift in the social housing policy, and he admits it is a major change in the whole area of housing and urban affairs. So how does he treat the provinces? He lets them know of this change by a 15-page telex. That is the way this government treats the province of Quebec, that is the way it treats the province of Ontario, and that is the way it treats all the provinces of this country. Is it any wonder that this government has lost the confidence of the people of this country, as demonstrated by the Gallup poll?
I believe in this country, I believe in it with all my heart, and I worry about this government's propensity, this government's death wish, to divide and destroy this country, and we see the demonstrated not only in the high-handed, arrogant attitude of the Minister of Finance, but in the high-handed, arrogant attitude of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.

June 6, 1978
S.O.	75C
We saw it today when a loyal member of the government party, a former parliamentary secretary, a former distinguished chairman of a committee, stood in his place in the House and raised a question of privilege vital to the rights of parliament when he questioned the right of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) to make a major policy statement on nuclear waste disposal at the very time when the committee on which the hon. member sits is still deliberating on this most important issue. What an arrogant government! The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made his statement yesterday while the committee was seized of this matter, and he presented to this House a fait accompli. Sir, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) was quite right in rising in his place today, because that committee was given special terms of reference by the House to study that very matter.
This country will not survive if we have in office in Ottawa a government which shows such callous disregard for the rights of parliament and for the constitution of this country. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) in his speech yesterday asked rhetorically what would be the attitude of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) if the same thing were to happen in the province of Ontario. We say to the hon. member that it does not make any difference which province is having its constitutional rights transgressed. It is the solemn obligation and the responsibility of every member in the House to fight against such arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is our solemn responsibility as members of parliament to uphold the constitution of this country, and if there is one thing that can be said for this government-and certainly not a great deal can be said for the competence of this government-it is that it does not uphold the constitution of this country. The government of Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that it is dedicated to separation, has shown that it is a great deal more competent than the present Minister of Finance, or anybody else who sits in the cabinet over there, because what they did was to present a bill which would have a great deal of sex appeal in an election which subsequently they did not have the guts to call. And that is why, sir, they find themselves in the mess they are in today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in case there are readers of today's Hansard who might wonder what we are debating, may I point out that we are debating a motion in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to close off debate on the second reading of Bill C-56.
Most of the debate this afternoon seems to have been on the provisions of Bill C-56 itself, rather than on the motion before the House. In fact, during the speeches that were made by some of the Liberal members, I felt they were demonstrating that they would like more time to debate the bill because certainly they spent no time at all debating the issue of closure.

I realize that, on the other hand, they do not like to call this closure; they like to call it allocation of time. But I suggest that a skunk by any other name has the same odor. That is the way some of us feel about closure. Indeed, as I have said on a number of occasions, when closure under rule 75C or under rule 33 has been applied, what concerns me most about it is that the government's easy resort to these rules for ending debate precludes any serious study of ways of programming the work of this parliament.
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) referred to this motion yesterday in rather uncomplimentary terms as being unparalleled in the history of parliament, I am reported in Hansard as having asked "Oh?" What I meant by that was that I have known of other instances where the abuse of closure has been worse than we are experiencing today. But I will say, along with the Leader of the Opposition, that I know of no instance where closure has been applied in the circumstances that we face at the present time.
I suppose the worst abuse of closure that the Parliament of Canada ever saw was when we went into committee of the whole stage on the pipeline bill in 1956. We got down to the clauses and, lo and behold, Mr. Howe stood up on clause 2, read the marginal note telling us what was in it, and then asked us to move on to clause 3. He did the same thing on clause 3 and all the subsequent clauses. Then, all the clauses having had one sentence spoken on each by the then minister of trade and commerce, the government said we had had debate on these clauses, so closure under rule 33 could be applied. As I say, if any members today wonder why there was such an uproar in parliament in 1956, it was because of that kind of abuse of the government's right to impose closure.
But this, sir, is really an unprecedented and unparalleled situation. We have before us a bill which, as has been said, includes 59 clauses, at least one of which, clause 30, is in a form whih is to be changed. The Minsiter of Finance has told us that, but he will not tell us what the terms of the change will be. He has delayed introducing a new ways and means motion as required by the ruling from the Chair, because he is not going to go ahead with clause 30 in its present form, so he has to wait until he decides what clause 30 is going to say before he brings in a new ways and means motion to cover it. Yet the Parliament of Canada, 264 representatives-except for the 15 who have gone to their reward-is being asked to vote on a measure the key clause of which is not before us. If intelligent men and women could be asked to do anything more unintelligible than that, I do not kow what it is. For the government to impose this form of closure in this circumstance would even arouse the ire of C. D. Howe. He is probably saying that wherever he may be, for he was the master abuser of the closure rule.
Instead of imposing closure, instead of requiring the House to vote on this measure without further debate, what the government should be doing is suspending debate on this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 6, 1978


Stanley Howard Knowles: Negotiations are still going on. The Minister of Finance says he is prepared to negotiate. Mr. Parizeau was quoted in the press this morning as saying he would be prepared to offer new propositions. In the light of all that, the minister stated the other day that he does not yet know what the terms of clause 30 will be. Then why should we be debating, day after day, a measure, the crux of which has not been determined? It is for this reason I feel that this bill should not be subjected to closure, nor should it be debated at all at this time.
What bothers me every time closure is introduced is that it is a case of putting off, time and time again, a sensible solution to the problem of lengthy debates in the House. I fully agree that the days of unending filibustering are over. I fully agree that the work of the House should be planned so that we do not take up so much time on one measure that we do not get to others which may be equally important, or even more important. I have seen times in sessions of this House when important measures did not get reached because so much time was taken on one measure.
I believe there is enough sense, intelligence, and good will in the House of Commons to attempt to devise a means of planning our work. There is no time in these ten minues at my disposal to spell out the ideas which I have. I have spelled them out on other occasions. Even as a member of the opposition I have proposed ways and means by which some debates on routine and housekeeping measures could be kept short or transferred to a committee so that there would be ample time for debate on important measures. As long as the government has the right to resort to closure, it does not feel any pressure to solve the problem of developing a program for the work of this House.
Rule 75C is there in the Standing Orders, and the government has the right to use it, according to the parliamentary secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. As the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) just pointed out, it is there because in 1968 the Liberal government, with the Hon. Donald Macdonald as government House leader, brought it in. It used the old closure rule, rule 33, to force the House to vote on 75C. It is as out of place as the manner in which the original closure rule was introduced back in 1913. That was before I was here.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Stanley Howard Knowles: At that time the Liberals were debating at length a bill brought in by the Tories. Of course the present hon. Leader of the Opposition was not here then either. In fact, he was not anywhere! They stopped the debate on the naval aid bill to bring in a batch of changes in the rules, one of which was the closure rule of that day. The Liberals fought it, they opposed it. They thought it was a dastardly thing to do, to change the rules in the middle of the game. But the Liberals have used it over the years far more than the Tories. They used it in 1968 to put into effect
S.O.	75C
this measure which not only creates havoc in the general running of parliament but puts off, time and time again, dealing with the issue of using our time in a sensible way.
For these reasons I am opposed to closure, and my colleagues and I will be voting against this motion. I agree with the words expressed yesterday by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Considering the fact that we are being called upon to vote on a bill, the heart of which we do not yet know, this is a form of closure which is unparalleled. Even at this moment the government ought to have the sense, the decency, and the respect for democratic procedures, to withdraw this closure motion, and let the House get on with something else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has brought to our attention what we are debating, perhaps it would be worth while to remember that there is such a thing as a 79A, 79B and 79C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not even know the number. It is Standing Order 75C.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I am sorry. Being a football coach I made a mistake, because Standing Order 75 is on page 79. I should have indicated that I was talking about page 79, for the hon. member's edification.
In any case, Rule 79A indicates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean Rule 75A.


Mr. Benjamin:: Sit down. You blew it.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Are you using closure on me?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Rule 75A indicates that all parties must agree. How many times have people seen that used? When it is used, opposition parties stand and make big speeches about using allocation of time unfairly. Then they tell us to go ahead, that we can have the three days, but that they do not agree. They vote against it so that they can receive the credit for doing something which is horrible and hideous. The same thing happens with regard to Rule 75B. In this case the two were investigated, and no one agreed to it. Then we went to Rule 75C.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why should we agree?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I did not say members opposite should agree, but they should not indicate that we should not use the rules. It is not a matter of the things members should do. It is a matter of the things we must do in the House in order to make it work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 6, 1978



Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is the truth of it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will remember that quite often the opposition in the British House lets governments muddle through what it considers to be mistakes, so that these mistakes are carried, put into effect, and then the populace votes them out. Governments over there are not so wont to delay so that nothing is done. That is the indictment the opposition faces.
For all of the time I have been here, the opposition has expressed a desire not only to disagree with what the government has done, but to stop the government from doing anything for anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) mentioned seven days of debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: I mentioned nine.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Did the hon. member say "nine"? In any event, he conveniently forgot to mention the budget debate which lasted for six days. Thus, all of us have been contributing to this for perhaps 14 or 15 days. When he referred to the number of speakers, conveniently he forgot to include the speakers who participated from the Social Credit and New Democratic parties. He counted only the speakers who participated from his own party. He did not say that 22 opposition members have spoken, and that 11 government members have participated. Twice as many on that side of the House participated. We have all had a say. That must be kept in mind. Hon. members opposite are not alone. We are in this parliament together.


James Aloysius McGrath: I mentioned the numbers 18 and 15, as well as 60.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I do not agree with the hon. member's Figures, in any event.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not even know what rule we are talking about.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I have given my numbers, and the hon. member opposite has referred to his. Perhaps one of us is incorrect. I would have expected a more credible remark from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Rule No. 75A appears on page 81 of the Standing Orders.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: One must remember there were meetings of the finance ministers at the beginning. Quite some months ago there were further meetings of the finance ministers and of the first ministers. Then there were three weeks of negotiations and discussions concerning the budget of the Minister of Finance. All the provinces agreed, except one. One province said, "maybe". The other provinces agreed to what was done ultimately.


Charles Joseph Clark: Check the record.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That should be kept in mind. Now the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated that Mr. Parizeau has new ideas. Only a few days ago reporters were talking about new negotiations, and there were press releases indicating how we were going to get together hopefully to work all this out. Then Mr. Parizeau had a special press conference and said that it was full of bunk.
How can we be expected to wait to hear what Mr. Parizeau has to say? He has proven what he has to say. He said without any doubt at all, "We do not intend to do anything that does not suit us. In the final analysis we intend to be separated. In the final analysis we do not intend to belong to you at all. We intend to negotiate a financial arrangement after we have separated." That is what he has said, without any doubt, and there is no question about that. That is the manner in which he proceeds. It is a guerrilla warfare type of thing.
After all, this is the government that must take responsibility. It is this government that has to stand up and say, "This is the one government in the land which does deal with confederation, and this is the government which has more of an understanding of confederation than many hon. members on the other side. This is the government that has co-operated historically, and continued to do so when the Minister of Finance contacted all of the provincial ministers of finance, but all he got for that was a slap in the face from the NDP because something might have been leaked."
There is no desire on the part of hon. members on the other side to see this bill in its true light. There is a political desire on the other side. Someone mentioned something about the difficulties being the fault of the government because it really wanted to call an election. I suggest it is a fault associated with envy, greed, and the desire of hon. members over there to sit on this side. You covet the seats over here so much it makes you speak that way. It is not that you deserve them or that you can earn them because you can present good legislation and could solve the matter; it is simply because you covet the seats over here, seats which, praise God, you will not obtain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has not used all his time. I just wanted to remind him that he must address the Chair.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but when you look into a Newfoundlander's eyes it is like being hypnotized by a cod; you are trapped there.


James Aloysius McGrath: It takes a cod to know a cod.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me say it would be of benefit to all members to remember that the responsibility for presenting legislation rests with the government over here. It is the responsibility of the opposition to- logically and in a fair way-
June 6, 1978


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell us what is in the bill.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Were you not instructed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre not to speak on the bill now but to speak on this motion?


Charles Joseph Clark: What is in the bill?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Were you not instructed in that regard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order, please. Address the Chair.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, it is, indeed, the responsibility of the government to present legislation.


An hon. Member:: And you have not done so.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: It is the responsibility of the opposition to criticize the legislation and, if it can, amend it for betterment, or in a way that the government thinks it is better, since the government represents the majority of the people and it is the government's responsibility, in the final analysis, to bear responsibility for the legislation, any amendments by the opposition, and changes made in committee. The government is responsible for every single thing that comes from parliament, and the people make the judgment. That is what you seem to forget in the opposition. Hon. members over there seem to forget that ultimately the government will always pay the debt of responsibility.
Members of the oppositions quite often bring in extraneous matters in an attempt to destroy the credibility of a person like the Minister of Finance. Hon. members often talk about him, as the Leader of the Opposition did, in a ridiculous fashion. I would not think once of speaking like that about the lowest backbencher on either side of the House. I would not waste my time trying to destroy personal credibility. I will talk with hon. members opposite; I will joke with them; I will have a few words with them, and laugh, but I will not attack a member personally in an attempt to show that the person is not capable of performing a task.


An hon. Member:: Would you call him a separatist?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: The government ultimately must consider the future of this country, and will have to negotiate a new constitution. It must do so on the basis that there will remain a strong federal government, and the present case is an indication of the strength this federal government has in the face of all adversity, criticism, and opposition. This government will represent the people by presenting legislation and, as it is doing now, through a motion for the allocation of time to deal with the matter.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, that is quite an act to follow.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why such a motion is proposed now when the minister is conducting negotiations with the province
S.O.	75C
of Quebec. A few days ago we in the opposition supported an amendment to set aside that bill for one month so that the present government would be able to renegotiate the proposal concerning the sales tax with the province of Quebec and all the provinces. The government voted against our amendment to set aside the bill for one month and now, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a motion for closure. What a joke Mr. Speaker! During this debate on the sales tax, where are all the Quebec members, Mr. Speaker? And let me say this afternoon to the Quebec members that the people from Quebec are listening with interest to know what is most important for them: the interests of the Liberal party or the legitimate interests of their fellow citizens of the province of Quebec.
Where were the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) during this debate? They can talk with reporters or in the corridors of parliament, in the parliament buildings, but what counts is their action here in the House of Commons. Why that silence here on the part of Quebec members? To defend the rights of PQ? No, they rather feared to lose the votes of the people of Quebec and you know that as well as I do. The proposal from the National Assembly to abolish the sales tax in traditional sectors like textiles, footwear, clothing and furniture was supported not only by the Parti Quebecois but also by the whole National Assembly with the approval of every citizen in the province of Quebec.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, except for the Liberal members. I realize as well as you do that 35,000 of the 36,000 jobs lost in the secondary sector throughout Canada over the last 18 months were in the province of Quebec, particularly in traditional industries such as textiles and others. I wonder why you voted against such a proposal. Again I put this question to the present government and to hon. members from the province of Quebec: What level of government has jurisdiction over the sales tax? You, in the federal government? I think you know the answer as well as I do.
Let me answer. Because of their stupidity, because of their arrogance, because of their intransigence, nobody had done more than the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to promote and help the cause of separatism in the province of Quebec. Because of your policy, it is surely an example of several of your measures of confrontation with the provinces; it is not the first time you have locked horns with the province of Quebec and with the other provinces. Because of your policy of confrontation in the present debate, a policy which has been going on for years, nobody has done more than you to help the cause of separatism in the province of Quebec.
Of the 270,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, in the traditional areas of textiles, furniture, clothing, and shoes, 130,000 of them are found outside the province of Quebec. Leaders in all these

June 6, 1978



[Stage Direction]
industries have stated that since this infamous budget proposition has been brought down, the proposition emanating, not from the Parti Quebecois, but from the whole National Assembly, would aid these sectors and stimulate and aid the economy and employment outside the province of Quebec just as easily as it would inside the province. So why, I ask, did you vote against the proposition, why did the Minister of Finance in announcing his original budgetary measures, since this whole matter is within provincial jurisdiction, not just announce a global, general policy and let the provinces, considering that the sales tax matter is within provincial jurisdiction, apply their priorities according to what was going on? Why did there have to be confrontation with the province of Quebec, when the government was flexible enough to accommodate British Columbia and Saskatchewan?
I can tell you what is going to happen after today; there will be some proposition worked out with the minister of finance of Quebec, then the government will give the province of Quebec the money, one way or another, God knows how. Quebec will then go ahead and do what it did in the first place, namely, abolish taxes within the traditional areas of textiles, et cetera. Why did you not cooperate in the first place?
An hon. Member:: With the separatists?


William Heward Grafftey: "With the separatists." How sad it is to hear that! I will tell you why. This is not merely one isolated case, Mr. Speaker; this is the end result of ten years of confrontation. The government never expected to defend this terrible policy on the floor of the House of Commons. Once again it is devising a policy for Quebec and another policy for the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: They wanted to go to the people in an election, to inflame the national unity debate and confront Quebec with one policy for English Canada in English and another policy in French Canada in French and, thereby, divide and rule this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: The government did not expect to have to defend this matter on the floor of the House of Commons. They wanted to use it for short-term votes in an election to prove that their Prime Minister was still the indispensible saviour of a union which he has done so much to destroy. The chickens have come home to roost. For the first time in ten years, French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians have caught the government at its own game. It never expected to have to defend this policy on the floor of the House of Commons, and what is it doing? It is proposing closure. It is saying "we don't want to hear any more; we don't want to stand up to the truth." So, the gutless Prime Minister, who did not have the guts to call an election, and the gutless Minister of Finance say, "We don't want to hear the truth, we don't want to hear this spoken about, we're going to bail out now with closure." This is arrogance and stupidity, the like of which I have never seen before, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Indian Affairs- Funding for post-secondary education; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Fisheries-Closing of Swiftsure Bank on west coast; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-Fisheries-U.S. ban on sport fishing in American waters.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien:
That, in relation to Bill C-56, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill; and
That at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, any proceeding before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question the necessary in order to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.15 o'clock p.m., the two hours allotted for the consideration of the motion now before the House pursuant to Standing Order 75C have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put every question necessary to the House to dispose of the motion.

The question is on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 6, 1978


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that earlier this afternoon a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae). His words certainly fell on sympathetic ears on this side of the House. They related to the apparent duplication of work between a standing committee of this House and an agreement tabled yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie).
I would request through you, Mr. Speaker, leave of the House to present the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Fort William:
That the Standing Committee on National Resources be convened as soon as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is available to attend to examine into and report upon the agreement tabled in this House yesterday, June 5, between Atomic Energy (Canada) Limited and Ontario Hydro and the duplication between the work of the committee and the conclusions apparent in the agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of the motion at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 6, 1978
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 259, 684, 1,453, 1,606 and 1,624.


Mr. Kaplan: For a current period, what percentage of capacity was carried by Air Canada on passenger flights at (a) peak (b) off-peak hours of the day between (i) Toronto-Ottawa (ii) Ottawa-Toronto (iii) Ottawa-Montreal (iv) Montreal-Ottawa (v) all Air Canada domestic flights (vi) all Air Canada flights?


Otto Emil Lang: (a)(i) 42 per cent; (ii) 45 per cent; (iii) 70 per cent; (iv) 60 per cent; (v) and (vi) Because there are no peak/off periods of the day on many Air Canada routes, such as overseas and southern routes and certain domestic routes, it is not possible to provide this information. (b)(i) 18 per cent; (ii) 11 per cent; (iii) Not applicable; (iv) 10 per cent; (v) and (vi) See (a) above.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1975, on how many occasions did the coast guard transport RCMP officers to investigate illegal smuggling attempts involving ships off the (a) Atlantic (b) Pacific coast?
2.	Since January 1, 1975, how many reports of alleged smuggling incidents did the Canadian Coast Guard forward to the RCMP?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) eight, (b) four.
2. None.
Note: Canadian Coast Guard vessels and helicopters frequently assist or transport RCMP officers in the course of missions, the purpose and results of which are not disclosed to the Canadian Coast Guard. Therefore, the Canadian Coast Guard may have been involved in transporting RCMP officers on additional investigations into smuggling cases without being aware of this fact.


Mr. Balfour: What amount of capital gains tax was assessed against taxpayers in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Under the Income Tax Act, one-half of capital gains realized since 1971 are added to income for tax purposes. Capital gains, therefore, are not taxed under a separate capital gains tax. Because of this, it is difficult to determine precisely how much income tax is attributable to capital gains as compared to other components of income for tax purposes. Using available data, estimates can be made of the approxi-

mate amount of income tax attributable to the taxable portion of capital gains. Rough estimates for the years 1972-1975 are as follows:
Federal Income Tax on Capital Gains ($ millions)
1972	1973	1974	1975Individuals	40	70	80	100Corporations	30	60	70	90Total	70	130	150	190
No estimates are yet available for 1976. It should be noted that capital gains are subject to provincial income tax in addition to the federal income tax. Provincial revenues from this source would be approximately one-third of the federal revenues.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Between January 1, 1977 and April 30, 1978, did the Minister of Labour appoint conciliation commissioners or conciliation boards and, if so, how many?
2.	For the same period, how many conciliation commissioners or boards of conciliation were requested and not granted by the Minister of Labour?
3.	Were any conciliation commissioners or boards of conciliation requested by two parties to a dispute, not appointed by the Minister and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Were any conciliation commissioners or boards of conciliation requested by
(a)	international unions or companies in dispute with other international unions
(b)	Canadian unions or companies in dispute with other Canadian unions and, if so, in each case, how many?


John Carr Munro: The decision to appoint conciliation commissioners or conciliation boards to assist parties in resolving collective bargaining disputes is the sole prerogative of the Minister of Labour and, as such, is not dependent upon requests for such action by either of the parties or both of them, for that matter. It is a discretionary move by the minister and is but one of a number of options available to him under the Canada Labour Code to resolve industrial disputes.
Between January 1, 1977 and April 30, 1978, the minister-appointed 46 conciliation commissioners. No conciliation boards were appointed during this period.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Was Mr. Maurice Gauthier, La Broquerie, Manitoba appointed to a position in the government and, if so (a) for what period of time (b) what remuneration does he receive for his services?
2.	Does Mr. Gauthier have an expense account and, if so, in what amount?


Yvon Pinard: The answer to this question may be provided by the Commissioner of Official Languages who reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Question may be made directly to him.
*
June 6, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Mr. McKenzie: Have any former Manitoba government employees (term, contract or otherwise) been hired in any capacity by any federal department, agency. Crown corporation or board since October 12, 1977 and, if so (a) how many (b) in each case, what is his/her (i) name (ii) job classification (iii) yearly remuneration?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply in its entirety would entail a lengthy and costly examination of all personnel files of every department, agency, board, commission and Crown corporation. The costs in manpower and time to undertake such a large amount of work would be exorbitant or prohibitive.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-56, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial tax reductions, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I understand there might be some agreement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) was the last speaker before the debate was concluded on Friday.


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I believe I have a few minutes of my time left to me. I am one of those across Canada who has been very concerned about the way in which parliament has been abused and the way in which people are losing all respect for this institution. What happened today can only confirm that this institution is a mockery and a farce.
Here is a government imposing closure because it wants to force upon one of the provinces something which that province does not want, something which every member of the Quebec
Income Tax Act
National Assembly voted against. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is so incompetent that he has brought in a bill which he cannot get through by normal means. The people of Quebec do not want it, and now the government is forcing parliament to impose upon a province something which that province rejects.
If there were ever a demonstration of the government's incapacity to manage the affairs of the nation, we have it here. We have once again been shown that the Liberals have no capacity to govern this country, no capacity to keep it together. Has there ever been a government so insensitive to what this country is all about, so indifferent to the fact that is is a confederation, so insensitive to the needs and aspirations of people in the various regions? It has been demonstrated unequivocally for everyone that the present government is simply incapable of dealing with the issues which are coming before us.
The budget is really a very peculiar document. The Minister of Finance now says he is doing the same thing in all parts of the country, but he is not. It is not a question of a cheque going to everyone on the tax roll as of December 31, 1977, or something. That is an absolutely ridiculous proposition. It is ridiculous and hardly believable that we are debating a bill the central element of which the government has not told us about. Yet here we are trying to debate that bill. Presumably the government does not know what that element is, yet it brings in closure.
The situation is so preposterous that it makes "Alice in Wonderland" seem like Plato's logic. What we are doing to the parliament of Canada is absolutely incredible. When hon. members go around the country and talk to its citizens, they find over and over again that people are asking what is happening. They wonder what this institution is all about. When we try to explain something like today, people just cannot believe it, and that is understandable.
How can we possibly find ourselves in a situation such as this? The federal Liberals have said that there will not be different proposals for different parts of the country. That is what they thought. They are so incompetent that they do not know that there is a fundamental principle in public financial administration that people with the same taxable income should pay the same amount of tax. We have a government which has abandoned that principle. The Minister of Finance has said over and over again that he is doing the same thing in all parts of the country. What he is doing is not the same in all parts of the country. The federal government brings closure into this House of Commons to put through something which a government and a people do not want. He is violating every fundamental principle of proper taxation. He is not doing anything in terms of basic economics of this country, and that is a disgraceful situation.
However, there is one good side to this fiasco. Those of us who represent the province of Ontario and who have always had difficulty persuading the people in that province to follow

June 6, 1978
Income Tax Act
the lead of those bright people in British Columbia and to get rid of an incompetent government no longer have that difficulty. We have always had to fight the belief that the Liberals understand Quebec and that they are probably the ones who can keep the country together. After what has happened in this House today, we will never hear that again.
The myth that the Liberal party is the party to keep this country together has been totally expelled, and I am certain that after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has had the courage to go to the people we will not be talking about a small majority for the Progressive Conservative party. We will see a sweep into power of the Progressive Conservative party because the people of Canada want this country to stay together. They wonder how it can be that the Liberals, who are supposed to be able to keep the country together, since 1968 have created alienation in the west and brought about the election of a separatist government in Quebec. Those who are in authority must take the responsibility. The Liberals have been in authority and they have presided over the decline in this country. Canadians wonder how that could happen because for years we have heard that the Liberal party could keep the country together.
We have seen a case history of lack of understanding by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance regarding what confederation is all about. There is a lack of understanding that we are a confederation and that the provinces are important. The Liberals run roughshod over the wishes of the people of a province which is very important to this nation. They have demonstrated that they cannot govern and, fortunately, after the next election they will be out. Mr. Speaker, may we call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to inquire of the hon. member as to whether he has completed his remarks, because by calling it six o'clock he leaves the impression that he wants to continue his speech. He has four minutes to go, so he could complete his speech before six o'clock.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on an issue such as this we could talk for a very long time.


An hon. Member:: There isn't much more to say.


James McPhail Gillies: The hon. member is quite correct that there is not much more to say. It is very apparent that the critical issue is which party can govern this country. The critical issue is whether the Liberals know how to administer this country. They do not.
That has been well demonstrated by the Minister of Finance, who is so incompetent that he does not even know how to have consultation. He thinks he has consultation when he does not. His idea of budget making is that at two o'clock in the afternoon he should be waiting for telephone calls from ten ministers of finance across the country. This is the way this budget was made, and that is preposterous. I can understand, however, because there is nothing in the budget of any significance. However, when the minister does not get agreement, he says he does. He does not have it. The minister used up two or

three weeks in this colossal blunder. He is now trying to correct it by putting in a proposal that will produce a different tax system for one part of the country.
There is not much more I can say about a situation such as this. This country desperately needed a budget. We have the highest unemployment rate since the depression, an increasing inflation rate and a huge balance of payments deficit. While most countries of the world which have resources are getting richer, this nation is getting poorer. The rate of real growth in our gross national product has slowed down. It will be less than 2 per cent in the first half of this year. Between the fifties and the seventies we had an average rate of growth of 5.5 per cent. The reality is that the rate of growth of our economy has sunk to its lowest level since the 1950s and 1960s.
Anyone who thinks we are unique does not read the record. The rate of real growth in England has gone up. The rate of real growth has gone up in Japan and France. This is another indication from the Liberals opposite that they do not read or study anything. All they want to believe is their own rhetoric. The reality is that we needed a budget to turn this country around as we never needed one before.
The Minister of Finance has created a divisive situation in Quebec. He has ignored the needs of the nation. He is still relying on economic policies which will not work. His budget displays no imagination or initiative. There are no new ideas whatsoever. The nation is crying for imaginative and effective budget measures to make this country move again, but now we find ourselves tied up for a couple of weeks because we have a Minister of Finance who has so little understanding of the province of Quebec that he gets us into this problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, debate on the bills relating to the budget and the income tax bill in particular has been going on now for a long time. Since May 15 the House has been dealing with little else, after having previously had the budget debate, so that the general issues and the issues related to taxation matters now before us have had a great deal of discussion. Yet, in all of that time, a certain number of them have been obscured and dealt with in a limited fashion only because of the attention paid to one particular item about which I will also say a number of things. The item which has tended to dominate the attention has been the attempt to see a reduction in sales taxes across the country, and particular focus has been put on the difficulties which arose in relation to the province of Quebec and their separatist government's attempt to deal rather differently with the issue.
June 6, 1978

I do not think that before going into that matter one should neglect the many important aspects of the budget which are touched on in the bills now before the House.
First of all, as a person from the west, I think of the further step taken to deal with the rollover of capital gains in the case of families engaged in the farming operation. It carries out the attempt to ease the tax burden in that particular situation and, to show the government's concern that farmers be able to pass their assets without difficulty from one member of the family to another and to recognize the special circumstances which can exist in terms of the amount of capital having to be put into this relatively modest income earning operation. The government has recently announced a similar kind of approach in connection with small business for a similar reason. In both cases the Liberal policies are designed to encourage those operating a family farm or a family business to continue to do so, to prosper, and to see the business or the farm handed over to another member of the family.
In the case of this budget, the extension of this rollover provision to the small corporate farm is simply the completion of a piece of work which was started in a previous budget when the direct transfer of a farm from parent to child was already made a matter of special consideration so that the capital gains tax need not be paid at that time.
Those were not the first items with which the government dealt in an attempt to give special consideration to our farmers and, if I may say so, particularly to western farmers. I refer to western farmers because I am thinking of another measure in another budget in which we provided, immediately upon the need becoming apparent, for the deferral of tax on the delivery of grain where, because of the particular western grain situation, the quota system on which farmers deliver led a farmer to want to deliver his grain even though it might have been against his tax interest to do so, and led the Wheat Board to accept his wheat because of the selling they were doing.
Therefore the Liberal government responded quickly to the needs of western farmers in that regard and created, without any great furore or demand for it in the west since we acted so quickly, tax deferral rights so that the farmer could deliver his grain and postpone his receipt, and therefore also his tax burden, until the following tax year. In effect, he could dispose of the grain but treat it as though he had kept it in storage on his farm so far as his tax position was concerned. It is important to notice the government's reaction in this regard. It was so fast that no great demand for this had been built up. We responded because we saw a need, and we acted effectively.
There are a number of other provisions in the budget as well. We see the provision for improved tax positions for those who invest in research and development. Clearly, encouragement in research and development is important to all of us in this country. It is important for the development of businesses to come and for techniques of operating such which we would like to see developed. It is important in encouraging research
Income Tax Act
and development capabilities, which in turn encourages industries to locate here because the manpower to do other related things is available.
I need not go too far from my home area to find examples of the government acting effectively to encourage research and development in order to produce and develop home industries. I am thinking of the protein oil starch plant which has been created at the University of Saskatoon. It is an operation designed for research into the use of grain and its components. Also it makes it possible for those who have ideas to test them, put them into effect, move them into the developmental stage as real products seeking the market, and then hopefully follow up with the actual location of enterprises producing those products in the region where development is wanted. Accordingly we have designated the area for purposes of special grants when plants are created and set up. In that regard the budget is consistent, and is one further step toward the encouragement of research and development. It is important to all regions of the country, without any exceptions at all.
The budget contains special provisions with regard to the development of heavy oil plants. That measure is of particular interest to the west, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Hopefully that will lead those provinces to follow up, because it creates the necessary provincial tax climate which will encourage the development of plants and the processing of heavy oils in the Lloydminster area and across that broad expanse where a vast volume of this resource exists.
Also the budget contains provisions for improved depreciation for the railways. In terms of this country's development, that is a significant measure. We all know that the railways, particularly our two great national railways, have been carrying grain below the cost of carrying it to them. Part of their losses in passenger services were not paid for, even though they were directly related to maintaining the service.
The government believes that must be changed. Those burdens in relation to grain and passenger services are imposed upon the railways by the national policies of the government and the country. The railways should be compensated for the losses they bear in connection with those operations. We have committed ourselves in principle to doing that. We have gone a long way toward doing that in the case of grain by our commitments to rail line rebuilding, the purchase of hopper cars and the repairing of boxcars.
We have instituted and carried out those commitments to a very extensive degree. In the case of passenger service, we created VIA Rail. We have moved toward complete compensation to the railways for their costs in providing passenger service, and it is right that we should do so. If the railways are forced to carry losses in connection with passenger and grain services or any other aspect of transportation, either they will be short the capital and income to maintain a viable railway system, or they will have that income by obtaining more than they ought to from other goods and services which they perform. Surely that is not in our interests. By moving to clear these burdens from the railways, we are allowing them to have

June 6, 1978
Income Tax Act
fairer rates and more equitable treatment for the other goods which they carry and the other services which they perform.
By improving accelerated depreciation on several other items in the budget, as was the case in a previous one, we have assisted the railways in having a greater current cash availability to proceed with important railway developments, maintaining equipment, expanding their track facilities, expanding the capacity through the mountains in the case of recent western developments, the Canadian Pacific double-tracking, and improving its grade as a result of the incentives offered to it.
These are important matters. There are other important matters in the budget as well which have been overlooked because of the attention paid to this particular issue which has dominated the thoughts of hon. members of the opposition and of people in the country. I am referring to the problem which was created as a result of the attempt to reduce sales taxes across the country. It is important for us to look back at the beginnings of this issue. It is important to recognize that foremost economic opinion indicated a reduction of sales tax would be most helpful to the encouragement of faster economic growth.
Sales tax at the retail level is within the provincial scheme. At least, we are in the habit of seeing those taxes imposed by provinces across the country. In all but one province sales tax exists. Also the economists told us that additional spending and a lower level of taxation by the provinces could be an encouragement to growth, without the side effect of inflation which occurs when the federal treasury spends and incurs a larger deficit.
That was the background against which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was working. Many months ago he first proposed to the provinces an arrangement which would reduce sales taxes across Canada, and a certain amount of compensation would be made available to the provinces from federal tax revenues in return. At that time the provinces did not find the offer generous enough. They did not accept it.
In moving toward a budget in the spring of 1978, the Minister of Finance thought he should attempt once again to arrange for a sales tax reduction. He proposed an increase in the compensation he would give to the provinces compared to what he had offered before. He instituted formal consultations with the ministers of finance of all the provinces. It should be noted to the everlasting credit of this Minister of Finance that he sought out all of the provincial ministers of finance in consultation in an attempt to produce a budget which was ideal for this country. He tried to work in a co-ordinated way, riding over and working with the jurisdiction of the provinces and of the federal government together. This Minister of Finance tried that and it should be remembered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: In the process of doing what sound economics dictated, what the Minister of Finance offered was a certain significant additional expenditure from the federal treasury;
and what he asked from the provinces was that they contribute a part as well of the tax reduction which was to go into place. It was, after all, to be a tax reduction in excess of $1 billion in provincial taxes. He asked that they share a part of that reduction while he offered to pay the greater share of it. He had a significant amount of success in that consultation.
Earlier today the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) asked: What does the Minister of Finance know about consultation? How could he work at this late hour with the provincial ministers of finance? How could he fail to have a written and sealed agreement in respect of the tax arrangement he has entered into? Yet even as he consulted, and even as he asked these ministers of finance hypothetical questions about how they would react to various possibilities, the media got word of this and questions of privilege were raised in this House about this manner of consultation being some breach of budgetary practice.
I wish that for once opposition members in this House would be willing to be consistent in deciding whether they approve of consultation in advance of a budget being proposed or disapprove of it, and not attempt on one hand to disapprove of it when they hear a few hours before the budget that there has been some consultation, and then a month later criticize by suggesting that there should have been much more. They cannot have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: In the course of that consultation the Minister of Finance obtained significant agreement from the provincial ministers of finance, including, I would like to note again as a westerner, an agreement from the minister of the province of Alberta that that government would understand if it was not included in the sales tax reduction program because it had no sales tax, and that other provisions in the budget might in fact favour that area or region. Several of the items I have mentioned this evening did just that.
In eight of the provinces the Minister of Finance obtained agreement as to what they would do quite specifically in relation to the sales tax. In six of those provinces there was agreement with his initial proposal, and in two others there was required a small modification in terms of a change that British Columbia and Saskatchewan wished; instead of a 3 per cent reduction over six months, they wanted to engage in a 2 per cent reduction over nine months for effectively the same amount of revenue. That was a modest modification of the initial proposal.
In all of this there was some understanding among the ministers of finance that they were trying to work together as a group of eleven, and there would be limits as to how far they could go or expect anybody else to be allowed to go in terms of producing an arrangement that was consistent with the objective of the Minister of Finance. His objective, after all, was to follow the advice of some of the best economic advisers that a sales tax reduction would immediately produce a return to the economy of $1 billion to $1.2 billion, and was one of the best

June 6, 1978

ways of spurring the economy and encouraging employment and development. And the provinces understood this.
However, he had one other minister of finance, the minister for Quebec, who heard him, and heard him again, and decided not to give a firm answer, and even at the last hour said: "I will answer you later". Our colleagues in the official opposition are once again not quite clear about what they are saying in that regard. The howls we would have heard from them if the budget had been postponed would have echoed throughout this land.
The Minister of Finance felt it necessary to accept his responsibility on that point and in fact make in his budget the offer which he had by implication made in his conversations with the ministers of finance across this country. Then when the negotiations with the ministers of finance had been completed and the budget was announced, the separatist minister of finance, whose objective may be economic in some short term manner, but whose real and fundamental objective is to divide this country, came forward with a proposition that was not designed to deal with the situation but to deal with the cause he holds dearest, and that is to separate from this country.
That minister of finance attempted to come just so close to the proposition which had been put before him that he might tempt the Minister of Finance into accepting it-just so close, but just so far away that he did not choose to put it on the table for days and weeks before the budget. He could have put that proposal forward and had it tested by the Minister of Finance and the other ministers of Finance and seen it rejected on the basis of the consistency we were seeking to have in this sales tax reduction. The significant thing is he did not put it on the table, he did not have it accepted or rejected, and he did not accept or reject the proposal of the Minister of Finance because he wanted to keep his separatist options open in order to cause as much difficulty in this country as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Then he came forward with his plausible proposition that, instead of reducing the sales tax across the board by a few percentage points, he would select certain items and reduce it all the way on those. This was plausible because it sounds somewhat close to the original proposition, but a little devious in its separatist aspect because he was choosing those particular products which were slightly more favourable to production in Quebec. That in itself is an objective of this government. This government has always intended, and has gone out of its way, to help regional development in this country, particularly in the Atlantic region and in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: He came forward with this plausible proposal which, if he had put it forward in that period before the budget, would have been taken by the Minister of Finance to the other provinces, and the minister would have asked how it would meet their views of the arrangement they were trying to
Income Tax Act
make. The arrangement had, however, been made, and when Mr. Parizeau came forward with his proposal our federal Minister of Finance went to several other ministers of finance with whom he had made the arrangement and reached understanding and asked them whether that would be acceptable to them. They said no, it was not consistent with their view of the arrangement which was being struck.
As a result, after hearing from Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario, the Minister of Finance agreed with them that he could not, in fairness to the other provinces, change the arrangement now. The key is that in this House the Conservative opposition did not see that what was being played was one step of hundreds and hundreds of steps we will see until that separatist government is defeated. If they could not see it from the coolness of opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister's time has not expired. It is only the hon. member for Kootenay West rising on a point of order.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I regret that you described me as just being only the member from Kootenay West, but I will accept that particular position for the moment. I wonder if the minister would entertain a question now or after his speech with reference to his comments regarding the government's approach to development incentives for the various provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows, of course, that he needs the consent of the hon. minister to ask a question.


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member had contented himself with simply saying "could I ask a question", I would have said yes; but he has made it clear that he is off on another branch of the subject. I would prefer to take that at the end of my remarks rather than in the middle, but I appreciate his interrupting me so that we could have a bit of a pause at this time.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that what we saw was the Conservative party falling into a trap that they will find presented frequently enough in this country. We have in this country a separatist government which has many techniques at its disposal, and among them is one of creating confrontations with the federal government. Over this past period of time we have been fairly free of those sorts of confrontations, notwithstanding their objectives.
In this particular case the Minister of Finance had the choice of either not attempting to have sales tax reduced in the province or of taking the risk of dealing in this fashion with the minister of finance from the province of Quebec. The record, however, on his part was clear and it should have been simple, but the minister of finance in the province of Quebec reduced sales tax in a different way, a way which favoured certain

June 6, 1978
Income Tax Act
goods in a selective fashion which, as I indicated, had its own separatism about it. It is subtle but it is there.
Secondly, it happened that by reducing those sales taxes to zero, it made it rather difficult to monitor the program to determine how much sales tax was indeed lost by the reduction. In other cases when the tax was reduced from, for example, 5 per cent to 3 per cent or from 7 per cent to 5 per cent, you could tell how much sales tax was collected and basically how much therefore had been forgone. That was the proposal with the other ministers of finance with whom the federal Minister of Finance was dealing and with whom he had to act in good faith.
I ask the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), could the Minister of Finance of Canada, having had an arrangement with the nine ministers of finance, accept the final proposal from the tenth minister of finance, who had not the good grace to put it forward before the budget and who came along afterwards with it? Could our Minister of Finance have gone along with that proposal in the face of disagreement with the other ministers of finance? Clearly, he could not. Yet the Conservative opposition began immediately to pursue their route of assistance and aid to the separatist cause-whether it be knowing or unknowing, I know not. I know they have little enough advice about the subject of mentality in the province of Quebec because they have so little strength there.
However, even they were not sure how they were going to proceed. I notice the first reference to the subject in the House was when the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), in putting a proposal under Standing Order 43 before the House, cited all the facts about what had happened and what had gone on. Presumably, in view of their present position, he should have ended by demanding that the Minister of Finance immediately pay the money to the separatist finance minister, but having put the whole proposition before the House, do you know, Mr. Speaker, how he ended his motion? He ended his motion in this decisive way, by saying that the Minister of Finance be required to reply as soon as possible to the minister of finance of Quebec. He did not say how he should reply, he said he should reply.
Then he began a series of questions, and if you look at Hansard at page 4453 you will find that first of all he asked this sort of question: "Has he responded, will he respond?" When it became clear that the Minister of Finance had responded in a negative manner, finally the Conservatives got drawn into saying that they really thought he should have responded positively; that he should simply have done what the other ministers of finance in this country said would not have been consistent with the arrangement made; that he should have bowed and given the money over.
The Minister of Finance had some difficult choices to make. He could have simply stood his ground and said that we made an offer which has not been taken up by the province of Quebec, or that it has only been taken up to the extent of a 2 per cent reduction on a certain number of goods, and since in those goods their cut was the same we will therefore pay them $40 million or $45 million.
He did that, but he also felt that the separatist government ought not to have the victory of depriving the people of Quebec of the benefit which was available to them if they had gone about their sales tax cut in a different manner. The subtlety of what we are dealing with when we are dealing with separatists in this cause is that they will try in every way to disrupt this country. They will try to avoid co-operation with the federal government, as they did in this case by not making their position clear to the minister before the budget; and then they will make an offer or produce a situation where the minister looks as though he is in a difficult position if he does not comply, as though he is depriving the people of the province of Quebec of certain money if he does not act.
The federal Minister of Finance decided that he would find a way to return that money to the people of Quebec. That is what he has offered to do, and he, in his flexibility, has indeed offered to do it in one of several ways. Perhaps one of those ways will yet be acceptable even to the separatist minister, in the absence of the collapse which the Parti Quebecois wanted from this federal Minister of Finance. In his objectives, Mr. Parizeau was well served by the members opposite, who care little about the fact that in this case and in occasion after occasion after occasion a separatist government will attempt to make trouble in Canada and create difficult situations.
In a responsible House, one should see an opposition seeking to form a bipartisan policy in the face of this kind of separatist attack. It is as important to deal with the separatists in Canada as it is to deal with the enemy in war in the international scene.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Tell us about Claude Ryan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard):: Order. The hon. Minister of Transport has the floor.


Otto Emil Lang: What we have in this House-


An hon. Member:: -is an incompetent government.


An hon. Member:: Totally incompetent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -is a Conservative opposition which does not care to consider the impact on this country's unity and which does not care indeed if its actions, time and time again, drive wedges between people in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) shrieks-


Mr. Nowlan:: I hope to speak after you.


Otto Emil Lang: -but let me tell him about colleagues of his having urged in this House on the one hand that the Minister of Finance immediately pay the money to the government of Quebec, when they would have gone across certain areas of

June 6, 1978

this country saying to the people in the rest of Canada-in Saskatchewan where I live and in neighbouring provinces- "There is the government once again giving this special form of treatment to Quebec". They would have said that once again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of the action of the Conservative party is that, whatever its public and apparent stand is here in this House, back on the hustings across this country they seize upon every-


An hon. Member:: Grit failure.


Otto Emil Lang: -opportunity-


An hon. Member:: Like price and incomes controls.


Otto Emil Lang: -to encourage feelings of hate and antipathy in this country.
I am going to invite the hon. member for Joliette to go on a trip with me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -and to watch what some Conservative friends of his have been saying in urging in this country a lack of patience for Francophones, people who seize upon an easy and ancient prejudice. It is there, Mr. Speaker. It is there to be picked up in our hands and grappled with. And grapple with it we must if this country is to stay together. But instead of grappling with it, the Conservatives go into Anglophone Canada and feed it with their lies and deceptions and their urgings to hate-


An hon. Member:: Don't you wish you believed that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is rising on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I realize the minister is trying to make a point, even though ever so inadequately.


An hon. Member:: He is desperate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: But I think he would want to reconsider his reference to lies, because that certainly is unparliamentary.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. speaker, I would not. Unfortunately that has been the course of action of the Conservative party in the west, which I know so well, where they have-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard):: I have listened to the point of order raised by the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: A point of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard):: The hon. member first rose on a point of order.
Income Tax Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With the greatest respect and deference to the minister, he did indicate and did suggest that western members of parliament go out and perpetuate lies-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -about Francophones in this country. Those Conservative members are western members of parliament. The implication was directly toward Conservative members, Mr. Speaker. I am a western Conservative member. If the minister can categorically state in this House where I have deliberately lied or misled, either directly or indirectly, I would challenge him to make that statement right here and now.


Mr. Paproski:: And put his seat on the line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I ask that the minister do the courteous thing and withdraw that remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard):: Order. I did hear the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) but I do not think I heard him say the hon. members of the Conservative party; I believe he said the Conservative party. However, if the Minister of Transport did say the hon. members of the Conservative party, then that was certainly unparliamentary.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, incidentally I have in mind some kinds of promotion. I understand recently the Conservative party has been promoting a book by a certain hotliner in British Columbia which talks about a $1 billion bribe to Quebec under the DREE program. If that, Mr. Speaker, is not lies and deception, I do not know what is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are sick.


An hon. Member:: You are fighting for your life.


Otto Emil Lang: This is a very serious matter-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. B£chard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his allotted time has expired.


An hon. Member:: He is sick and expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Kootenay West would like to ask a question of the hon. minister, but as his time has expired we would need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 6, 1978
Income Tax Act


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me unanimous consent. The minister in his speech made reference to the fact that his government's policy has been one of lending assistance in considerable measure in the form of DREE funding for those areas that need regional incentives. That was the minister's statement, or words to that effect.


An hon. Member:: Who cares?


Robert Hylton Brisco: If that is government policy, would the minister explain why it is that a small segment of the Department of External Affairs provides $1.4 billion for CIDA, whereas the budget for his much-touted DREE is $514 million?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member would compare those two budgets, that of CIDA and that of DREE. I presume the implication of the question is that this government is spending too much on one or the other, or both. Certainly one can find members opposite who will attack the spending by DREE when it concerns the province of Quebec. I have seen them isolate Quebec when it is clear from the evidence that, because their need is greater, the Atlantic provinces get more. But they will isolate the province of Quebec in attacking DREE spending. That is an example of what I was talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Otto Emil Lang: Surely now in that question we have the excitation of another prejudice against another very important policy of this country, and that is to help those areas of the world which are less fortunate. If I believe, as a person from an area which now happens to be becoming a have province rather than a have not, in the principle of helping now and in the future of those regions of the country which are poor and which need the help, so will I now and in the future believe in working for those parts of the world. Because their poverty is so fantastic that they do not compare with the poor of the poorest region in this country. If in that question the hon. member if for a moment expressing as Conservative policy that our foreign aid is too great, then I hope all others on his side of the House, as they jump up so fast in other cases, will in this case too jump up and disown the suggestion that we give too much in foreign aid. It is a despicable suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River on a point of order.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my point is one of privilege rather than of order. I cannot believe that we would, as lightly as we have, overlook the minister's comment as he was concluding his speech. He clearly said, and he left the impression, that members of the Conservative caucus were going throughout this country, and particularly western Canada, spreading lies
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard).]
about the performance of this government. He made an innuendo about a publication that appeared recently in western Canada which is bought and distributed by the Conservative party in western Canada. Does the minister have the courage to name the publication and its author so that we can judge as to what connection the Conservative party or any other party has with this particular author? We can then look at the publication to see what kind of lies may or may not have been spread in it.
In the party of which I am a member, honesty has always been the best policy. It will be the best policy in spite of the assiduous attempts by those across the aisle to prove differently. I want the minister to withdraw the reference about members on this side lying to people in western Canada. I would also like him to have the courage to identify the publication and the author about which he has spread this innuendo.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have the opportunity to check the record. This is rather interesting. It is my impression that I talked about the lies and deception of Conservatives without necessarily identifying members of parliament. I did not go out of my way to exclude them, and sensitivities opposite may lead me to believe there is something there.
As far as the publication is concerned, the record will show, interestingly enough, that I said they encouraged distribution of it. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) said something about the Conservative party buying and distributing a publication. Is that what they are doing? I did not know that for a fact and I am interested to hear that. The fact is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) recently quoted extensively from that publication, so the hon. member can get the reference to it that I am making.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I first raised the question of privilege with regard to the statements made by the Minister of Transport in this House. According to my recollection, and I want to reserve my right until I look at the transcript of the proceedings, the minister referred to Conservatives lying. Certainly there was reference in the context of the official opposition. On the basis of precedents by Your Honour of very recent date, that is definitely and clearly unparliamentary language.
I reserve my right to raise this matter again. I will not stand here and have him, of all people, accuse people on this side of the House of lying. It is clearly unparliamentary. It is one thing to make some sort of general reference, but in the context in which the minister was speaking it was clearly a reference to people on this side of the House.
Aside from everything else, common decency should possess the minister to stand up and withdraw unequivocally any reference to anybody on this side of the House lying. My recollection is clear in that regard. If he would do the proper thing, the minister would stand in his place and withdraw any allegation of lying by any member on this side of the House.
June 6, 1978


Otto Emil Lang: In terms of making direct references, Mr. Speaker, it would have been better if the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) had chosen not to say "the Minister of Transport, of all people". What kind of reference was that nice phrase meant to have? I have in the past respected the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.
I did refer to the lies and deception with which the Conservative party practices its spread of insidious incitement of dislike across this country. I stand by that. It is part of their program in terms of tactics that any one of them may want to associate with or may very well dissociate themselves from.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With regard to the last intervention of the minister, I do not think he is helping the Chair in clarifying his point of view as far as accusations are concerned. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that this House is a place where debate is engaged in. It is not always possible to identify points of order or remarks that could be unparliamentary on one occasion and acceptable on another.
At this time I can only refer hon. members to citations at my disposal. They must make their own personal judgment as to what action they might wish to take on a further occasion. I do not want to prevent them from looking at the transcript of the debate before deciding to raise the matter at a later date. They should be left with that possibility. At the same time, I wish to bring to their attention that one of our most renowned authors, Erskine May, in his nineteenth edition of parliamentary practice states at page 430, and I quote:
Abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder. Certain expressions which have caused the Chair to intervene from time to time are listed as an Appendix to this Chapter.
Expressions which are unparliamentary when applied to individuals are not always so considered when applied to a whole party.
This might open the door to abuse. I am not going to judge whether it does in this case. I was not in the chair when the remarks were expressed.
With regard to what the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and other members might have expressed, it is my first impression that the minister has been passing judgment on party policies or members who are identified as a party. In that way, I do not at this time see that there can be any question of privilege or point of order.
If the hon. member thinks otherwise, it will be his decision as to whether the remark of the minister goes beyond the citation that I have quoted. I could give other citations from Beauchesne's where the Chair is requested to intervene at the earliest opportunity to prevent abusive language, passing judgment, or reflecting on hon. members. However, I will not take the time of the House at this time. I will leave it to hon. members' own judgement and decision at the next sitting of the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I appreciate Your Honour's trying to de-escalate a situation which was starting to escalate. The difficulty is, as Your
Income Tax Act
Honour said, that you were not in the chair when some of this unfortunate rhetoric came from the lips of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I heard all of his speech, and I heard some of the gratuitous references he made at the close of his speech.
I am somewhat surprised at the sort of ruling tentatively made. If I understand it correctly, the minister can smear a party for spreading as party policy lies and deception, but he cannot do that in terms of members of the House of Commons. As I heard the minister, he said he was deadly serious in his allegation of spreading lies and deception as party policy. However, before Your Honour came to the chair, the Minister of Transport said definitely that the western Conservative party were spreading lies and deception. I can speak somewhat objectively on this because I am not a member, whatever that means, of the western Conservative party. Whether he is trying to get over the generic word of party followers, which none of us can control, I do not know.
I do not believe the minister would be so naive as to think that sometimes in the province of Quebec things are not said which the minister himself would not support in the heat of debate and/or when the battle lines are drawn in terms of an election. But the minister, in the calmness and coolness of the House of Commons tonight-not on the hustings during election time-said distinctly those words. I am not sure about my deputy House leader, but I, for one, would like to reserve the right to raise a very definitive question of privilege if the blues support three different references I heard the minister make specifically to members of the western Conservative party spreading lies and deception, let alone as party policy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) would agree with me, I am sure, that I have already allowed him and any other members who think they have been offended to raise the matter at the next sitting of the House. There is no restriction as far as that goes. I did give a chance to hon. members to start from a reference I have given them, but they can look up any other reference or interpretations of the rules and they can question the point of view or the remarks of the minister if they wish.


Mr. Cordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that my colleagues will not be too harsh on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) for his defamatory and derogatory remarks. One reason Canada is so divided today is because of attacks by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: "Divide and rule" has been the approach taken by these people and, now that we are hearing the cries of an individual whose empire is crumbling around him, I do not think we should be too hard on him. We should recognize we only have to tolerate him until the end of this session.
He said he would like to take the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for a ride. Well, if the hon. member for Joliette

June 6, 1978
Income Tax Act
goes for a ride with the Minister of Transport he had better make sure he has enough money to get back to Ottawa or he will find himself like a certain nanny-he will only get halfway home.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Gordon Towers: I hope I am clear in what I am saying to the minister. One of his first remarks was to the effect that he was not clear about what we were saying.
One of the reasons I am here tonight is to make it clear that we who live in Alberta expect to be treated like residents of any other province but, no matter how you cut the cake, there is no way the government can say that Albertans have been so treated. The hon. gentleman told us that the minister of finance from Alberta did not say anything when the original proposal was made, rightly so. The minute the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) changed the rules of the game, Alberta wanted to be considered. It is my contention that Alberta has the right to be considered and, until a better argument is produced, we will retain that view in the province.
I wish the Minister of Transport would do something well. He is trying to do so many things that he is not doing anything right. If he wants to be minister in charge of the Wheat Board, that is fine and dandy, but let him do his job well. If he wants to be Minister of Transport, that is fine and dandy too, but let him do the job well. Tonight he is here trying to save the skins of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) in Alberta and the Minister of Finance, and there is no way he can do that job well. He is not going to save the reputation of either of those ministers.
We have to recognize that Canada is a family and that every member of the family has a right to be considered. Even though, perhaps, Dame Fortune has smiled upon us in Alberta, we want to be considered as a member of the family and as part of the Dominion of Canada. The insolence and the arrogance of the government will certainly not encourage Canadians to stay together. We have to realize that the federal government is responsible for about 40 per cent of all government spending and collects some 49 per cent of all taxes. We in Alberta contribute to that tax revenue. We recognize that this is part of the process which makes the constitution work. When we in Alberta expressed willingness to stand aside while the federal government tried to implement a six months' reduction in sales taxes, it was because we thought that at the expiration of the six-month period there would be a return to the same arrangement as before. We were willing to stand aside while this was happening, although we realized what the Minister of Finance was up to: he thought there would be a federal election and the extra spending which might take place in that period would make the economy buoyant enough to increase the probability of the Liberals being elected again- perish the thought.
Canada has never been so divided as now. The economy is in worse shape than ever. This is the first time we have been obliged to resort to borrowing to pay our interest charges. If we carry on with a $10 billion deficit year after year, bank-

ruptcy is inevitable. The minister planned this tax reduction for a period of just six months. What was going to happen after the six months were up? Canadians are clever people. They will simply step up their spending and do their buying in the six months but, after that period is over business and industry will experience harder times than before. There was only one reason in the mind of the government for doing things that way: it was to try to get beyond the election. If the Gallup poll had not turned out as it did, there is no doubt we would now be in the middle of an election campaign.
The Minister of Finance has entered into a new arrangement whereby the provinces are being involved in the preparation of the federal budget. I think this is a dangerous course, however good the idea may be. If sales taxes can be cut, fine and dandy. But ministers on the opposite side had better not be in a hurry when contemplating such a course. They should not rely upon telephone conversations on the afternoon of the day on which the budget is to be presented.
I think it is dangerous for any federal government to become involved in provincial taxation. It is not a requirement of confederation and there are other means by which the federal government can intervene in the taxation field.
One of the best ways of stimulating the economy would be to reduce the building tax. If ministers opposite want to speed up development in this country, let them cut out the building tax which has nothing to do with the provinces. Why do they not cut out the manufacturing tax if they want the economy to become more buoyant? Why do they not remove the 10 cents excise tax on gasoline? This is a tax I thought should never have been imposed. We have been asking successive ministers of finance to drop that tax because it is recognized that it costs 1 per cent to collect it in the first place. Retailers and users, whether they be truck drivers or farmers, have to pay an extra cost. It costs the government 1 per cent for collection, so it is nonsensical for the government to be involved in this kind of taxation. I do not understand it. It just does not make sense.
The Minister of Finance says the reason Alberta was left out of this tax scheme was that it receives benefits other provinces do not. I challenge that statement because I believe the benefits which accrue to Alberta in the form of incentives for the oil industry also accrue to all Canadians. All Canadians will have cheaper oil as a result. The figure runs into the billions of dollars. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), said the other day that over $10 billion has accrued to the economy of Canada because we have enjoyed oil at prices lower than the world price. If this is not a significant contribution from one province, I do not know what is.
The minister says that is to our benefit so we get nothing else, but I do not think he is being fair or just. He certainly is causing a great deal of ill will in Alberta. We are getting certain benefits, but let me impress upon the minister that
June 6, 1978

these are costly. People in Alberta have a higher cost of living as a result of developments which are taking place there.
Let us consider housing. I have figures which show that in the years 1973 to 1977 in British Columbia the cost of housing went up 78 per cent; in the province of Quebec it went up 56 per cent; in Ontario 49 per cent; in Manitoba 100 per cent; in Saskatchewan 122 per cent, and in Alberta it went up 125 per cent. It is significant that Alberta has the highest cost housing in the Dominion of Canada. That means individuals who are renting accommodation pay increased rents. Those who are living on old age security in Alberta are getting very little more than their counterparts in other provinces. Granted, Alberta is contributing a small amount, just a few dollars, toward the welfare of those who are caught in that. So it should, because of the increased cost of housing which puts a tremendous burden on these people.
Calgary has the second highest cost housing in Canada. In 1977 the average house cost $66,428. In Oakville, Ontario- which had the highest cost housing-the average house cost $72,641. In Montreal the cost was $39,192, and in Moncton the cost was $44,160. The cost of housing in Calgary over a four-year period went up 80 per cent. In Oakville it went up 20 per cent, in Montreal 14 per cent and in Moncton 19 per cent. People in Alberta are suffering because of the high cost of housing. People are moving into the province. They are welcome. We love to have them. They are good people, and they contribute to our economy, but they are putting a strain on our over-all economy.
Alberta is also experiencing an increase in criminal activity. Criminal activity seems to go where the action is. This is causing increased costs for policing and other services. Just recently I learned there is concern among the peace officers of Alberta because so-called junkies from other provinces are going there. This causes social problems because when these people come to Alberta they do not have the means to sustain themselves, and we have to care for them. Let us realize that the province of Alberta is having problems as a result of developments there.
People in Alberta are entitled to participate in this tax scheme just as much as the Minister of Finance. An Alberta couple with two children, with only one person in the family working, has to pay $100 in income tax if the family income is $7,771. If that couple has to put out $250 or $300 for an apartment or $400 to $500 for a house, what else do they have on which to live? I am sure these people would like to have their $100 income tax rebated to them. I think people in Alberta have just as much right to that rebate as the Minister of Finance or some Senators who will be getting that benefit. I just do not see that this is fair.
Further, we in Alberta have other costs to pay; for instance, it costs $400 to move an automobile out there. This is all part of our cost of living, on the understanding that we want to carry on as we are and as other Canadians can. I think we are entitled to that. These are things which the Minister of Finance has completely overlooked, and this is why there is
Income Tax Act
unrest in the province of Alberta. There is unrest when Albertans hear other Canadians are going to get an income tax rebate but they are not.
Let me deal for a moment with some of the other benefits which are in this bill, and we recognize that there are some. We on this side have been working for a long time to get a roll-over benefit on capital gains tax for family farms. We started with the Hon. John Turner. Hon. members will remember when he first brought in his bill the roll-over was only to be at the time of the probate of a will. We said then that was not good enough because a 60-year old might have or operate a farm while his parents are still living and in their eighties. There was no way to proceed until the passing of the parents. We said it had to be during the course of the lives of the two individuals concerned. The minister said that that was fine and brought in an amendment so that this roll-over could transpire at any time during the lives of the two individuals.
We asked him about the incorporated farm, and he asked us to wait. The minister said we should not push too hard because that would be brought in later. The succeeding minister of finance would have no part of that.
Then the House will remember the present Minister of Finance brought in a mini budget. We were after him as well. We were asking him about this roll-over, and we suggested it could be accomplished with a dollar figure. He asked what figure we had in mind, and we suggested possibly about $5 million. That shook him up. He did not think it could be done. However, we are pleased that he has now seen fit to allow an incorporated family farm to be rolled over so there can be a deferral on the capital gains tax.
Once again we find the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has missed the point entirely. He says this problem is now solved. Let me impress upon him that it is not. We are not finished yet because there is a discrepancy in this roll-over provision which has to be cleared up during this session of parliament if we are to satisfy the farmers who are caught up in this. The farmers who are caught up are those who have incorporated their operation but have kept their land outside of the corporation, so they are not the sole operator of that property because they and their family are part of the corporation. There is no provision in the bill to roll-over that piece of land to the succeeding generation. That is fine and dandy if the property was turned over at the time of the incorporation. But if it was not, they are caught. This is one of the anomalies in this legislation which should be corrected. While the Minister of Transport may believe it is completed, it is not in fact and that portion of it should be cleared up.
One of the other areas of concern in Alberta is that our cost of living has gone up, as it has in the rest of Canada. Perhaps Alberta's cost of living has gone up a little more than in the rest of Canada because of the fact that we have to pay freight costs on all products going out there, such as clothing. The
6132

June 6, 1978
Income Tax Act
increased tariffs that are being imposed in eastern Canada are reflected in western Canada and are of little benefit to the people out there and it should be considered by the government that we in Alberta have a beef in that respect.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has stated time and time again he wanted a voice from western Canada, and especially from Alberta, in his cabinet. He has that voice now but he has muzzled it, as he has previous ministers, therefore, Albertans feels that the Prime Minister has betrayed them. He has made a sacrificial lamb out of the Minister of Transport and, if anybody is to stand up and voice the disapproval of Alberta, who would be in a better position than the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Instead of that, the minister covers up the tracks behind the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and we do not accept that.
This is the most discriminatory treatment that has ever been handed to Alberta since it became a province, the worst treatment we have had in 73 years. Not only do we feel we are being neglected financially, but we believe we are neglected from the human point of view also. As I said earlier, we want to be considered. We want to be part of the family, and if we are to be part of the family, then the programs which are put in place should make room for the residents of Alberta. If not, we must believe that the Prime Minister, who purports to care for and protect culture, cares much less for people, especially if they happen to be Albertans.
I think the Minister of Finance has been remiss in not giving greater consideration to the pleas from this side of the House on behalf of the province of Alberta. In the Globe and Mail of this day we find the following statement:
Finance minister Jacques Parizeau said yesterday he will present another proposal later this week aimed at solving the continuing dispute over sales tax cuts between his government and Ottawa ...
Mr. Parizeau said his offer, to be considered first by the Quebec cabinet tomorrow, will deal "exclusively with transfer methods" for the $226 million involved in the dispute ...
Federal finance minister Jean Chretien made the motion in the Commons and said he would press ahead with the bill until he gets another proposal from Quebec.
The reference here is to the closure motion imposed today. He is certainly leaving Alberta out in the cold as he deals with Mr. Parizeau. The article goes on to state:
Mr. Parizeau said the federal government has already come some distance from its earlier positions.
Mr. Parizeau said the only question now is the method of payment.
I should like to impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that we too would like to have some payment in the province of Alberta because the incentives and the money that have been put into the oil projects in Alberta will bring return to the Government of Canada and to the province of Ontario. Let me impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that not a dollar is going out of the federal treasury to the province of Alberta as a result of this budget. Some business incentives are contained which will benefit all of Canada, not just the Albertans. Let me quote the

statement that was made by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), as reported at page 5977 of Hansard. He said:
If we look at the Syncrude project, which is a projection sized, scale sized plant in which both the federal and provincial governments of Alberta and Ontario invested some $600 million, we see a very good return to the governments because the three governments involved hold an equity of some 37 per cent in that plant, and yet some 77 per cent of the revenues from the production scale plant will be accruing to these governments. The revenues over the next 25 years are estimated to be some $25 billion. The federal government will collect some $3.5 billion in taxes towards the end of the production life of that plant.
This proves beyond reasonable doubt that the federal government is going to enjoy benefits from development in Alberta. I hope the government will mend the error of its ways when dealing with Mr. Parizeau and that tomorrow the Minister of Finance will telephone the Alberta minister of finance to ask him what he considers will be a fair share for that province in this budget proposal which is being presented to the House of Commons and to the Canadian people.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to express the views of at least one Albertan.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat dismayed a little while ago when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) spoke. He started out in a very professorial manner in addressing himself to Bill C-56 and made some rather interesting remarks about what the government has done in his own part of Canada as well as in the prairie provinces. Then he made mention of the fact that Bill C-56 will be of great help to various groups on the prairies.
But then, without any provocation, so far as I can recall- this was only about an hour ago-he took off in a very emotional way and began to play what I call pretty dirty politics. I use that term advisedly and I mean to stay within the rules of our House. The minister started making certain statements to the effect that one of the opposition parties was responsible for spreading certain misconceptions in western Canada with respect to a province in eastern or central Canada. I am surprised to hear a cabinet minister of the intellectual calibre of the Minister of Transport allow himself to become so entangled in that kind of verbal crossfire which does nothing but bring disrepute to us, not only as members of parliament but as Canadian citizens. We are going through a very, very difficult time in our history. We do not need statements which excite, get us up tight and make us say things that normally we would not say.
At the outset I should like to say that no party in the House has a premium as far as popularity is concerned in western Canada, central Canada, Quebec or the Atlantic provinces. As members of parliament, we are required to talk about our constituencies as well as the country as a whole. We should do what we can to hold Canada together and not divide it. We must not use methods or means which will incite emotions in this chamber and create division instead of attempting to narrow the gap between the various regional, ethnic and racial groups within the country.
June 6, 1978

I do not want to use up all my time on that issue, but I was, as I say, somewhat dismayed by the remarks of the Minister of Transport. I will not say they were unwarranted in a political sense because I am not an expert on prairie federal politics. I got the impression that the minister was speaking extremely defensively. He created the impression that both he and his party were in trouble in western Canada. Otherwise, I do not know why we witnessed a burst of emotionalism on his part, especially since he was a former minister of justice and dean of a law school. This is the last thing one would expect from a person with such a background. Perhaps someone like myself, a small town school teacher, could be excused for becoming very emotional over an issue similar to that.
Dealing with Bill C-56, there is one matter I should like to zero in on this evening. I do not want to spend a lot of time because there are a number of other speakers who want to address themselves to this important piece of legislation both this evening and perhaps tomorrow.
In order to provide a brief background to the major problems in the economy, on this date we are still faced with a major unemployment problem. June 6 is a memorable date in Canadian history. On June 6, 1944 our veterans stormed the beaches of Normandy. At the present time approximately one million people are registered as unemployed, and another
500,000	have given up. Inflation is still increasing in very important sectors of the economy. There have been various federal job creation programs over the last several years which have flopped. The figures indicate this. New jobs have not been created. Certain private sectors have done their best in the area of job creation. Members of this House have not accomplished in the last few years what we should have.
As a result of the April budget, one program was introduced. I am referring to the $100 million employment tax credit program. Obviously no one in the Department of Finance, including the minister himself, took a look at the British experiment which occurred three years ago. At that time a tax credit program to employers did not work. It has never worked anywhere in the western democratic world, not at a time when there is falling demand. We have been experiencing that for the last two or three years. Even business and labour groups have indicated that the program is a flop.
For example, the program was supposed to create 50,000 new jobs in the first year. It was implemented approximately three months ago. Thus, I am talking in terms of the first quarter of this program. Approximately 25,000 of those new jobs were to be created in the province of Ontario. In the first three months of this program, approximately 1,900 jobs have been created in Quebec which has an 11.8 per cent unemployment rate.
Perhaps that is why the minister was somewhat upset about possible falling fortunes in Quebec at the present time, or at least the ongoing battle between the Quebec minister of finance and the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) as to who will receive the votes and who will put money in whose pocket in order to buy votes. That is not what the minister said, but certainly that is how I interpret his remarks. If
Income Tax Act
money can be tucked in a person's pocket, one can be assured that that person will be sympathetic to one's party at election time. Of course, we did not have an election, and the entire matter has become somewhat topsy-turvy.
The employment tax credit program is not a bad idea, but employers will not create new jobs within their plants or rehire those who have been laid off unless they are in receipt of orders. I am referring to purchases and a demand for the goods they produce. I do not care if they are subsidized to the tune of $5 an hour, employers will not create new jobs or rehire unless there is a demand for their products. It has not worked before and it is not working now. Approximately 1,900 jobs have been created in Quebec, with its 11.8 per cent unemployment rate; 262 jobs have been created in Ontario; and a smattering of jobs have been created across the country. Demand induces an employer to rehire or create new jobs. One cannot expect to have demand in Canada with its sluggish economy, unless people have enough money to spend on basic necessities.
For approximately a year now, the New Democratic Party has stated that tax cuts for the benefit of middle and low income earners is the only way in the foreseeable future to pump money into our economy, stimulate demand and put people to work producing necessary goods and services.
I should like to make another point in respect of what happened this afternoon in the House in the form of the motion for closure at the second reading stage of Bill C-56. We are dealing with a bill that is creating even greater dissension and animosity between the Liberal government here in Ottawa and the Quebecois separatist government in the province of Quebec. In spite of that and the importance of this matter, this government is closing down the debate on second reading, preventing members on both sides of the House from continuing to make some input to this matter. I think it is a shame that we are to be muzzled tomorrow at 5:45 p.m. by a forced vote.
The impression I have been getting is that Liberal members feel they belong to the only party that has any influence in the province of Quebec. Unfortunately, some bigots in my riding are now suggesting that the Liberal party is the French party in Canada. I wonder how many men and women in the Liberal party on the other side of this House realize what is happening in my part of the country. I am just talking about the southwestern part of Ontario and the city of Toronto, where the anti-French feeling is building to the point that things are going to boil over unless the government does something very quickly about Ottawa-Quebec relations.
I am not championing separatism or patting Rene Levesque and Jacques Parizeau on the back, saying they are doing a good job. I am simply suggesting that they are in power in Quebec. We on this side of the House are not in favour of separatism, yet many members of the federal Liberal party in this House, whenever they rise to speak, damn us on this side of the House for being anti-Quebec and anti-French.
80045-21 Vi

June 6, 1978
Income Tax Act
We have had the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in office for over ten years. He is a Francophone. We have had a party in power for ten years with about 60 seats from the province of Quebec. I forget the exact number but it is in that neighbourhood. Just consider the mess we have fallen into in respect of Ottawa and Quebec city relations during this time when we have had a Prime Minister who should have known what was happening in that province in the last ten years, and throughout the 1960's. Yet we are worse off today in so far as separatism and the dismemberment of this country is concerned than we were when the Prime Minister first came to office in 1968.
Unless the Liberal government decides very shortly that there is to be an election in the fall, and unless that party decides to select a new leader next winter to be followed by an election in the spring, this country will surely fall apart. This government must decide now to stop accusing us on this side of the House of trying to split the country, and begin addressing itself openly and frankly to the problems that exist in Quebec. Unless the government does that quickly and attempts to put an end to the bitterness that has grown among French and English speaking Canadians, this country will surely split apart.
What can this party with 15 members here do to prevent that? What can the official opposition do? The responsibility at this point clearly lies with that party on the other side of the House. Yet today we witnessed the spectacle of a minister of this Liberal government, a former dean of law and a former minister of justice, the Minister of Transport, who is minister responsible for the Wheat Board, standing in his place trying to get a rise from members on this side, and trying to make hon. members here feel guilty in a political sense for not doing our jobs in attempting to understand the people of Quebec and their feelings about Bill C-56. I am not trying to impute motives, but that is how I saw it.
This bill is badly designed and is in a state of transition at this very time when we are debating it. We do not know what is in the bill at the present time. We do not know what phone calls are being made tonight to Quebec city and to other provincial capitals. We do not know what is going on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the minister seeking the floor in a point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure whether the hon. member was here when I spoke, but I do want to point out to him that I was rather careful to distinguish between the Conservative party and the NDP in my remarks, and I was in no way-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Again, I am amazed, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes we transgress in this House when we confuse points of order with simple argumentative statements, but-


An hon. Member:: You can't blame him; he was a lousy dean of law too.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: When the minister is defeated I hope no law school in this country will hire him. I think his knowledge of parliamentary procedure is somewhat lacking, and for someone like myself to have to say that-


An hon. Member:: That is a cheap shot.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Is it a cheap shot? He is the one who precipitated it. I was simply reacting to his statement.
I do not intend to continue speaking much longer as there are others who wish to speak this evening on this bill. I am not happy with the bill. It will not create jobs and it has placed us in a constitutional wrangle, the last thing we need at this time. I am not opposed to the principle of a reduced sales tax approach to stimulate the economy. What I am opposed to is the fact that, as a result of this bill, we are further dividing the country.
I do not place all the blame at the feet of the Minister of Finance, but good heavens, he should have anticipated some of the reactions of the members of the separatist government in Quebec. There should have been more consultation instead of just phone calls to the ministers of finance of the various provinces to obtain agreement in respect of this new mechanism. There should have been anticipation of problems with the province of Quebec. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are unable to deal with the province of Quebec on fiscal matters, what will they do in the next election campaign? Will they make the situation even more emotional and split the country wider? Will they go into Quebec and say that they are the only ones who can keep Quebec in confederation? Will they then go to English speaking Canada and tell the people that without them Quebec will separate? Is this any way to administer the country?
Another impression I gained today when listening to the remarks of the Minister of Transport was that hon. members of the Liberal party are desperately attempting to emotionalize this controversy in the country between Quebec Francophones and the Anglophones in other parts of the country. I got the impression that they were trying to use this situation as an emotional smoke screen behind which to hide the other issues that are of greater importance, specifically the issues contained in Bill C-56. This is a very important tax bill, but in my opinion it will not stimulate the economy or create more jobs.
I thank you for the opportunity of speaking briefly this evening, Mr. Speaker, and I will now surrender the floor to the next speaker.
[ Translation]


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the floor before the end of this debate which has lasted too long already, to say where I stand in the dispute between Quebec and Ottawa concerning the sales tax and to place all that issue in the proper perspective.

Mr. Speaker, 1 probably will not have enough time to comment on all the excellent measures contained in the last budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), but I wish to give him my full support for that set of measures designed to spur a vigorous recovery of the Canadian economy in the next few months.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into the subject I must congratulate the Minister of Finance for the initiative he took by consulting his provincial counterparts during the preparation of his budget. This initiative has been underemphasized in the last two months, all the more so since it was the first time, Mr. Speaker, that a federal minister of finance invited the provinces to take part in the budgetary process. By doing so, the Minister of Finance has demonstrated the significance he sees in intergovernmental co-operation in economic matters and I hope he will not depart from that positive attitude in spite of the provincial imbroglio resulting from his budget.
Mr. Speaker, whatever anybody may think of the Quebec government and the federal government position in the sales tax dispute, one thing seems obvious to me: If the Quebec minister of finance had stated his position from the start by saying yes or no, we would have avoided a vain dispute and, as the Quebec finance minister has admitted yesterday, and I quote him, "a conflict of which we are all starting to get a bit tired." In fact the federal Minister of Finance would certainly have attempted to find another way had he been told in time that Quebec could not accept this formula.
Mr. Speaker, if the federal government has proposed a sales tax reduction it is because everyone agreed that it would contribute to increase consumer demand and encourage our economic recovery while reducing price increases. And the soundness of that policy was confirmed by the latest data published by Statistics Canada. I would like to point out to the House that the latest statistics on inflation indicate that the consumer price index last month rose by only 0.2 per cent, which means that if such a rate is maintained during the next 12 months the rate of inflation will be approximately 2.5 per cent for the next year.
Mr. Speaker, many references have been made in the press to the considerable advantages that the selective tax sales cut implemented by Quebec would bring to the economy of that province. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am far from being convinced that the total abolition of the sales tax on clothing, textiles, furniture and footwear maximizes the economic benefits that Quebec stands to gain from a sales tax cut. On the one hand, one may doubt the impact that step will have on production and employment when one knows that in those sectors a large number of manufactures are already operating at full capacity because of the quotas the federal government imposed at the end of 1976 on imports from some countries. On the other hand, the monetary policy of the government, particularly with respect to the value of the Canadian dollar, makes those products manufactured in Canada, more particu-
Income Tax Act
larly in Quebec, in those soft sectors, a lot more competitive on the Canadian market because of the higher cost of imported products.
Mr. Speaker, the management of the Dominion Textile plant in my riding confirmed to me recently that the employees who had been called back at the beginning of 1978 had been called back before the selective sales tax cut enacted by the Quebec government.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a 4 or 5 per cent cut would have been enough to stimulate demand in those so-called soft sectors which would have allowed the provincial treasury, and this is important, Mr. Speaker, to recover through an increased volume of business part of the lost revenues resulting from the partial sales tax cut whereas by abolishing entirely the sales tax they are depriving themselves of any source of revenue even if the volume of business were to increase.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, whether the government of Quebec was right or wrong, it was certainly perfectly entitled to do what it did, and this without suffering any financial penalty. If the government of Quebec did not take the most appropriate action to stimulate the Quebec economy, it is up to Quebeckers to voice their opinion at the next election. I believe it is essential to note, Mr. Speaker, that the economic sectors for which the tax was completely eliminated in Quebec also have a great impact on employment outside Quebec, especially in Ontario. For instance, 10,000 of the 20,000 jobs in the footwear industry are in Ontario and 9,000 in Quebec. As for the furniture industry, it provides 22,000 jobs in Ontario,
19.000	in Quebec and 6,000 elsewhere in the country. Moreover, Quebec accounts for only a little over 50 per cent of the
78.000	jobs provided by the textile industry. In fact, it is only in the clothing industry that Quebec has the lion's share of the jobs since the province accounts for approximately 70 per cent of the 120,000 jobs provided by this industry. Having said this, Mr. Speaker, it would therefore be wrong to suggest that the action taken by the Quebec government will benefit only the economy of Quebec and go against a healthy federalism.
In reality, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the present conflict is largely caused by the way this government sees federalism. It seems to me that federalism can survive in a diversified form and that federalism does not necessarily mean uniformity.
In other words, I believe that our federal system must be flexible enough to enable the provincial authorities to take the most appropriate economic action to meet the particular needs of each province.
In this case, I believe that the fact that Quebec has reduced its sales tax the way that it has does not seriously distort the Canadian economic system which can tolerate a sales tax of over 11 per cent in Newfoundland while Alberta has no sales tax at all, or which can accept the interventions of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is certain disadvan-

June 6, 1978
Adjournment Debate
taged regions or which must live with different purchasing policies for each provincial government.
Since it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue at the next sitting.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on May 15 I put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) concerning post-secondary education funding, especially as it applies in the Sudbury district office of the Ontario region of his department. The Indian band councils in the Sudbury region were advised several weeks ago that there was a shortfall of some $539,000 in that region for post-secondary education. This not only applies to students who will be going to university, but it also applies to those going to post-secondary institutions such as community colleges, and to a small training centre in the Wikwemikong Indian reserve called Wasse Abin College.
This particular training centre is making a great contribution to young people who have either dropped out of high school and not been able to complete their grade 13 or grade 12 courses so they can go to post-secondary institutions, or as well those who are not quite prepared to leave the Indian reserve and go to a university such as Laurentian in Sudbury or Cambrian College, where many of the students in Sudbury go.
I raised this matter several times with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and had one delegation come here to meet with the parliamentary secretary. It seems to me that this matter should be resolved in the very near future.
The minister in his statement on May 15 said:
Mr. Speaker, on the general commitment, I certainly maintain the commitment I have given before. On the two specific cases the hon. member has referred to, I would have to look into the actual amounts.
It would appear to me that that answer is very indefinite. We are not talking about an abstract subject here or of something away off in the wide blue yonder. We are talking about young people who are completing their grade 12 or grade 13 education and who want to apply to go to postsecondary institutions this fall. We are talking about a small training centre on the Wikwemikong Indian reserve, where

three or four weeks ago 18 fine young people graduated from that college and every one ,of them is going on to a postsecondary institution this fall. But no students will be going in September of this year unless this matter is resolved.
I understand that an application has been before Treasury Board for the additional funding, which has been approved but not broken down. What we need is a firm decision by the minister as to what amount of funding will be provided. Surely with over 900,000 people out of work in this country, this is not the time for cutbacks in post-secondary education. All through the years we have been encouraging young people from the 12 Indian bands of the Algoma riding and the Algoma-Manitoulin districts of northern Ontario to go on and take post-secondary education in order to open up opportunities for better employment and a fuller life for them. Now with high unemployment is not the time to be cutting back on post-secondary education. It is a time for decision by the government on this matter so that these young people can apply and go on to school' this fall and be able to take advantage of post-secondary education.
I hope we can get a firm commitment from the minister right away so that this matter will not be left with the uncertainty as to whether the Wasse Abin College will resume its function this fall and whether the several hundred young people in northeastern Ontario who are served by the Sudbury district office will have funding for post-secondary education.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member's statement. I would like to point out that I have discussed this issue a number of times with the hon. member in detail. I appreciated the fact that some local Indian representation came to Ottawa to further substantiate the hon. member's concern on this issue. I was impressed by the sincerity by which they put forward their case.
There is no question about the support of the minister or the ministry for education. In this particular instance we are talking about bridge education between the secondary schooling and post-secondary education. If this is valid in any area, it is certainly so in the native community where they face many disadvantages and need this kind of support to ensure that they go on to post-secondary education with every confidence and opportunity to succeed.
Having said that, I want to put on record that the department is labouring under some difficulty in that, under the restraint program, it is necessary to meet the statutory requirement first to accommodate the price and volume increases that go forward both in education and in other areas, then to look at the non-statutory items and, last, any new programs. As the hon. member said, additional money has been approved.
In conclusion, I cannot tonight give a very definite answer to the hon. member's representation other than to say the request will be met if at all possible, given the many demands and the
June 6, 1978

fixed budget. In addition, I give the undertaking that we will do everything we can to have a definite answer on this by mid-June.


FISHERIES-CLOSING OF SWIFTSURE BANKS ON WEST COAST
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, May 31, I asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) the following question:
Today the minister received a telegram from some very irate fishermen in British Columbia because the minister made a very major concession to the United States by closing the Swiftsure Bank without getting anything in return. How much longer will the fishermen have to wait for an agreement, and what are they going to get in return for all their losses?
The minister replied:
As to how long the resolution of this issue will take, I can tell the hon. member that it will not take very long.
As we know, the answer came last Friday with the Canadian ultimatum to American fishermen and the American government. That does have some attractive emotional solutions for the short term, but it has a very long term disaster built into it. It is a case of brinkmanship in this whole matter.
For the past several years, the Americans have been getting the best end of the deal. Now it is like a withdrawal from cocaine or heroin. The withdrawal symptoms are pretty bad. When our ambassador starts getting tough in his negotiations, they do not like it. That is why they asked us to close the Swiftsure and were giving us a hard time.
The problem is that in all of these negotiations, our fishermen have been kept in an extended period of uncertainty. As I said, in the short-term it has some emotional gains. It has the support of the fishermen at the present time because they have seen their position in the fishing areas off the Pacific coast taken away from them year by year by American fishermen and our weak-kneed approach. Friday's announcement is the tough posture and the tough stance which all of us have been looking for a.id for which all of us are grateful. It inspires in us some hope that we will make some gains.
We have to keep in mind that Canadian fishermen, as a result of having to draw back out of the water they are accustomed to fishing in, stand to lose something like $7 million this year. The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. Some reports say $3 million or $4 million, some say $7 million. In any event, it is a lot of bucks and it is the fishermen who will feel this loss.
In the long haul, it is not going to be very attractive to our fishermen. Rest assured they support the decision right now in the hope they are going to get something in return in the long haul. Our hopes are pinned on the negotiations that will come on June 19 and 20. All of us in the House hope something substantive will happen then and that the Canadian fishermen, for whom we are responsible, will benefit as a result.
The related question is, how do you make up the losses as a result of the dislocation that takes place because of having to draw back? We can say to these fishermen, go to the Swiftsure Bank as we did in 1956. We can tell them to go to the
Adjournment Debate
Swiftsure Bank, fish for 24 hours a day, catch all you can before they go up the Strait of Juan de Fuca and to Georges Bank before the Americans have a chance to get at them. That will cut off the fishing supply to the Americans. I would point out it also cuts off the supply to the Fraser River run.
The question is, what are the fishermen going to do who are accustomed to fishing in the Fraser River and who will have their catch lost? We say tell them to go to the open water, but at least 50 per cent of them do not have the kind of equipment which would enable them to do so. This will mean a great deal of dislocation for fishermen in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
After so much brinksmanship we are entitled to some answers. What does the minister intend to do for the fishermen who are affected? Will he provide them with some assistance in the short term? In the ensuing few weeks will he introduce stop gap measures which will assure them a livelihood? What steps does he intend to take to make sure that the Fraser River fishermen can gain the livelihood to which they are accustomed and entitled?


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Swiftsure Bank is now open to salmon trollers, and has been since June 2, when Canada announced its decision to suspend the provisional implementation of the 1978 interim reciprocal fisheries agreement. Although we lost almost three weeks of fishing on these grounds, this was in a last ditch attempt to resolve the west coast salmon troll problems that arose under the agreement.
A relatively small group of trollers would have been involved; however, the rest of the fishing area off British Columbia was available to them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, although these fishermen were not permitted to fish Swiftsure during that period, it in no way meant that they were prevented from fishing in other areas.
I say this with respect to the hon. member: this afternoon we had a meeting in the fisheries committee with the boundary negotiators and there will be a further meeting with the boundary negotiators on Thursday. Because of the limited time available to me during this period I would recommend to the hon. member, in view of his interest in this subject, that he attend the meeting on Thursday. This will give him an opportunity to question the officials in detail, a procedure which I think would be to his benefit.


Benno Friesen: I will be there.


FISHERIES-U.S. BAN ON SPORT FISHING IN AMERICAN WATERS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my intervention concerns a similar subject but I want to deal with sport fishing rather than with the commercial fishery. The matter arises from a question I asked in the House yesterday concerning the enforcement of the United States law which

June 6, 1978
Adjournment Debate
covers not only Canadian commercial fishing in U.S. waters but Canadian sport fishing boats in such waters.
The minister has been quoted as saying that such restrictions were the "name of the game" and that Canada would have to consider reciprocal action. But at that point there had been no enforcement of the ban on Canadian sport fishing in their waters. Today, however, at Haines, Alaska, the U.S. coastguard swept all Canadian boats which had been engaged in a traditional salmon derby from the water, not only to the discomfort of the Canadian competitors but also to the discomfort of the Alaskan sponsors of the derby who rely a great deal upon the participation of Canadian boats for the success of their enterprise.
If Canadian sport fishermen were excluded from the ban, perhaps the coastguard in Alaska did not get the message. I am not sure about that. In any event, we are running the risk of seeing a substantial number of Canadian sport fishing boats prevented from continuing to fish in American waters; I refer particularly to the Point Roberts area which is almost exclusively fished by Canadian boats from the Crescent Beach side. I do not know whether any action has been taken in that regard.
I would therefore like the parliamentary secretary to deal with at what stage enforcement is at in terms of the U.S. legislation and in terms of Canadian boats. I want to know whether there will be any warning to Canadian fishermen to stay out of American waters.
The second aspect of this question deals with reciprocal action. It is my own view that we should not ban American fishermen from Canadian waters. The reason is that the economic impact of that would be tremendous, not merely in British Columbia but all across the country. According to the figures we were given today in committee, there is a ratio of almost ten to one in favour of Americans having boats in Canada versus Canadians having boats in the U.S., and 20 to one in terms of individual fishermen fishing on the Canadian side of the border. There is a considerable tourist benefit as a result, so I am not suggesting that we should reciprocate with a ban on U.S. fishermen. What I am saying is that this gives us a golden opportunity to re-examine a couple of areas in terms of the way U.S. fishermen fish for salmon in Canadian waters.
To some extent this may apply to the east coast, but I want to deal just with the Pacific coast. British Columbians are tired of 50-foot alleged American sport boats coming up and canning salmon for weeks and weeks, shipping that salmon to the United States and selling it. They are tired of seeing the use of fish finders, which are electronic devices not dissimilar to the ones which our own commercial trailers are using. They are tired of seeing downriggers which can catch any level of troll for salmon, exactly the same equipment as our own sophisticated commercial trailers are using. I do not call that sport fishing. That is just trying to get as much meat as
[Mr. Leggatt.l
possible in a short time. That, to me, violates the principle of the use of a recreational resource.
What I am suggesting is that we have to give consideration to limiting the amount of salmon which can be taken and held by one boat, limiting the amount that can be exported to the United States, and restricting the kind of gear which is now being used in Canadian waters. I do not say that that is a response to the U.S. position. I do not say that that is a reciprocal action. I think that is something we should have done a long time ago, and we now have a golden opportunity to re-examine our position.
I might say that tonight in committee the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) indicated that an announcement may be forthcoming very shortly with regard to the export of sport-caught salmon in Canadian waters. I look forward to that announcement, and welcome it. I think this is a good time to decide to start controlling the extent of alleged sport fishing by major U.S. charter vessels. We have to keep in mind that those charter vessels quite often buy nothing in Canada. They load up in Bellingham. They buy all their provisions in Bellingham. In fact, there are many cases of yachts in B.C. water radioing to Bellingham when they run out of supplies. They make sure they do not have to buy in Canada. They bring provisions by ship to supply their needs. It seems to me that that is not the kind of sport fishing we want in Canadian waters, so we had better have a careful look at the way we regulate sport fishing.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, both the Canadian and United States notes on the question of suspending the implementation of the 1978 interim reciprocal fisheries agreement-both of which have been tabled in this House-indicate that the reciprocal halibut fisheries should continue. However, the implementation of this will be under discussion between officials of the two countries with a view to the Canadian government's being able to provide firm advice to Canadian halibut fishermen as far as possible in advance of the June 19 reopening of the halibut fishery.
As to the hon. member's second point with regard to the decision of the United States to enforce its fisheries management and conservation act against all Canadian sport fishermen, I can only repeat the statement of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) in the House yesterday that Canadian waters are open to United States recreational fishermen.
I should also point out that the Canadian government has not taken any action against American recreational fishing craft in Canadian waters, and the minister stated today in the House of Commons that Canadian waters were open to licensed U.S. recreational fishermen. In any event, no action is contemplated at any time with respect to American tourists using Canadian craft. The minister sent a telex stating the foregoing to all his provincial counterparts.
June 6, 1978

I would add that when the minister refers to "licensed fishermen", he is referring to the various provincial licensing requirements which prevail in inland waters.
With regard to the third point brought out by the hon. member, I think he is aware from comments made in the fisheries committee that a long time prior to the action we took against the United States commercial fishermen discussions had been taking place in the province of B.C. regarding the catch limit for tourists coming into B.C. and the amount of
Adjournment Debate
canning that can be done by them. As he is also aware, that subject will continue to be examined, and I hope that an announcement will be made in the near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.22 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 7, 1978