1979-03-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the Juno award presentations to Canadian recording artists last night in Toronto, which represented a true celebration of the success of Canada's popular musicians and composers and contrasts with the cheap politicization of this historic event by the Prime Minister of Canada who, knowing full well of the live coverage given these proceedings across Canada by CBC, chose to exploit a Hall of Fame presentation in honour of Canadian music great, Hank Snow-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae).


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the evidence of lengthy delays in the payment by the government of income tax refunds and child tax credits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House deplores the delays in sending out income tax refunds and child tax credits which carry with them the inevitable conclusion that these delayed refunds are intended to coincide with the calling of a federal election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
-	S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgency.
In view of the fact that the Solicitor General's department survey, which he said yesterday is "in terms of crime prevention" is being conducted by telephone callers whom householders cannot prove to be authentic, eliciting information related to home protection which should be known only to householders, yet could be given to anyone bent on housebreaking or other crimes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That the Solicitor General immediately stop this type of telephone survey which can aid and abet crime rather than prevent or control it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr Roch La Salle (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent necessity.
Several months ago the government introduced its budgetary cuts and decided to go back on an earlier commitment towards bilingual public servants and put an end to bilingual bonuses. After meeting with officials of the Public Service Alliance yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board announced that he will postpone this curtailment. To prevent this respite from being restricted to the duration of the electoral campaign, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the House unanimously urge the responsible minister to inform the House immediately, or at least before the coming election, of the program's duration.
Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43,
_______________COMMONS DEBATES
March 22, 1979
the introduction of this motion at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION THAT BILINGUAL BONUS BE MAINTAINED- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important and current matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Furthermore our employees will be proud to see that there is a member in this House who is interested in their fate.


FOREIGN ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS
Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of statements made yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) on a Toronto radio program to the effect that Saudi Arabia does not discriminate against Israel and Arab nations generally do not discriminate against Canadian Jews, and in view of a quotation attributed to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) in yesterday's Globe and Mail that Bill C-32 of this House has more substance than Ontario's anti-boycott legislation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr' Scott):	'
That members of the House take up a collection to teach these two ministers to read.
In view of the fact that a few weeks ago I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 drawing to the attention of cabinet the serious effects resulting from the abolition of bilingual bonuses, thus penalizing 40,000 employees and taking a backward step in the expansion of bilingualism in Canada; considering that a newspaper published today reports that a meeting between union leaders and the President of the Treasury Board makes us hope that bilingual bonuses will be maintained for at least a few months; considering that the matter is too important-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Bellechasse wants to move a motion, he should do so now.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see that you are as expeditious as I am.
Considering that the matter is too important to become a partisan issue, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones).


POST OFFICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas postal rates in this country should not be increased without prior approval of parliament, and whereas further increases are imminent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That no further postal rate increases be put into effect without prior approval of parliament.	v


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
That the House urge the President of the Treasury Board to do his utmost to maintain bilingual bonuses in the civil service as well as in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the introduction of such motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATIKOKAN, ONT.-DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move the following motion. In view of the announcement by AECL that it will proceed with test-drilling in the Atikokan area in northern Ontario for disposal sites for nuclear wastes, and because of the concern of area residents that this may be the first step in making their area into a nuclear garbage dump, I
March 22, 1979



move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources instruct AECL to halt this test-drilling until a public hearing into the matter has been held for the residents of Atikokan.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
The Southern New Brunswick Wood Co-operative has expressed concern for a number of years about the prices that its members have been receiving for their wood. They have now stated their intention to establish a marketing board. I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House instruct the Department of Agriculture, which has great knowledge about such matters, to provide the wood producers of this region with all assistance necessary to reach their goal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the governor of the Bank of Canada said in his annual report what we have been saying in this House for some time that weekly wages are falling behind consumer prices. He said:
__it does not seem realistic to expect them to accept-other than very briefly
increases in their money incomes that fall far below increases in consumer prices.
In view of the fact that the rate of inflation is heading for double digits by next month if the present trend continues, and
Oral Questions
in view of the fact that wages in the past year as a result of the AIB controls have fallen behind consumer prices, on a composite index, at an annual rate of approximately $666, I ask the minister what the policy of the government is, in the absence of any guidelines with respect to wage earners whose incomes are falling behind consumer prices.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when I presented my budget in November, I said that the rate of inflation would go down in 1979. In fact, the predictions are still to the effect that the rate of inflation for this year will be lower than last year. I think that the present rate of inflation, while a bit high, will go down during the year.
Labour and management will be well advised to make sure that there is not a new round of large wage increases which will lead to big price increases, which will put us back into the position we were at in 1974. I think that Canadian workers and managers understand that. They realize that we have regained, through moderation, our competitive position in world markets. That is why, for example, in the last quarter of 1978 we had a Canadian utilization of manufacturing capacity of close to 90 per cent. We have seen a big increase in employment in Canada. That is because Canadians are willing to be responsible in order to have a better economy.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps I can ask the minister if he agrees with the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada. I ask him to address himself to that, especially in light of forecasts for the current year. For example, the Conference Board of Canada anticipates that consumer prices will increase by 8.4 per cent, as opposed to 8.3 per cent for weekly wages.
In light of these very alarming statistics, and the fact that wage earners in this country have been held down while prices have been allowed to escalate, does the minister agree with this statement by the governor of the Bank of Canada? If so, what does he intend to do about it?
Mr Chretien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that at the time of the budget in November we reduced taxes for Canadians through indexation and other measures in order to allow the workers to have more take-home pay. We reduced taxes to the tune of $1.5 billion for Canadian workers. Therefore, their situation will be better and they will have more disposable income.
There are some good signs in the Canadian economy at this time. We see this all over the place, according to the press. If workers and managers continue to show the same moderation as they have shown in the past 12 months, we can have very good hopes for the future.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we can draw little comfort from what the minister tells us, because what the governor of the Bank of Canada is talking about is the current situation, not the one that prevailed last fall when the minister was predicting an annual rate of inflation of 4.5 per cent, which is now up to 9.2 per cent.

March 22, 1979
Oral Questions
Is it the policy of the government to allow wage earners in this country to catch up to the rate of inflation? If not, what is the policy of the government? For example, has the minister met with the chairman of the National Commission on Inflation to discuss guidelines with that commission which up to this point in time has no guidelines, or is he going to leave it to the judgment of the commission to decide what is inflationary and what is not? I repeat, is it the policy of the government to allow wage earners in this country, who are falling behind, to catch up?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in order to be fair, the hon. member must recognize that Canadian workers have had much more rapid salary increases than their U.S. or foreign counterparts. I think that in the last six or seven years there has been a great improvement in the position of Canadian workers. It is our hope that in 1979 they will continue, as they did in 1978, to take their responsibilities fully so that we may continue to strengthen our competitive position, increase substantially our exports, and improve our economic situation as we have done, to the extent that in February there were 400,000 more working Canadians than last year.


DEVALUED CANADIAN DOLLAR-ANNUAL REPORT OF GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Robert de Cotret (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. I quote from a statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada in his annual report:
likely for political reasons at this time, to support the upswing in the Canadian dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The policy with regard to the dollar remains the same; it has not changed since I became minister The intervention of the governor of the Bank of Canada is to make sure that the market operates in an orderly fashion. Further, 1 should like to tell the hon. member that we have not lost billions of dollars: we have exchanged Canadian dollars for American dollars, or vice versa, and the government has lost nothing.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Goldfarb Company, well known to the right hon. gentleman, produced a report which was printed in the Toronto Star showing that some 70 per cent of the people in metropolitan Toronto have been forced to change their eating habits because of the soaring cost of living.
Considering that this survey follows a metro-Toronto council report which shows that some 350,000 people in that city alone are living below the poverty level, will the government change its mind and take concrete action to roll back the unjustified increases which have taken place recently in the prices of bread and chicken, in order to bring some relief to the thousands of Canadians who need it?
a major downward adjustment of the exchange rate was undoubtedly neces sary in order to help correct the large deficit which had emerged in Canada's international trade in goods and services.
If this downward adjustment was so undoubtedly necessary why did the government spend billions of dollars in order to try to moderate that downward adjustment and really turn it around?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have explained many times that this change in the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar was determined by the marketplace. We have intervened regularly in order to maintain an orderly markeL At this moment the view is, I think, that the Canadian dollar has reached a more reasonable level because in the last few months we have considerably improved the Canadian economic performance. That is why the Canadian dollar has


Robert René de Cotret: I fully recognize that the minister and the government have allowed the market to operate freely despite the fact that they have pumped billions and billions of dollars into this operation. Now that the dollar appears to be on a very modest upward trend, is the government still intervening in the marketplace either to moderate that upswing or, as is more


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The hon. member alleges there have been unjustified increases By whom, Mr. Speaker? By the farmers? By the marketing boards? By the retailers? If the hon. member has some evidence of excessive increases, we would like to look into it.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Prime Minister had paid attention to the questions which have been asked in the House for the last few weeks, he would know.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the Minister of Agriculture has himself acknowledge that the price of bread went up out of all proportion after the government removed the subsidy and that the price of chicken rose to three times the level the farmer was receiving during the past year-these are two specific instances to which I am directing attention-would the Prime Minister follow up what he has just said, confirm the facts I have stated and then take action to see that prices are rolled back?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 hear the Minister of Agriculture saying he never made the statement just attributed to him by the hon member.	'
March 22, 1979

The Leader of the New Democratic Party has been told repeatedly in the House that the average basket of food for a family of four today is costing the average worker at least three or four times less, in hours worked, than it did 10 or 15 years ago. This is a clear indication that Canadians generally, and workers in particular, are paying less for their food, in terms of hours of work, that they did 5, 10 and 15 years ago.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister should know that workers' salaries went up by only 6 per cent last year, while food prices, according to the AIB, went up by 21 per cent: according to another government agency it was 16 per cent. So food prices in terms of current prices are clearly outstripping increases in wages.
Considering that he has rejected subsidies on bread and milk, considering that he has rejected rollbacks, and considering that his own Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was reported on Sunday to have rejected a food policy-


Mr. Allmand:: Nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: -is the Prime Minister now saying that the government has no plans at all either in the short run or in the long run to reduce the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is full of false allegations that the government has done nothing. The Minister of Finance just finished indicating the cuts in taxes, direct and indirect, this government has brought down in the last several years.
Just a very short time ago this House brought in a child tax credit amounting to $200 per year per child. We just increased supplementary incomes for old age pensioners. We reduced tariffs barely a week ago. In the memory of the opposition, all this is nothing. They want to know what we did tomorrow. They will know tomorrow what we will do. It is absolutely incorrect to say that we are not in every way helping people in middle and lower income brackets through tax cuts, subsidies and other measures. The question of the hon. member is based just on forgetfulness with respect to the actions which have been taken in this very House under his very nose.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the policy espoused by the Prime Minister since 1968 has been to encourage bilingualism within government services dealing with the public from different regions of the country, does the Prime Minister still believe, in view of the upcoming election, that we should continue to work
Oral Questions
together so that bilingualism in Canada can flourish and that we may counter opposition to this policy, which, in my opinion, can bring great harmony in Canada and make this a great and beautiful country, one where the quality of life meets the highest standards?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member expresses exactly the government's feelings when he speaks of the importance of harmony in this country, which has been and continues to be, in our view, a major aspect of this bilingualism policy. Need I also remind the hon. member that in order to provide greater guarantees, not only have we passed legislation and implemented policies in this regard, but we have also introduced in parliament a bill to incorporate, to enshrine, so to speak, in the constitution this language egality policy so that in future no government could dodge this rule which, as the hon. member pointed out, is the very basis of harmony in our country.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. In view of the context in which we live and bearing in mind the intention of the government of reducing its expenditures to avoid having to increase taxes and levies on the taxpayers, but also bearing in mind the importance of the policy whereby all Canadians, regardless of their language, can communicate with the federal administration no matter where they live in this country, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he would be willing to grant a bilingualism bonus in the public service and the administration of the House of Commons, and to recommend its permanence to the President of the Treasury Board in order to ensure the survival of bilingualism and harmony in our country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the objectives mentioned by the hon. member are also ours. The question is whether or not the bilingualism bonus is the best way or method of achieving that objective. May I be allowed to remind the hon. member that some people who receive the bonus have never had occasion to use both languages. Might I also remind him that a large number of people decided to reimburse the bonus to the government because they felt either that they did not deserve it or that it was not the most efficient way of promoting the goal we both pursue.
That is why the government announced last August that it would review the whole matter, put an end to the bonus and seek other ways of pursuing the same objectives. Discussions followed on that question and many others, and I think the hon. member will be happy to know that the President of the Treasury Board advised me that, following talks with the leaders of the Public Service Alliance and various unions yesterday, discussions are progressing well and both parties hope to find a formula other than bonuses through which to attain our common objective. Whether we succeed or not in doing so is another matter but, in the meantime, we are

March 22, 1979
Oral Questions
allowing ourselves a period of several months before altering the present system.


INQUIRY AS TO DURATION OF BILINGUAL BONUS PROGRAM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the same subject. I learned yesterday that the minister had decided to maintain the bilingual bonus. The Prime Minister realizes this announcement is made on the verge of an electoral campaign, whether we like it or not, and I say this in all objectiveness; however, I suggest Canadians would like to know the exact terms under which the bilingual bonus is maintained. I believe this is in the interest of Canadians and I am banking on the honesty of the Prime Minister when I ask him whether he can tell us how long this bilingualism program will be extended.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as for an announcement made on the verge of an electoral campaign, I would simply remind the hon. member that he and his party were complaining last August that I was announcing cuts on the eve of an electoral campaign. Obviously, in the mind of the hon. member and of many people in this House, we have been on the verge of an election for a year now. However, Mr. Speaker, this cannot prevent the government from governing and trying to save money, as was so aptly stated by the hon. member for the Social Credit Party, and this should not preclude the government from' bettering its system for the promotion of bilingualism, which is the aim of all government members.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
It seems to me that my question is very simple and the Prime Minister knows quite well that today he could inform hon. members and the public about the duration of his program. In view also of the fact, as the Prime Minister is well aware, that about a hundred teachers are to be laid off on April 1, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he is prepared to reassign those hundred teachers since the program is to be extended, and I simply ask him to tell us for how long will that program be maintained. My question is quite clear, and I hope the Prime Minister will give me as clear an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the question is clear, but it is irrelevant. We were dealing with the bilingual bonus. The hon. member, under the guise of a supplementary question, is now asking me about the French teachers. That answer is not the one asked by the hon. member-


Roch La Salle: Answer my question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But that was not the hon. member's initial question. Now he is asking another question. I take notice of it

and I will seek an answer to it. I am not aware of the state of negotiations in that respect.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Yesterday, when I put a question to the minister regarding the distribution of tickets by Loto Canada, the minister replied that the distribution was being done by Loto Canada "in their usual competent way."
Can the minister confirm that last Friday Loto Canada lost 3,800 tickets, worth $38,000, when they fell off the back of a truck as it was leaving Vancouver airport, that none of the tickets have since been recovered, and that Loto officials have no way of telling whether one of the $1 million prizes which may be claimed after the draw comes from among these lost tickets? Is this the standard of care and security that Loto Canada maintains when they are distributing tickets "in their usual competent way"?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly indicates the vast research that the member goes through every day. It is the care and concern of the Brink's company that lost that bag, not Loto Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: That makes it all okay then.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is most reassuring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the minister a question about some of her vast research every day. May I ask the minister whether, with regard to the Miracle Mart deal which was entered into by Loto Canada officials, the minister is prepared to offer Loto Canada tickets to other large retailers? Are they prepared to offer deals on exactly the same terms as she has offered them to Miracle Mart, namely, that she would bypass the wholesalers and send them directly to the retailers at wholesale prices?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I have just been reading another of the factually inaccurate interviews given by the hon. member at various and sundry times in order to downgrade, if he can, the sale of Loto Canada tickets.
I note, also, that he is inaccurate again in the amount of the commission that is paid to the retailers. He mentions 45 cents a ticket and he has not noted that it has gone up to 80 cents. But then, of course, that is like his research into the Brink's
March 22, 1979

truck, which of course is indemnified. I find it passing strange that, regardless of what the hon. member says, he tries continually to downgrade the competence of the wholesalers and retailers of Loto Canada tickets, some of whom are in his own constituency and one of whom gave an interview this morning, if I am correct, saying that the hon. member was incorrect in the statements he made concerning the wholesalers in his own area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. [English]
Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing importance of offshore resources to Atlantic Canada, can the Prime Minister assure the House that it is still government policy to retain Canada's legal rights over these resources-


An hon. Member:: No.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -while maintaining the willingness to share generously with the provinces the management thereof?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the Prime Minister made that abundantly clear in his speech yesterday afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Poor Dionne.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: In view of the current situation, Mr. Speaker, I feel I have a most interesting question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In his annual report which was tabled yesterday, Mr. Bouey, the governor of the Bank of Canada, stated, and I quote:
-it does not seem realistic to expect them to accept-other than very briefly- increases in their money incomes that fall far below increases in consumer prices.
It is because the right hon. Prime Minister came to Cowans-ville and told the people in my riding, "Do not vote for Grafftey, because his party intends to freeze your wages, while the Liberal party refuses to impose a wage and price control program", that I want to ask him the following question: Will
Oral Questions
the right hon. Prime Minister come again to my riding to make a similar statement?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: Zap, you're frozen, Pierre!


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


TRANSPORT
Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the Federal Court's decision that the injunction sought against the Wheat Board by the farmers is invalid because the purchase had already been made, did the minister agree to the purchase of hopper cars, and was his consent required under the legal set-up of the board?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised before and it was explained in the House at the time of the original application by the Wheat Board when they were intending to purchase the cars. I indicated at that time that my consent was not required and that the board had their own authority in this matter.
I had advance knowledge of their consideration of the matter, and of course I realized they had discussed the matter with the elected advisory committee of producers. After public reaction about the hopper cars, I was concerned that they review the matter. The Wheat Board went back to the advisory committee, looked at it again and concluded again that the right thing was to go ahead with the purchase.


Peter Paul Masniuk: Mr. Speaker, could the Wheat Board purchase locomotives, cargo ships and terminal facilities without consulting the farmers whose money they use?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I just informed the hon. member that they indeed consulted the farmers. The hon. member may have overlooked, as he overlooked the earlier answers, that there is an elected body of advisers to the Wheat Board who were elected toward the end of last year; it was the first year of their term. They were consulted. Beyond that, as to what they can or cannot do in precise legal terms, I suggest the hon. member should get legal opinions from his own advisers.

March 22, 1979
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


PROPOSED LAY-OFFS AT WESTINGHOUSE PLANT IN HAMILTON
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the announced plans by Westinghouse Canada that it will close its switch-gear plant in Hamilton, Ontario, laying off 700 workers.
Could the minister tell us whether his department has received from the company any notification of this plan and how it fits in with the much heralded industrial strategy or one of the several industrial strategies announced by the government?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, personally, I am not aware of the intention of Westinghouse. The department may well know about it. I will make inquiries and report to the House.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that the minister has not been informed of something which affects so many workers in a key industrial area of Canada. The sectoral report on the electrical industry indicated that the decentralization of plants, which is supposed to have been one of the reasons Westinghouse is planning on closing its central plant in Hamilton, is one of the critical problems in the Canadian electrical industry and the number of small plants is one of the reasons the electrical industry is no longer internationally competitive.
My supplementary question is: How is this kind of activity on the part of a key company in Canada compatible with the long-term interests of our country as an industrial trading nation?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing to add in answer to the hon. member's supplementary question other than that I will look into the whole problem.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question. It arises from the questions put by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and the hon. member for Red Deer yesterday referring to a survey by the Firearms Advisory Council.
I listened very carefully to the minister's answers. He said that he could answer only if he knew some of the questions. Some of the questions are: "Do you keep any weapons in the house? If so, why do you have weapons? Do you keep handguns in the house?" This research is costing $292,400. The minister said:
-as the hon. member knows, the question of gun control is one of high sensitivity.
Therefore, I should like to ask the minister: Is this survey, which is costing almost $300,000, done in reference to the

enforcement of the gun legislation or in reference to crime control in Canada? If it is done for crime control, will this information be fed to all law enforcement officers in Canada?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, basically, the hon. member is asking two questions. One was asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary; it related to the survey following upon the implementation of the gun control legislation. The other one related to a different study relating to the impact of the media advertising campaign on the reduction in the crime rate. That was the one the hon. member for Red Deer asked yesterday.
Referring to the survey being conducted with reference to gun control legislation, it is in order to ascertain what impact the gun control legislation has; how effective the gun control legislation is; what impact it has in terms of reducing the rate of criminal activity involving firearms; and what reaction there is among gun owners in terms of how they ere increasing their own standards in handling guns and ammunition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things arising from the answers given by the minister is very simple. If a person answers the question, "Do you keep any weapons in the house?" some of the weapons may be restricted and some may be prohibited. I am not endorsing anyone breaking the law, but if innocently-and ignorance of the law is no defence-someone answers that question by saying, "Yes, we keep handguns", and they have not registered them, will the information be turned over to the police, after a voluntary answer given in an investigation costing almost $300,000, and will those people be charged? Is that what the minister is up to? I agree with him that this problem is very sensitive, particularly in rural areas but also in urban areas.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that when a survey is being conducted relating to public reaction to any program, one of the essential conditions attached to the survey is that any information obtained is kept strictly confidential.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I can assure the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Red Deer whose questions yesterday indicated some concern in this regard, that any information sought relating to any survey conducted under contract with my ministry is kept strictly confidential.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, as the minister responsible to parliament for the National Commission on Inflation, regarding recent increases in the retail price of bread.
March 22, 1979

Will the minister ensure that this new commission will investigate immediately these increases to determine their causes and whether they are justified in light of the facts? If they are not, will the commission immediately enter into discussions with any level of distribution found responsible, with a view to having them reduce these prices to a more appropriate level?


John Edward Broadbent: A good idea, Herb.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall communicate with the chairman of the commission and advise him of the hon. member's representations.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In the matter of the Boeing Corporation's admitted double payments to a Canadian agent or agents, can the minister tell the House if the special investigations section of his compliance directorate, or any other section of his department, has done or is now doing an investigation to determine if there has been income tax evasion?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide the hon. member with that information.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to divulge the name of anyone, but surely Canadians have a right to know if taxation department sleuths are investigating this case or, alternatively, if the minister s department is doing nothing or, worse yet, if the case is embarrassing to the government and they are stonewalling it deliberately.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it might well be that some unethical payment has been made by a company to someone. Obviously, the income tax department would be concerned if that recipient was failing to report the income. But if the hon. member is suggesting that Revenue Canada is conducting an examination of a specific citizen or corporation, and that I should be disclosing it in the House, then I think he should consult the law, because he is wrong.
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPACKAGING FOOD ITEMS NOT UP TO LABELLING STANDARDS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Do officials of his department expect struggling retailers, who are not processors and who are not responsible for the size, grade and weight of packages, to remove, regrade and repack at their expense such items as raisins, eggs, potatoes, etc., where they do not meet certain standards? Must retailers be subjected to such harassment, rather than getting at the source of the problem which is the processor?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the principal area of enforcement is with the processors and the manufacturers, but the inspectors in my department have the right and responsibility to enforce the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and other legislation under our department, anywhere in Canada, including the retail level. But we try to concentrate on the processing and manufacturing level.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State (Small Business). Trying to get at the problem is like trying to collect the proverbial feathers which have been scattered to the four winds.
Would the minister tell the House if his department has had any input into that particular program to avoid the build-up of a huge bureaucracy, which seems evident to the people in the country-a system which might be popular with the NDP or a country where the state is supreme? Has his department had any input into this particular program and, if not, who speaks for small business?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, with all those feathers flying around, I am not quite sure what it is that the hon. member is driving at. The hon. member should know that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the responsibility of enforcing the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the minister responsible for the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.
In view of the fact that many young people who are being encouraged to upgrade their skills through Manpower training courses in community colleges for a particular type of employment are finding it very difficult to obtain a position because

March 22, 1979
Oral Questions
they lack the necessary practical experience, I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of this and, if so, what plans does he have to overcome this problem?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in his usual courteous manner, was kind enough to give me notice of this question. The fact of the matter is that we were concerned about young people taking training and then finding no job opportunities at the end of the training or, having taken the training and jobs being available, having no experience.
With respect to the latter part of the question, we embarked upon a co-operative education program with the provinces where funding, although it is on a very small basis at the present time, is taking place to give young people the opportunity to move into the work force while taking the training. With the second aspect we are very carefully monitoring, together with the provinces, the jobs that might be available at the end of training programs to see that people are not wasting time in training for jobs that do not or will not exist in the near future.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Transport in a position to make a categorical statement to the House relative to the conditional suspension of the Air Canada air fare proposal which has been objected to by the United States authorities?
Can the minister now assure the House that the conditional suspension has been lifted, and can he assure Canadian passengers who have subscribed to this lower air fare package that they will be able, in fact, to fly at the low rate effective next Tuesday?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the course of action is very much in the hands of the United States, so I can only report where they stand in relation to their power to suspend or not suspend certain tariffs which have been filed by Canadian air carriers.
As I understand the American position at this moment, they did register a conditional note in relation to the fares filed by Air Canada, but they do not want these to take effect at this stage. Therefore, as I read the situation, the early part of the Air Canada lower fare season will certainly come into effect without impediment if the Americans do not change their position and take different action. At the same time, they have reserved the right to observe what happens to fares which may be filed by American carriers. Hon. members will know that the Canadian Transport Commission has been allowing certain of these fares similar to the Air Canada fares to come into effect when filed by carriers from the United States.

The American note also indicated that they would await the outcome of the discussions between Canada and the United States before taking any further action. Since those discussions are due to start in several weeks, it seems obvious that the first several weeks of the Air Canada program will be all right. Whether the rest of the program will be all right, obviously will depend on the conclusion of those discussions. I have no reason to doubt that they will be all right.


James Aloysius McGrath: A little more smile, Otto.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume from the minister's answer that the suspension has not been lifted. Having regard to the fact that the United States has stated that their suspension will not become effective unless the Canadian authorities unreasonably take action to suspend or otherwise deny a bona fide competitive fare proposal of any United States carrier, and given the fact that there have been nine or ten cases wherein the Canadian authorities have, in fact, suspended applications by American carriers, has there been any change in position relative to those nine or ten proposals put forward by the American airlines?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be my contention that we have not taken any unreasonable action in relation to filings and, therefore, I have optimism about the effectiveness of these Air Canada fares. The truth is that certain fares filed by American carriers in the past six or eight months were subject to suspensive action by the Canadian Transport Commission, and that led to the request by us for discussions with the United States about how to handle these filings in our two countries before our two regulatory agencies. I think we requested those discussions last September or November, but only now have the Americans agreed to having them and they will be held in April.
In the course of looking at the Air Canada fares, the Canadian Transport Commission indicated that certain parallel and similar fares filed by air carries from the United States would indeed be allowed. In other words, they would no longer be suspended and, therefore, they can go into effect. I am sure that the Canadian Transport Commission is ready and willing to look quickly at additional fares which may be filed by American carriers.


CANADIAN UNIVERSITY SERVICE OVERSEAS GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO MAINTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA. CIDA, as the parliamentary secretary knows, is currently reviewing its funding arrangements with CUSo' the Canadian University Service Overseas, an organization which is heavily dependent on CIDA's support for generating its own volunteer resources.
March 22, 1979

My question is: Since CUSO has contracts with many foreign countries and a large pool of committed talent offering its skills at very low salaries, does the parliamentary secretary recognize the need to continue providing government assistance to CUSO to maintain the infrastructure upon which this volunteer talent depends?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government never doubted that the services rendered by CUSO in developing countries are extremely valuable. To give a more direct answer to the hon. member's question, I must simply say that the Canadian International Development Agency is now reviewing very carefully the budget of CUSO, and the minister who is accountable for that agency will announce the decision which will be made in due time.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there were some press reports which were slightly misinterpreted in that they said the duties carried out by CUSO were not in fact very dependable. I believe those press reports were not completely accurate.
If there is a favourable report from the investigation under way by CIDA and the government that CUSO is a dependable organization and that the duties carried out by CUSO are necessary, would the government then confirm that it would be continuing the financing and contracting for that operation?


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I think the duty of CIDA is not to base its judgments on reports from La Presse but on real facts.
I think the budget of CUSO will be judged on its own merits.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture, if I could get his attention, please. I know that the minister has lost a lot of weight and that "Lean Gene" can move quickly nowadays.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question concerns brucellosis, which is a very serious disease carried by cattle. The Canadian Food and Allied Workers' Union has reported that seven workers at a Canada Packers' packing plant in Lethbridge have contacted brucellosis because they have been working at slaughtering diseased animals. The union blames federal inspectors for not enforcing the regulations. Has the minister had a chance to investigate this incident in Lethbridge, Alberta? If he has,
Business of the House
what are the results of that investigation and what protection does he have to offer to the workers in the plant?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we know there is a possibility that this can happen. I do not have the final results of all the investigations, but we are very concerned that this should happen. If a person has a cut on the hand, or something like that, when they are actually doing the slaughtering, there is a possibility that they could contract the disease, but the occurrence is infrequent.
I feel that our controls are quite strict. I am aware of the situation, but I do not have the results of the investigation before me at this time and I do not know if they are finalized.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that the union claims that federal inspectors have not been enforcing the regulations for the past several months, and that because of that the workers have contracted the disease, is the minister contemplating any change in the regulations? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient funds so that there are enough federal inspectors to make sure that incidents like this do not occur again?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about whether this should ever happen. We do not want it to happen.
I am not in a position to prejudge at this time whether our inspectors were properly enforcing the regulations.
I am sure the hon. member knows there is a certain responsibility on the workers themselves to comply with the regulations. These are being adhered to, according to my understanding. If someone was forcing the workers to do something against the regulations and the union contract-they are fully aware of this-I would be very concerned. I will report to the hon. member as soon as I have the final details.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might deal with the business of the House generally. Yesterday there was a discussion in the House between my friend and myself about the Arab boycott bill, C-32. The question was whether the government was going to let it die on the order paper or whether it would be called as a matter of urgency, as the minister said, to be dealt with in one day.
I think I should say through you, Mr. Speaker, that 1 have written a letter to the government House leader which I delivered to him this morning with a copy to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It set forth a proposal whereby the bill could be dealt with in one day using committee of the whole proceedings of the House and limiting debate on second reading, so that amendments could be put, with notice of these amendments being given to the government well in advance of the date. In the letter I suggested the bill be called next Tuesday. I wonder if my friend has had a

March 22, 1979
Business of the House
chance to comment on that, given the urgency of this bill. I think my proposal would meet his requirement of dealing with it all in one day. The government would decide whether they wished to vote against the amendments as they see fit, but at least the House could consider the matter which is of some importance. If he would deal with that, I would be extremely grateful.
While I am on my feet perhaps I could ask if it is his intention to designate next Monday, March 26, as an allotted day. There was some discussion about that but it has not yet been done.
Could the minister also tell us the business for today as well as for next week, as far ahead as he can see in the circumstances?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked me about the business of the House for today which I indicated earlier would be Bill C-49, the Bank Act extension, to be followed by the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act. 1 should like to confirm that next Monday will be an allotted day.
The hon. member raised a question with respect to Bill C-32, on foreign economic boycotts. I am delighted to see in the letter written to me that the opposition has totally reversed the decision taken yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition who on three occasions refused to agree that the bill could be dealt with in one day. If I may borrow a line from the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I have never seen such a conversion since Saul on the road to Damascus.
In any event, having registered that point, I should like to deal specifically with the request of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) transmitted to me earlier today and which I received at 1.20 p.m. Dealing with it directly, and I hope positively, I should like to quote briefly from the point made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. In referring to Bill C-32 he said: "We believe that this bill is urgent".


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Then he went on to say: "What we are trying to determine from the minister is whether he is prepared, in light of the new urgency" to deal with this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Come on, now. You bootlegged a whole speech yesterday and you are doing it today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has proposed that we deal with this bill next Tuesday under certain conditions. I am prepared to call the bill today. I have in my hand the order which reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the first item called under Orders of the Day in this sitting shall be Bill C-32, an act to provide for the reporting of information relating to foreign economic boycott requests;

That the said bill shall, after having been read a second time, be referred to a committee of the whole; and
That, no later than 9:45 p.m. this day, all questions necessary for the disposal of all stages of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) says "gagging again". This is the proposal received in the letter, Mr. Speaker!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton added that he would like some assurance that we could get into committee of the whole. We on this side do not intend to prolong second reading debate, probably one speaker will suffice for us, and then we are prepared to go into committee of the whole.
We are ready to go forward today, Mr. Speaker. Despite the urgency asserted yesterday by his leader, the hon. member suggested next Tuesday. If it would be more convenient for the hon. member we would also be prepared to wait until next Tuesday, but we are ready to go ahead today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is a great day when you have to write a letter to the government House leader to get him off his butt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am rather glad I wrote that letter today because the government has finally been forced to bring this matter to a head. On behalf of this party I am prepared to consent to that motion if it is put. That will allow us to deal with it all in one day, today being a long day. That was my intention in choosing Tuesday, so that we would have a full day. That is quite appropriate. I thank the minister for suddenly coming to life and realizing there is a problem in this country and that this government has failed to deal with it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What a conversion! Where is Joe for the flip-flop?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal now being negotiated on the floor of the House is in line with the position we have taken for a long time, namely, that this bill should be dealt with in one day. If my friends to my right had taken that position yesterday instead of the one they took, we could have agreed to this bill going through yesterday. At any rate, today's proposal is in line with the position we have taken all along. We are prepared to agree that this matter be dealt with today and that the rules proposed be made into an order.
March 22, 1979

As I listened to the statement made by the government House leader, I did not hear him include the suggestion that has been made, namely that at second reading there be only one speaker per party and that speeches be limited to 20 minutes. It seems to me that that ought to be included in the order or in the understanding.
It is also a fact that in the letter which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) wrote to the government House leader, there was a suggestion that, if necessary, there would be a readiness to cancel private members' hour. This matter might not take all day, but if we have the understanding that having gone into this matter today we not have a private members' hour from five o'clock until six o'clock, it would help us deal with this matter satisfactorily. At any rate, what I am saying is: yes, we agree.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain very clearly my party's position in relation to this issue. As the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada in the House, I think I have always contributed very positively to the proper consideration of the bills which are introduced in the House to enable all hon. members to express their views. A few moments ago I heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) talk about the road to Damascus. Mr. Speaker, I for one am not a convert to this position.
I agree about the activities which are necessary if the House of Commons is to administer our country properly. I have said it and repeated it and I will repeat it again. There are 264 of us here, mandated by Canadians to administer the business of the country. Mr. Speaker, if I cannot express my views, I will forget all about it. But if you allow me to express them, I would like to explain very openly to my hon. colleagues of the House the way we see things and say that we are willing to work to allow parliament to be truly effective. As the President of the Privy Council said, we have before us Bill C-49 dealing with banks. The purpose of the bill is to extend the present Bank Act. I for one am not ready to allow it to pass without saying what I think about it. That is also true of my colleagues. This is the third time such a thing happens. We will have to come to a conclusion about all this.
Moreover, Bill C-32 on boycotts is another important bill which should not be passed hastily, but rather considered very seriously so that parliament and then the government can implement it. The bill should be efficient. We also have before us, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 on the excise tax. This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker. I think we should take time to study it seriously and make the necessary amendments so that the legislation which will be part of our statutes is efficient. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am ready as are my colleagues to accept to limit the time we deal with this bill. I agree with that but I want leaders of the House to come to an arrangement; I do not want us to be taken by surprise or on short notice.
I would like the President of the Privy Council to take into consideration the remarks I am making now. I think however that we, not me but others, are bright enough to come to an
Business of the House
honest and serious settlement and that Tuesday could be a day allotted to the opposition, as the Leader of the Opposition announced. I understood he said yes. I understood March 26 would be an opposition day and I am quite willing to accept that on behalf of my colleagues but I would like parliament to be expeditious. Not that I want to have innocent parliamentarians ready to accept anything whatever the conditions may be. I would like the people of my country to get the impression that we are responsible, that we take enough time to study such and such bill but not too much; I would like that we come to a practical conclusion so that the administration of my country be the best of all democratic countries on this human earth.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been proposed that an order be now made. The introduction of the motion to which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has referred would require the consent of the House. Does the President of the Privy Council have the consent of the House to present the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones). Order, please.
Does the President of the Privy Council have the unanimous consent of the House to present his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: There is no consent for the presentation of the motion at the present time. Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


An hon. Member:: You know who said no.


Mr. Paproski:: Roberts said no.


An hon. Member:: It was Len Jones.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Roberts said no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Roberts:: It was your member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise very often in this House on this type of question, but when the question whether there was unanimous consent was raised, a gentleman who is normally my friend in this House, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), shouted out-and I am sure it was recorded-that I withheld unanimous consent. That is a

March 22, 1979
Business of the House
falsehood. It was a colleague of the hon. member who shouted out, and I would stake my seat on it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Poor fellow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege. First, I think it was a very cheap shot made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts).


An hon. Member:: Come on!


An hon. Member:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -to even say that. Second, I believe it was- I think everybody else in the House saw it-the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) who got up and said no.


An hon. Member:: It was the hon. member for Edmonton.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Secretary of State can say what he wants, but I heard him say no also.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Secretary of State by way of a question of privilege has taken the opportunity to make sure that the record reads correctly. I think that matter is now finalized.
Further on House business, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am still putting a question to the government House leader with respect to House business. It has not been granted that we do what was proposed a while ago. But since there is nothing in the world to stop the government from calling order No. 32 when government business is called today, may I ask if the government House leader will call that bill, knowing as he does that from the parties in the House there will be a readiness to facilitate it. In other words, will he take the chance, which I think is worth taking, that if he calls the bill, which is the minister's right, it will be through all stages today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to get an agreement from all members of the House to facilitate the passing of this bill today. The leader of the Social Credit Party has asked for further consultations on this bill. The sensible thing to do now is to revert to the regular business and have those consultations, with a view to dealing with the bill next week. It may be that after a period of reflection on the part of those who may have some doubt about dealing with this bill in one day they will come to a different conclusion.
I have been interested in this bill, as has been evidenced since last January, but we have a great number of competing bills that have to be dealt with. It was in an effort to give this particular bill special attention that I attempted to secure an

agreement to pass it in one day. That agreement has not been forthcoming. I doubt very much if it would be practical at this stage to try to pass it today or tomorrow without that kind of agreement. The hon. leader of the Social Credit Party again nods his head in approval.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for the statement he has just made. I look forward to the consultations with him.
In the fuss that developed, I do not know whether my friend designated next Monday as an allotted day. If he did, I did not hear him. Did he do so? I just want to make sure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did. I can understand why the hon. member did not hear me; he was reeling under some of those verbal punches I gave him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the question period. It concerns a question I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to offshore mineral rights.
I suspect that you, sir, misunderstood the question or possibly did not hear a part of it, because I specifically referred to offshore resources. In your intervention you refused to allow the Prime Minister to reply to my question on the basis that he had dealt with that subject yesterday in his speech. I submit to Your Honour that the Prime Minister did not refer yesterday to offshore mineral resources, and more particularly to resources off the Atlantic coast.
It is true that the Supreme Court has ruled with regard to west coast resources and it is true that there was an agreement signed between the federal government and the governments of the maritime provinces. However, the government of Nova Scotia has since done a flip-flop on that question. Newfoundland has not agreed to the agreement with regard to the management-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -of those resources. Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot allow the hon. member to get into a debate. If in fact I misunderstood the nature of his question, as the House well knows the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a speech yesterday on resource policy. If I was

under the impression that the nature of the question was one that was covered by the Prime Minister and I made an error, 1 will be only too happy to rectify that if I can. I will look at the text of the question, and if the hon. member's contention is right, I will try to see to it that he is able to put that question at the first possible opportunity.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-469, to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 (admission of entrepreneur trainees).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this bill fills an important gap in Canada's immigration policy. Immigrants who have come to Canada and established successful businesses and are ready to expand often feel they will be best served by bringing relatives from their own country to help their business to grow. They have more confidence in, and a better relationship with, relatives. Such arrivals do not take existing jobs from Canadians but in fact may add new jobs. My bill will establish a new category of immigrants, entrepreneur trainees, who come to Canada and will eventually earn landed immigrant status.


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

Mr. Jim Fleming (York West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-470, respecting inclusive air charters.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to discourage operators of inclusive air charter tours from overbooking or otherwise failing to provide the accommodation that is advertised as part of the tour. At present, a tour operator has nothing to lose by gambling, for instance, on the number of hotel rooms available at a destination. The customer is only reimbursed for the value of what he does not receive, not for any inconvenience that results from being stranded. The bill would impose a penalty of three times the value of any part of the tour omitted, payable to the customer.
Order Paper Questions


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

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: for leave to introduce Bill C-53, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 598, 832, 1,164, 1,199, 1,200 and 1,208.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	In (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 to date, what was the total amount of revenue collected by the government from all (i) types of concessions operating at government airports (ii) airlines operating at or flying enroute through government airports?
2.	For the same years, what (a) were the names of the concessions (b) were the names of the principal shareholders (c) was the time limit for each contract and, in each case, were there any renewals without tender and, if so, how many and for what reason?


Otto Emil Lang: March 22, 1979
Order Paper Questions
2. (a) (b) and (c) The information requested is not readily available and to provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the records and accounts of each government airport, which costs in manpower and time would be excessive and prohibitive.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Ministry of State for Multiculturalism finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Ministry planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1.	Departmental budgets and records are not maintained by electoral districts but rather by program or by region. However, officials undertook a special review of all the multiculturalism grant files by federal constituency for fiscal year 197778 and for the current fiscal year up to February 15, 1979 and it was found that no grants had been awarded in the constituency of Richmond.
2.	The amounts granted to any region depend on the number and nature of projects submitted from the region which are evaluated according to the objectives and criteria of the departmental programs concerned, the need of the applicant and the available resources. It is not possible to indicate in advance which projects will be financed in any given area.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue have a complaint monitoring system which covers the Customs Branch and, if so, on what date was it put in place and what is a description of the system?
2.	For each month since the monitoring began or since 1976, how many complaints were registered against customs officials and/or the regulations at (a) the Douglas Border Crossing, British Columbia (b) the Pacific Highway Crossing, British Columbia (c) Vancouver International Airport (d) the Windsor-Ambassador Bridge and Tunnel, Ontario (e) the Niagara Falls-Rainbow Bridge, Ontario (0 Toronto International Airport (g) Mirabel International Airport, Quebec (h) St. Stephen, New Brunswick?
3.	What is the estimated number of vehicles passing through the above points each (a) day (b) night?
4.	What are the three most common complaints?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1.	Yes. A complaint monitoring system was implemented in August, 1978 and includes all complaints replied to by the department's field operations branch since April 1, 1978. The system produces semi-annual reports showing complaints first by work location and secondly by one of the following six classifications: conduct of officer, delays, secondary/enforce-ment/examination, facilities, official languages, clearance of goods.
2.	In the complaint monitoring system, Pacific Highway and Douglas are shown as Pacific Highway; all three bridges in Niagara Falls are grouped as Niagara Falls, and Toronto International Airport includes both terminals one and two.
April	May	June	JulyPacific Highway	5	1	3	3Vancouver International Airport	3	0	0	3Windsor Bridge and Tunnel	0	2	4	3Niagara Falls	0	3	1	1Toronto International Airport	6	4	6	3Mirabel Airport	0	2	1	2St. Stephen, N.B.	0	0	1	03. Statistics on vehicles and flight arrivals are not kept on a day/night basis. The following figures are averages for a 24 hour day. The average number of passengers processed is also included.	Pacific Highway	Vehicles or Aircraft 4,491	Persons 10,520	Vancouver International Airport	31	2,857	Windsor Bridge and Tunnel	18,287	39,677	Niagara Falls	7,126	18,892	Toronto International Airport Terminals One and Two	115	15,824	Mirabel	25	2,234	St. Stephen, N.B.	2,057	4,599	August	September	October	November	December	January2	5	4	1	10	15	2	4	2	3	30	3	3	0	0	11	2	2	0	1	16	4	8	5	6	96	3	5	1	1	10	1	1	0	1	0
4. The three most common categories of complaint are:
(1)	Conduct of officer
(2)	Secondary examination/enforcement
(3)	Clearance of goods


Mr. Herbert: Was a study made of any per capita variance between the Province of Quebec and the rest of Canada of spouses allowance net payments and, if so, to what were such variations attributable?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: no formal study was conducted on Spouse's Allowance per capita variance between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada. However, information indicating this variance does exist: average amount of allowance being received each month by recipients of the Spouse's Allowance pension.
Quebec
Canada
Based on OAS population $
7.06
5.42
[DOT][DOT]Based on SPA population

157.40
152.20
The fact that the average per capita SPA payment in Quebec is higher than the national average per capita SPA payment indicates that SPA recipients in that province have relatively less income from sources other than Old Age Security.
Total Old Age Security population in January, 1979, 2,125,165 [DOT][DOT] Total Spouse's Allowance population in January, 1979, 75,638


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
total domestic exports to the world for each of the past ten years were as follows:
Domestic Exports
1969	71.1
1970	64.7
1971	67.4
1972	69.3
1973	67.3
1974	65.7
1975	64.9
1976	67.3
1977	69.8
1978	70.3
Source: Exports-Merchandise Trade, Statistics Canada Catalogue 65-202, various issues; Exports by Commodities, Statistics Canada Catalogue 65-004, December, 1978.
Canada's total exports (including re-exports) to the United States as a percentage of total exports (including re-exports) to the world for each of the past ten years were as follows:
Mr. Herbert: Was a study made of any per capita variance between the Province of Quebec and the rest of Canada of guaranteed income supplement net payments and, if so, to what were such variations attributable?


Hon.   Monique@: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: no formal study was conducted on Guaranteed Income Supplement per capita variance between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada. However, information indicating this variance does exist: average amount of Guaranteed Income Supplement being received each month by recipients of the Old Age Security pension.
Quebec
Canada
Based on OAS population $
66.29
56.11
[DOT][DOT]Based on GIS population S
104.89
103.16
The fact that the average per capita GIS payment in Quebec is higher than the national average per capita GIS payment indicates that OAS recipients in that province have relatively less income from sources other than Old Age Security.
Total Old Age Security population in January, 1979, 2,125,165 [DOT][DOT] Total Guaranteed Income Supplement population in January, 1979, 1,157,573


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past ten years, what was Canada's trade with the United States as a percentage of its total foreign trade?
Total Exports (including re-exports)
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
71.4
65.1 67.7
69.6
67.6
66.1 65.2
67.6 70.1
70.4
Source: Exports-Merchandise Trade, Statistics Canada Catalogue 65-202, various issues; exports by Commodities, Statistics Canada Catalogue 65-004, December, 1978.
Canada's imports from the United States as a percentage of total imports from the world for each of the past ten years were as follows:
Imports
1969	72.5
1970	71.1
1971	70.2
1972	69.0
1973	70.8
1974	67.3
1975	68.1
1976	68.9
1977	70.4
1978	70.6


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Statistics Canada reports the following: Canada's	various issues; Imports by Commodities, Statistics Canada Catalogue
domestic exports to the United States as a percentage of the	65-007, December, 1978.

March 22, 1979
Points of Order


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 821 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79, by province, how many applications for financial assistance were submitted to the Multiculturalism Directorate and, by year, how many were (i) approved (ii) rejected?
2.	In the case of each approved application, what was the (a) name and address of the organization (b) amount (i) requested (ii) received and were the funds allocated in the form of a grant or a contribution (c) date of approval (d) purpose intended for such funds?
3.	In the case of each rejected application, what was the (a) name and address of the organization (b) amount requested (c) date of submission (d) reason for rejection?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was going to rise yesterday but something happened during the course of points of order and I was not able to draw this to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young) answering today. I am hopeful that I will have more success with him in getting responses to my legitimate, important and urgent questions on the order paper.
The fact simply is this. I have to persist in bringing this matter to the attention of the parliamentry secretary in order to get a response to these important questions. I refer to questions I placed on the order paper with regard to the use of government aircraft by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the cabinet during the two-month period prior to the byelection. The parliamentary secretary will know that I am referring to questions Nos. 207 and 208 which read as follows:
Has the Liberal Party of Canada paid for the use of any government aircraft in the period August 16 to October 16, 1978, in connection with the byelections held on October 16, 1978 and, if so, in what amount for each trip?

Did the Prime Minister or Members of the Cabinet, during the period August 16 to October 16, 1978, make use of government aircraft and, if so, what was the total cost and what was the destination, on each occasion?
I keep raising this matter because as each day goes by we get closer and closer to a general election. The problem is this. If the government persists in not answering these questions before the general election, there can be only one conclusion: the government would be embarrassed by revealing that information. In the interests of protection whatever remains of the reputation of this government, I ask the parliamentary secretary to try and get the answers to those questions and to others that I have placed on the order paper.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to questions I have had on the order paper for three sessions. A period of two or three years has elapsed and there has been no attempt to give me any type of answer even though individuals from the department have contacted my office for clarification of some of the questions I asked.
I wish to underscore what the previous member stated to this chamber. It is obvious the government is very touchy when it comes to questions about passes for travelling, not only when they relate to members of the cabinet but also when they affect presidents of Crown corporations and commissioners. My purpose was to find out how often persons in these positions have travelled on special passes issued to them. I reinforce the appeal made to the parliamentary secretary by the hon. member in the hope of having these questions answered before an election.


Roger Carl Young: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) knows how easy I am to deal with and how disposed I am to provide answers to these questions. I may say I have never been embarrassed by any of the answers I have had to bring forward. I have relayed the concerns expressed on this matter to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), and I am sure we will do our best to make these answers available as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 22, 1979



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-49, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill I am now introducing is short and very straightforward. The purpose of it is to extend the powers of banks incorporated under the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act to April 1, 1980, by amending section 6 of those pieces of legislation. Under the present legislation, Mr. Speaker, the powers of banks to operate as banks would expire on March 31, 1979.

Bill C-15, the Banks and Banking Law Revision Act, has been under consideration by committees of the Senate and the House since November of last year, although the bill was presented in the same form to the House of Commons in June, 1978. An extension of the present Bank Act is necessary because there is not sufficient time between now and March 31 to permit a careful examination of the committees' reports, and to consider any changes that should be made to the proposals in Bill C-15 in response to the committees' recommendations.
I share the disappointment of various members of the House and of the many interested parties who have indicated their desire to have the revised banking legislation enacted as soon as possible. However, I do feel that the decennial revision of the banking legislation should not be carried out without careful review and extensive consultation.
The parliamentary committees have devoted a great deal of their time to examining this important and extremely complex legislation. Interested parties have had every opportunity to submit written briefs and to be heard by the committees. The entire revision process, which began in September, 1974, when the then minister of finance invited interested parties to submit briefs on the subject, has been time consuming but most worth-while. While it has become evident that revised banking legislation cannot be enacted before March 31, 1979, I would hope that it will be passed as soon as possible thereafter.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the committee on banking affairs who worked very attentively on the revision of this legislation. I would also thank the members of the Senate committee on the same matter.
I had hoped to get the report of the committee a little sooner, at the beginning of the session. We had planned in the fall to introduce it in mid or late February which would have enabled us to pass it before the end of the session. Unfortu-
Bank Act
nately circumstances and the work of the committee of the House did not allow them to report to me before Tuesday of this week. I am going to examine immediately the reports of the two committees, both of the House and the Senate, and I hope to move amendments to Bill C-15 and come back within a few weeks. That is why I hope Bill C-49 can be passed without much controversy because it is a very consequent piece of legislation in view of the circumstances.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it was touch and go whether we would go on with this bill today.
I was anticipating that in the present circumstances we might either go on with the boycott bill or with the bill which has already been started, Bill C-38, the exicse tax bill, which is a matter of much greater interest to most members of the House. However, Bill C-49 is before us and, as far as I am concerned, I hope we will stick to its provisions which call for an extension of one year of the Bank Act.
I should like to go into a little more detail, though, with regard to what has happened and why we find ourselves in our present situation; I believe this could be instructive not only to ourselves but to all concerned. What does one do when the House has to consider a decennial revision of the Bank Act in the context of significant changes and developments affecting the economy and industrial activity in this country? I took part in the previous revision of the Bank Act which began in 1964 and finished in 1967. For that reason I feel no compunction of conscience should the study of these revisions provoke any adverse comment from anyone except those who think that, having once proposed something, it should be considered for five minutes and then accepted.
I recall that back in 1972-73, as finance critic for the opposition I recommended to the then minister of finance, Mr. John Turner, that he should convince his cabinet colleagues to appoint a royal commission on the subject of banking and financial institutions in this country. The Porter commission, which was appointed in 1959 or 1960, reported about 1964. That commission did very good work.
We are not legislating now for the past but for the decade to come-the coming two decades as far as our banking system is concerned. The subject matter we reviewed in the sixties and that w' ich we are reviewing in the seventies are as different as chalk trom cheese where banking and related matters are concerned. The evolution of business activities, business techniques and so forth has been such that we are no longer in the same field. There was always a constant danger of limiting one's thinking to what had gone past. I accused the committee several times of legislating back to the use of quill pens or for the manufacture of horses' collars when everybody is using automobiles.
As a result of strong representations made in the committee by myself and others, a general consensus was reached that we would legislate for the present and for the future. However, we did not have the material, studies and testimony from all sides we would have required. Therefore, I fault my old friend John

March 22, 1979
Bank Act
Turner for not setting up that royal commission so that we could have the benefit of a good report, which might have taken three years to present. It would have served the committee in the other House as well as ours. Incidentally, the committees finished their studies approximately three or four days apart.
There was a great deal of consensus among the members who attended, members of the official opposition and the government party. Rarely did we see members of the New Democratic Party; I do not think they attended more than four or five sessions. Possibly they attended a few at which witnesses appeared, but beyond that and with respect to the preparation of the report we did not see them. We did not see others very much either. On the other hand, people did get to know the subject. The committee considered Bill C-57 last June and set a schedule for testimony during the fall months. That schedule was interrupted. I think the parliamentary secretary will agree that it was interrupted because the government decided to put the session to an end and start a new session.
I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will agree that the committee did lose about a month of momentum as a result of that. That was a consequence of a government decision. Perhaps that decision was made for valid reasons, but that was one of the consequences. We did hear all the witnesses. The committee split into subcommittees to hear testimony. Questioning was full and we received a good reaction from the public.
As far as the recommendations of the committee were concerned, the report took a little longer, I think because members decided to be extraordinarily careful. Some sixty recommendations were made. I will not go into the subject matter of the recommendations; I think that would be irrelevant.
The question now is why we are extending the Bank Act for one year. There will be some rather difficult consequences. There will be competition from foreign banks and uncertainty on the part of Caisses Populaires. There will be delay in the setting up of the proposed Canada payments association. There will be some difficulty with regard to some Caisses Populaires and credit unions. There will be other uncertainties which have not been resolved. The Senate report and the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs each have about 60 recommendations, in addition to which some time before Christmas the government presented some 70 technical amendments.
Some of them were not so technical, but the bill has to go back to square one, and even if the committees had reported in mid-February there was no way the government could have considered the two reports. I do not think the Minister of Finance has a closed mind on this subject, but whichever government carries out the redrafting of the Bank Act will have to consider the recommendations of the committee of the other House and ours on the subject, what the act should

contain and particularly certain definitions which will have some rather far-reaching consequences. All this will entail some deep rethinking. Once the thinking has been completed there will have to be legal drafting and translation. Then there will be the introduction of a bill and debate at second reading, which there has not been in this House.
If there were to be a second reading debate on a bank bill in this House, I am sure it would be long and wide-ranging because every member of this House feels that he is the most inspired critic of the banking system, depending, of course, on when he had his last conversation with his favourite bank manager about the size of his overdraft. Then there would have to be consideration in committee. That consideration would not necessarily entail public hearings, but there were public hearings with respect to the previous proposed revision.
The Canadian Bankers' Association represents those organizations most affected, and it made appearances. I think perhaps there were some others, but the list was much smaller than on previous occasions. After the committee stage there would be a report stage. The previous bill was some 360 pages long and affected five different acts. In fact, it set up one new act, the proposed Canadian payments association act.
There would have been no way within six weeks of sitting time, even if we had dedicated all our sitting time to consideration of the Bank Act, that we would have concluded our business in time, passed the bill at third reading, had it go to the other place for consideration and had it in place in time for the banks to take the necessary positions so that as of April 1 they could have carried on business. That was just not in the cards, and in this regard I am glad to see that the government has not chosen, for example, October 1 next, but instead April 1, 1980. I think that is a realistic date under any circumstances because consideration of the Bank Act will have to fit in with many other matters which have to come before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Once being seized of a matter a committee cannot set it aside or have part of its membership consider other matters.
I had to laugh at the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) today when he alleged that the opposition House leader reeled under the shock of his observations. The man who is most responsible for the horse and buggy pace of this House with regard to legislation is the present Deputy Prime Minister. Since 1976 he has consistently refused to refer certain matters of procedure which Mr. Speaker has indicated should be considered and on which there has been general agreement on both sides of the House that they should be put into practice at least for a trial period to see how they work. However, unless and until we get rid of the self-inflicted hair shirt constructed by the predecessor of the Minister of Finance when he was government House leader back in 1969 that standing committees consider legislation and estimates at the same time, there will be no way to consider legislation other than to go from the House to the standing committees.
March 22, 1979

The finance comm'ttee has its plate way overloaded, what with the estimates from five departments and, usually, not the majority share but a very large proportion of the legislation that comes before this chamber. Surely to goodness we have several options open to us to change the procedure whereby committees could be freed of the entanglements of a number of representations.
I will not go into the whole picture, but suffice it to say that we are working under a system that was thought to be copied from the British back in the 1960s. They carried it for a short while and then tossed it into the can because it was not worth it, and now they are well away from it. The same with this particular bill. I hope that if in due course we have to do this again, if we have to do it with other pieces of legislation that have sunset clauses or make a major impact in the House, we will have special legislative committees to deal with them. Members can move from committee to committee, but committees cannot move from committee to committee, nor can you shift legislation from committee to committee if there is an overloading.
All right, we have reached this point and the question is: Is it to be recommended to the House that the Quebec Savings Banks Act be extended to March 31, 1980? In my view it is and it always was. Even when I participated with the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance in setting the date of March 31, 1979, I was told that I did not think it was being realistic. I admit that, like everyone else, I was expecting an election in the interval. We set this date over a year ago and I expected there would be an election but that we would take care of the situation by an extension of the bill in the interval. The events overtook the calendar.
I am not going to fault the present minister. I will say there were two reasons. First of all, I think the former minister, Mr. Turner, was unwise, or it was unfortunate that he was unsuccessful if he tried to convince his colleagues to set up a royal commission on banking. Second, I would fault the minister's predecessor, Mr. Macdonald, the former member for Rose-dale, in that he refused in 1976 or the beginning of 1977 to refer the contents of the green paper to the committee on some imagined ground that there would be a possibility of two debates. I am sure there would not have been. It would have shortened the debate and we would have cleared away a lot of the underbrush; and who knows, at this time we might already have had a new Bank Act on the way to being implemented, one that is in position for the banks to carry on. It seems to me it is as clear as that.
I will not hassle any particular person while using the benefits of 20-20 hindsight, but I am going to say that my colleagues on the finance committee worked endlessly from Monday nights all the way through to Friday mornings sitting three and four sessions a day on Tuesday and Thursday and Wednesday afternoons, in order to accommodate the testimony of the interested public, and particularly to consider the massive material and to formulate the recommendations they have made.
Bank Act
I was glad to co-operate with them and to work with them, and I know the same may be said of the other place. You develop a sort of kinship and the satisfaction of working with your colleagues on both sides of the House to achieve a document which was unanimous in so far as those persons present and voting for its acceptance were concerned. It was a genuine effort at consensus.
I will say this: We are not going to claim that we are the greatest geniuses in the world-some of our provisions can be criticized by any number of people, depending upon their vested interests and their particular viewpoint-but, on the other hand, considering it from here, within our time limitation I think we can be justifiably proud of the work done by many of our colleagues, those who were there regularly as well as those who came sporadically to fill in and to make special contributions when they were particularly interested; and the same may be said of those on the government side.
Similarly, we worked well over a year on the revision of the Income Tax Act. Members develop, I think, the quality that is required by intelligent individuals who are out to achieve a certain purpose in trying to put forward the best possible package for their colleagues to consider. This we hope we have done and we commend it to the government.
I do not want to go into any particular phase of the bill and I hope no one else will. At present the question is simply: Do we extend the Bank Act until March 31, 1980? To me that is the pertinent subject. I hope we can do that and I am ready to go on to Bill C-38.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that the pertinent subject was whether or not we would extend the Bank Act for another year, he managed to spend considerable time talking about a number of other subjects, which he had every right to do because they related to the question of what is going on at the moment in the finance committee and the recommendations that have been made by that committee to the government on the Bank Act.
I want to indicate to the minister that we will not give him any trouble with the extension of the Bank Act, because we realize that the revisions to the Bank Act which have been recommended by the committee, and to which we in our party have taken exception and filed a minority report, will not, of course, be discussed in the short life which is left to this parliament. If I may say so, the shorter the life, the better, so far as we are concerned.
Be that as it may, I want to make some comments with respect to the recommendations of the committee on the Bank Act, to put on the record what are our objections to those recommendations and what are our concerns with respect to the policies of the government and the policies that have been recommended by the committee.
There are three principal objections that we have to the recommendations that have come forward from the committee. The first objection we have is that we do not agree with and do
4418

March 22, 1979
Bank Act
not accept the argument or the premise that foreign banks should be allowed to incorporate in Canada.
Our second major disagreement with the committee is that we do not think incorporation should take place outside of parliament. We think incorporation should continue to be something which is authorized by a special act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest the hon. member should return to the terms of the bill rather than the committee report.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I hope Your Honour will allow me exactly the same latitude allowed the hon. member for Edmonton West.
Our third concern respecting the policy in the Bank Act is that we are concerned banks should be seen as instruments of public policy. As such they should be required to make full disclosure and have limitations placed on their profits.
It seems to me these concerns are great. I do not want to take a lot of time debating them or their merits. I want simply to indicate to the government that it would not be possible to bring the Bank Act before parliament without my party exercising, by every means at its disposal, its opposition to those three principles.
We should have a democratic Bank Act, one concerned with the role of banks in the entire economic picture of the country. It should be concerned with guaranteeing the rights and controls of parliament. It should be concerned with the need for full disclosure of information, particularly in the area of foreign loans and loans to countries which are not democratic and are imposing great hardship on their citizens. These matters should be incorporated into the Bank Act. Also we are concerned deeply that the whole question of bank profits should be discussed and considered by the government. We know the limit on interest rates was abandoned in 1967, but since that time I suggest profits have gone too far.
When the government wants to get a piece of legislation through, for example Bill C-14, the unemployment insurance bill, it does not have a great deal of trouble marshalling the votes needed in committee. It is highly ironic. The government did not consult with anyone. It did not consult a number of witnesses. It did not have separate unions, each making a deputation to the committee and going through in great detail what their concerns were.
The government went through that report very quickly, but when it comes to legislation such as the Bank Act, the borrowers and depositors protection act or the competition bill, the government has failed to act. It should have brought in legislation in 1974 or earlier to deal with the problem of competition. It should have brought in legislation and stuck with it to provide information and protection to borrowers and depositors, the people taking out mortgages and loans. It should have provided protection and information on being able to pay off loans and mortgages early without paying an extra
[Mi. Rae.)
sum or penalty fee to the banks or trust companies in question. That type of legislation for the protection of Canadian consumers admittedly would have cost the banks and financial institutions some money and trouble. A competition bill would not have been to the liking of our large corporations because it would have broken some of them up and forced them to compete with each other, something they are not used to. But that type of legislation does not get the attention of the government. It does not get the drive and determination of the government. It does not get the determination of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The government is prepared to listen to objections, concerns, deputations, and to be lobbied, compromised, whittled away and whittled down so that there is no competition bill before the House at the present time. Also there is no borrowers and depositors protection act or a democratic bank act at the present time. When the government wants to get legislation through which affects the little people in the country, it can do it as quickly as it wants and it does it as quickly as it wants. It imposes closure and everything else. But when it comes to matters affecting the financial institutions, the government dawdles, delays and meanders its way through the legislation, and there is no clear indication of its public policy and determination.
The government is making a major mistake. It has allowed itself to avoid some very important political and economic questions and decisions which would work to the advantage of Canadian consumers. We are concerned about the Bank Act currently before the committee. We have a minority report which the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) filed. It is before the House and the press. The government knows our concerns. I do not think our concerns are limited to my party; I am sure they are the concerns of others.
There is not a consensus in the country to allow foreign banks to take over. Certainly there is not a consensus to allow banks to withhold critical information and not be subject to profit controls, particularly when it is known that their profits last year were $1 billion. A good deal of the reason for the massive increase in profits simply is the spread banks have been allowed to charge their customers, the difference they have been allowed to collect between the Bank of Canada rate and the rate they are charging their customers. Something should be done about that. Something should be done about the question of foreign ownership in Canada. The method proposed by the government will have the opposite effect.
Returning to Bill C-49, we are not opposed to the extension. If anything, we would like to see a longer extension because of the discussions which might be necessary to get the government to change its mind. We are concerned on behalf of the consumer about the lack of legislation in the financial field. We do not think the consumer has enough information or protection when he goes to a bank or trust company. We do not think there is enough competition in the Canadian marketplace to give the consumer the sovereignty he deserves. The government has had five years to act, but it has not produced the type of legislation which will protect consumers. Now it
March 22, 1979

comes to us and says that it needs another year to revise the Bank Act. The government has a lot to learn. The economic questions, the questions facing Canadian consumers, are most important ones. It is time for the government to come home, to look at these problems and give them the attention and the commitment that they require.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as I said this afternoon during the debate on the business of the House, I do not want to delay unduly consideration of the various bills that the government wishes to put forward in this place. However, Bill C-49 which is now before us is the exact replica of other measures requesting the extension of the Bank Act for another year which were presented to us in 1977. I remember there was a debate at that time. Finally, the bill was adopted and the Bank Act was extended for a year.
In 1978, the government introduced another measure, Bill C-16, to extend the act for a specific period through clause 1(6) which reads:
(a) if parliament sits on at least twenty days during the month of March, 1979,-
We are now in March, 1979-
-the bank may carry on the business of banking until the first day of April, 1979, and no longer;
Subsection (b) reads as follows:
If parliament does not sit on at least twenty days during the month of March, 1979, the bank may carry on the business of banking until the sixtieth sitting day of parliament next thereafter, and no longer.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine that with Bill C-49 the government is giving notice to the House that parliament will sit on at least twenty days during the month of March, 1979, and that, consequently, it must introduce a bill to extend the Bank Act in our country. Mr. Speaker, the content of Bill C-49 is strangely similar to that of Bill C-16 which the House passed in 1978. It contains exactly the same provisions, which means that the chartered banks could keep operating whether parliament is dissolved or not.
Mr. Speaker, it will come as a surprise to no one that the member for Bellechasse objects to the powers chartered banks are given to translate into money the nation's credit. I find it extraordinary that we should have on top of the public monetary system, a parallel monetary system. If this sort of thing can go on, it is simply because Canadians are not aware of the way our monetary system operates in Canada, which is not surprising.
About a week ago, I met a brave 59-year old public servant who works at Statistics Canada and has always dealt with figures. I will not name him, even if I remember his name, but he told me this: How is it that, at 59 years of age, I still do not know exactly the nature and the operation of our monetary
Bank Act
system, why the dollar exists? He is not the only one, Mr. Speaker. A great many Canadians get up in the morning to go to work and earn dollars. They do not ask themselves, during the day, who created the dollar. But still it was created somewhere, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian dollar had its origin neither in heaven nor in hell; it was created somewhere and it is important to understand its role. Some hon. members, who may have nothing better to say, will think and say, in jest: "Ah! those social crediters always think and talk in terms of dollars".
Mr. Speaker, at my age, with all the years I have behind me, 1 can prove that as a Canadian citizen I have not worked only for money. The large family that I gave to my country, the acres of land that I cleared for cultivation so they would produce to feed the population of my country clearly show that for my part I did not work only for money. I must however admit that the monetary system of my country has a role to play, and this system, and this is a great matter of concern for me, should be under the sole jurisdiction of our government through its institutions. I have never accepted, Mr. Speaker, and I do not accept today that the credit of our country should be controlled by private institutions for their own benefit and that we, Canadians, should be left to fare as best we can by borrowing right and left at excessive interest rates. We are burdening our children with many years of debt to pay for the services that we need today when they will themselves have to pay for other services in 30, 40 or 50 years.
Where are we going, Mr. Speaker? The Canadian parliament must ask this question. I shall try to answer it, and if I am wrong, since we are 264 members of parliament, there will certainly be someone intelligent enough among the 263 others to show me why I am wrong. Mr. Speaker, the credit of the nation is created by someone. First of all, what does the word credit mean? This is important. Before laughing at those who use this word, we should first try to understand what is the real credit of the nation. Who creates it? Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the word credit comes from a latin word which means "I believe, I have confidence".
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I have confidence that a sufficient number of my fellow citizens are able through their work and their intelligence to produce the things I need for myself and my dependants. Their credit means that there is a large enough number of my fellow citizens able to produce the essential services that I and my dependants need, whether they are my wife, my children or others. I have confidence that our activities in general can produce the services required to meet my daily needs. Mr. Speaker, to my mind, this is what credit really means.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if that true credit is made up of our daily activities why could the government not have an institution capable of monetizing credit, making it tangible with dollars, so we can exchange those services and those things among ourselves? Why do we have to go and beg a private

March 22, 1979
Bank Act
institution legally incorporated under a law of this parliament, the chartered banks legislation, allowing us under section 72 to monetize the credit of this country?
The rest of the Bank Act I do not quarrel with. Mr. Speaker, banks operate very smoothly. They keep exemplary accounting. They have extraordinary employees. Indeed, I have a son-in-law who is the manager of a branch in one of our banks and is doing a great job. He earns his living like everyone else and I am proud of him. I never discuss his work, Mr. Speaker. As far as the present legislation is concerned, he is like everyone else working, he is part of the system. It is not people that I quarrel with. It is the system. Mr. Speaker, it is with the discretionary power the chartered banks of this country are given. What does section 72 say? I would like all Canadians to remember that extraordinary power. I will quote so as not to make any mistake: cash and secondary reserves. It means the law determines that banks have to keep in cash and secondary reserves at the Bank of Canada a quantity of bank notes as safeguard. Section 72(1) says:
The bank shall maintain a cash reserve in the form of notes of, and deposits in Canadian currency with, the Bank of Canada, and such reserve shall be not less on the average during any month than an amount equal to
(a)	twelve per cent of such of its deposit liabilities as are payable on demand
in Canadian currency; and
(b)	four per cent of such of its deposit liabilities as are payable after notice in
Canadian currency.
Mr. Speaker, that is the law as it stands. The purpose of Bill C-49 is to determine whether we are going to continue to maintain that discretionary power to create money. It does not matter if it is just figures in a deposit account with chequing privileges.
This week with my colleagues I met young people from the Canadian Forum, students from all parts of the country. I was invited, like my colleagues, to make a speech before them. I was invited to tell them if I really believe that the Parliament of Canada controls the administration of our country. Honestly, I had to tell them that, unfortunately, the Parliament of Canada does not control the administration of my country because of the fact that, as we know, there are three official powers under our constitution, but there is also another power, a super power that is not our constitution but that transcends the three powers that I shall enumerate. First, the legislative power, we the 264 elected representatives assembled in this House. We are here to legislate, to pass laws that will guide our action, the action of Canadians throughout the country and our day to day activities so that we shall respect each other and not be deprived of our rights by the abuses of others. This is what is called the legislative power.
To implement the measures passed by the legislative power, an executive power is obviously needed. We cannot all be part of it. So the executive includes the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien),

one of the senior ministers, who is particularly responsible for matters directly concerning our pocketbooks and this is why we call him Minister of Finance. And there are other ministers, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott), responsible for the implementation of legislation and for taking in our pocketbooks the money needed to implement the laws passed by the Parliament of Canada. He is responsible for the implementation of those laws at the national revenue level. His name is not important. Then the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) responsible for the implementation of laws passed by this parliament to allow each Canadian to benefit from social legislation, old age security and welfare in co-operation with the provinces. This is why it is called the executive. There is also the judiciary responsible for ensuring a standard of justice in the administration of laws. And if an individual, if a Canadian considers that his rights have been infringed upon he is entitled to go before the courts and, until now, I have confidence in the integrity of our courts and the administration of justice.
There might sometimes be offences about which no truly proper decision can be made because there is no evidence. It is also human that there might be decisions which are not entirely faultless. It is not for me to mention particular cases, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that I have confidence in the judiciary, and I consider it my duty to say so. But on top of all that, something which is not provided for in the constitution, there is a super power that I call the monetary super power, and that super power does not care about our constitution, it does not care about anything we might say in this House, because it is completely above any legislation we might adopt, it does not care about the constitution and what we might think, just as a bandit does not care about the law.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I say that Bill C-49 to extend the Bank Act is very important. I do not want to blame anybody, but I do not understand why it does not attract more interest, because it is the key. I would like to prove what I am saying. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, when I am finished I would ask that the table I have in my hand be included in today's record. I would be very pleased, but it is your decision. According to the act presently in force, according to section 72-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fambert) have permission to include in today's Hansard the document to which he is referring?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's note: The document referred to above is as follows.]
March 22, 1979

Bank Act
MULTIPLE	BANK ACCOUNTING	LEGAL BANK MONOPOLY
Albert goes to the bank to make a $1,000 cash deposit. He is immediately credited $1,000. The bank legally can make the immediate operations that follow. It lends $880 to John against a promissory note or in the form of a line of credit, after setting aside a $120 cash reserve (12 per cent on $1,000). Those $120 will serve as liquid legal reserves with the Bank of Canada to guarantee the $880 loan made to John.
LET US CARRY ON THE PROCESS OF CREDIT EXPANSION:
Operation No.	Cash	Per cent reserve	Legal reserve with Bank of Canada	Credit legally available for lending	Bank asset	Per cent interest	Interest	Total profit (principal + interest)$	%	$	$	$	%	$	$1 2	1000.00	12	120.00	880.00	1000.00 880.00	13	114.40	994.403	880.00	12	105.06	774.94	774.94	13	100.74	875.684	774.94	12	92.99	681.95	681.95	13	88.65	770.605	681.95	12	81.83	600.12	600.12	13	78.02	678.146	600.12	12	72.01	528.11	528.11	13	68.65	596.767	528.11	12	63.37	459.74	459.74	13	59.76	519.508	459.74	12	55.17	404.57	404.57	13	52.59	457.169	404.57	12	48.55	356.02	356.02	13	46.28	402.3010	356.02	12	42.72	313.90	313.90	13	40.80	354.7011	313.80	12	37.67	276.23	276.23	13	35.91	312.1412	276.23	12	33.14	243.09	243.09	13	31.60	274.6913	243.09	12	29.17	213.92	213.92	13	27.81	241.7314	213.92	12	25.67	188.25	188.25	13	24.47	212.7215	188.25	12	22.59	165.56	165.56	13	21.53	187.0916	165.56	12	19.87	145.69	145.69	13	18.94	164.6317	145.69	12	17.48	128.21	128.21	13	16.64	144.8818	128.21	12	15.38	111.83	111.83	13	14.54	126.0719	111.83	12	13.42	98.41	98.41	13	12.79	111.2020	98.41	12	11.81	86.60	86.60	13	11.26	97.8621	86.60	12	10.39	76.21	76.21	13	9.91	86.1222	76.21	12	9.14	67.07	67.07	13	8.72	75.7923	67.07	12	8.05	59.02	59.02	13	7.67	66.6924	59.02	12	7.08	51.94	51.94	13	6.75	58.6925	51.94	12	6.23	45.71	45.71	13	5.94	51.6526	45.71	12	5.48	40.23	40.23	13	5.23	45.4627	40.23	12	4.82	35.41	35.41	13	4.60	40.0128	35.41	12	4.25	31.16	31.16	13	4.05	35.2129	31.16	12	3.74	27.42	27.42	13	3.56	30.9830	27.42	12	3.29	24.13	24.13	13	3.14	27.2731	24.13	12	2.89	21.24	21.24	13	2.76	24.0032	21.24	12	2.51	18.73	18.73	13	2.43	21.1633	18.73	12	2.24	16.49	16.49	13	2.14	18.6334	16.49	12	1.98	14.51	14.51	13	1.88	16.3935	14.51	12	1.74	12.77	12.77	13	1.66	14.4336	12.77	12	1.53	11.24	11.24	13	1.46	12.7037	11.24	12	1.35	9.89	9.89	13	1.28	11.1738	9.89	12	1.18	8.71	8.71	13	1.13	9.8438	8.71	12	1.04	7.67	7.67	13	1.00	8.6739	7.67	12	0.92	6.75	6.75	13	0.88	7.6340	6.75	12	0.81	5.94	5.94	13	0.77	6.7141	5.94	12	0.71	5.23	5.23	13	0.68	5.9142	5.23	12	0.63	4.60	4.60	13	0.60	5.2043	4.60	12	0.55	4.05	4.05	13	0.53	4.5844	4.05	12	0.49	3.56	3.56	13	0.46	4.0245	3.56	12	0.43	3.13	3.13	13	0.41	3.5446	3.13	12	0.37	2.76	2.76	13	0.36	3.1247	2.76	12	0.33	2.43	2.43	13	0.32	2.7548	2.43	12	0.29	2.14	2.14	13	0.28	2.4249	2.14	12	0.26	1.88	1.88	13	0.24	2.1250	1.88	12	0.23	1.65	1.65	13	0.21	1.86
March 22, 1979
Bank Act
Legal	Credit
Operation No.	Cash	Per cent reserve	reserve with Bank of Canada	legally available for lending	Bank asset	Per cent interest	Interest	Total profit (principal + interest)$	%	$	$	$	%	$	$51	1.65	12	0.20	1.45	1.45	13	0.19	1.6452	1.45	12	0.17	1.28	1.28	13	0.16	1.4453	1.28	12	0.15	1.13	1.13	13	0.15	1.2854	1.13	12	0.14	0.99	0.99	13	0.13	1.1255	0.99	12	0.12	0.87	0.87	13	0.11	0.9856	0.87	12	0.10	0.77	0.77	13	0.10	0.8757	0.77	12	0.09	0.68	0.68	13	0.08	0.7658	0.68	12	0.08	0.60	0.60	13	0.08	0.6859	0.60	12	0.07	0.53	0.53	13	0.07	0.6060	0.53	12	0.06	0.47	0.47	13	0.06	0.5361	0.47	12	0.06	0.41	0.41	13	0.05	0.4662	0.41	12	0.05	0.36	0.36	13	0.05	0.4163	0.36	12	0.04	0.32	0.32	13	0.04	0.3664	0.32	12	0.04	0.28	0.28	13	0.04	0.3265	0.28	12	0.03	0.25	0.25	13	0.03	0.2866	0.25	12	0.03	0.22	0.22	13	0.03	0.2567	0.22	12	0.03	0.19	0.19	13	0.02	0.2168	0.19	12	0.02	0.17	0.17	13	0.02	0.1969	0.17	12	0.02	0.15	0.15	13	0.02	0.1770	0.15	12	0.02	0.13	0.13	13	0.02	0.1571	0.13	12	0.01	0.12	0.12	13	0.01	0.1372	0.12	12	0.01	0.11	0.11	13	0.01	0.1273	0.11	12	0.01	0.10	0.10	13	0.01	0.1174	0.10	12	0.01	0.09	0.09	13	0.01	0.1075	0.09	12	0.01	0.08	0.08	13	0.01	0.0976	0.08	12	0.01	0.07	0.07	13	0.01	0.0877	0.07	12	0.01	0.06	0.06	13	0.01	0.0778	0.06	12	0.01	0.05	0.05	13	0.01	0.0679	0.05	12	0.01	0.04	0.04	13	0.00	0.04
Since on $0.04 the bank would make no more profit, it is assumed it would not go any further than that amount. Total interests collected: $732.85 Total gross profit, principal + interest: $8240.47
Net profit (gross profit less 9 per cent interest paid on deposits: $743.96) $7496.51
The $1000 therefore were expanded by a $7507.62 amount bringing profits to people not owning it!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I wish to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and also all my colleagues for allowing me to include this table.
This table is questionable, yet it was prepared with honest intentions and if they can prove that I am mistaken, I then agree. Yet, as shown in this document, Mr. Speaker, if I go to the bank to deposit $1,000 in bank notes, like the one I have right here, created by the Bank of Canada because the other banks in Canada are not allowed to print them any more, only the Bank of Canada has this privilege. Then, if I go to the bank, it does not matter which one, and if I deposit $1,000 in bank notes, according to the law, the bank must deposit in its
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
legal reserves at the Bank of Canada the amount of $120 and it may immediately create a deposit of $880 for another Canadian. Therefore, the bank would pay interest on the $1,000 I have deposited and it will receive interest on the $880 deposit that the law allows it to create.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. Minister of Finance on a point of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member has with him the document to which he refers. According to the Standing Orders of this House, he must table this document. Maybe he should also table his $10?
March 22, 1979


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am most happy with the reaction of the Minister of Finance. I have had to make sacrifices in my life, when I needed these $10 and did not have them, when as a child I had to buy a three-cent stamp in order to be able to mail a letter to my mother and did not even have that much money, even though I was working 16 hours a day. Today, thanks to Providence, which has enabled me to come and sit in this House to speak out before my country in its highest forum, what I feel and what I wish for the future of our young generation, if the Minister of Finance wishes me to table my $10 bill with my document, I will agree to his requet and I would also like the bank note serial number to be recorded for posterity.
Mr. Speaker, why am I saying that? It is because we have reached a turning point in our history and that we find ourselves in a rather disturbing situation. Today, I was reading this article and I could perhaps table it but I will not ask for that because I would not want to try your patience, Mr. Speaker. I will just quote from the La Presse of March 22.
Portfolio managers do not know where to invest their money.
These people have problems with money because they just have too much of it. They do not know where to invest it. Yet on the other side the Minister of Finance is worried by a lack of capital needed to run our economy. He calls on the Japanese, the Swiss, the Germans. Yet, those Germans, who are people whom I like, were precisely those same people who were defeated twice, during World War I when I had members of my family fighting on the battlefields; these Germans who were again defeated during the last world war. They have finally been defeated and Canada participated with the allies in that war, which means that we won. But how come then, if we were among the victors, how come we have to kneel down before the vanquished in order to get loans, in order that they grant us the means to go on administering the country?
Mr. Speaker, those are questions we must very seriously consider. I am not accusing anyone in particular, neither this government nor the governments before, but we must absolutely think about this. Bill C-49 gives us an opportunity to fully consider, at the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, all the provisions of Bill C-15, Bill C-57 and another, the number of which I do not know, when it is put forward again.
Mr. Speaker, if this question was not important, Bill C-57 would have passed last year. Bill C-15 would now be ready for reporting by the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic matters. The members of that committee, however, are tremendous, and I commend them for that. They study the bill clause by clause, whether to consider allowing foreign banks to establish subsidiaries in Canada, which committee members are not ready to do-and I am in a position to know since I am a member of that committee-they are not ready to allow everything without a good look. All members of the committee-and the interim report that has been presented
Bank Act
will prove it-want to be absolutely sure, as members of the House and as members of the parliamentary committee, that not one recommendation in that report will have been made without due consideration.
Mr. Speaker, we must get off the beaten path. I propose to prepare a minority report. Perhaps hon. members will find that funny and will not take it too seriously. But we ought to be careful. Other people will be here when we are gone. Other people will read our decisions. They will analyse our debates and if we cannot take our responsibilities and propose basic amendments to Bill C-15 or to any other bill that will follow, we will be recognized as people who have been unable to assume responsibility.
Sometimes Canadians ask us "What do you propose to do?" So I tell them, as my leader, Mr. Caouette, has said so often in the House, that it is high time that the Canadian government gave our national bank-I see that my colleague over there is listening to me very carefully; actually, I am convinced that he shares our view-the Bank of Canada, the sole responsibility for cashing the nation's credit, that the chartered banks be called upon to ask the directors of the Bank of Canada for the necessary credits to serve the public sector, and that the Bank of Canada serve the needs of the public sector, with an accountability very similar to what it now has. I know that some frivolous people will say that will create inflation.
Mr. Speaker, what is the difference between putting $50 million in circulation through loans from the private bank system or through the Bank of Canada? What is the difference? The government and the departments could agree to reimburse the loans at a given annual interest rate and that rate would certainly be lower that what we are paying now. That has to be said time and time again, maybe some will say: You are always repeating the same thing. That is true! That is because we have a good memory. That is because we believe in the philosophy we advocate. The sun rises every morning. When it does not, when it is cloudy, people get concerned. It always does the same thing. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) smiling. I know that deep down he is saying to himself: That guy is not all that stupid. I am telling things as they are.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that for once we could stand up and analyse our banking system. I ask the Minister of Finance, who is present and whom I respect, that he consider seriously, with his advisers, introducing an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act so that this institution can play its true role as maker of the currency in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to note that Canadians can produce everything that is reported in statistics or earned in the gross national production of Canada, but we are too stupid to design a tool to measure values and exchanges so that we are compelled to borrow abroad. I asked some young people this week at a Canadian forum what was the difference between a $10 bill and a $2 bill. They replied intelligently that the figure 2

March 22, 1979
Bank Act
appears on the $2 bill and the figure 10 appears on the $10 bill. This is all the difference. They are only figures that appear on coins, bank notes and cheques. Our entire monetary system in Canada is made up of figures. There is certainly a serious shortage of figures in Canada if we have to borrow figures abroad and pay stupid interests on them.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I wanted to suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). I know he is a very busy man. The devaluation of the dollar which would be one of the consequences of the Social Credit system would lower the value of the Canadian dollar, according to us. I know he is concerned about inflation, another consequence of the system suggested by my party. If the Social Credit Party of Canada assumed power, we would experience inflation and the dollar would devaluate. If our system advocated the distribution of a better credit system in our country, there would be unemployment. We have unemployment, devaluation of the dollar and inflation, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be spiteful because I know the Minister of Finance has enough problems. However, in all frankness, I would like to ask him at least to consider seriously our proposals and with his officials to try by all possible means to implement them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent to amend the motion so that Bill C-49, an act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, be now read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I agree, Mr. Speaker, and I will cut my remarks short precisely to allow for the passing of this bill at all stages. But in concluding I would ask the Minister of Finance whether he would readily accept, at least to consider very earnestly, all the proposals we have put forward so that we might come to an agreement with a view to monetizing the credit of Canadians and put them all to work so that all those who are idle today may contribute with their energy and talent

to increase our gross national product, which would be needed to put ourselves in a better position with regard to world trade and the countries competing with us now.
Mr. Speaker, I have made those remarks in all sincerity, just as I now appeal with all my heart to the Minister of Finance so that at long last serious consideration might be given this matter in coming months, and the next parliament might be truly composed of representatives who are bent upon attacking a regime which makes its authority felt throughout the land instead of serving the people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 19, 1979, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie (for the Minister of Finance):
That Bill C-38, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking when the debate was adjourned at ten o'clock last Monday night. I wanted to come back to a particular point in that bill, more specifically clause 16. Now, if hon. members are willing to consider one aspect of the bill, I do not know what the subject will be of the order to be made on clause 15, but with regard to clause 16 we do know what I was opposed to, as well as my colleagues as I said the other night: that is, one of the provisions of Bill C-42, the act on the allocation of energy resources in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be coming back to this over and over again, that is, to that particular point, and I shall take the government House leader to task on this point. We get closure more and more often.

I am glad to see that the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has entered the House because my remarks in this instance will be addressed to him. I want to tell him that notwithstanding his jocular attitude this afternoon there is one aspect of his leadership of this House which is absolutely regrettable, which is a total minus quantity. As I said earlier this afternoon, it concerns procedures and changes of structure in this House required for the consideration not only of legislation but a variety of other matters.
For instance, there is the matter of the adjournment debate upon which there is agreement. There are a number of other
March 22, 1979

areas where there is total agreement. Either through lack of vigilance or through lack of militancy the government House leader has failed to respond. I hear the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) say "lack of time". No. There would be no debate on the matter; there would be agreement. But the committee has not met except to elect its executive, since 1977. I have been twice elected as vice-chairman. I have been chairman of that committee. The former member for Eglington has been chairman. The present minister for intergovernmental relations is the last chairman of that committee. I maintain that the committee should be meeting regularly to receive suggestions from hon. members, from the Chair and from the leadership with regard to the rules and practices of this House. To date it has been as worthwhile as that proverbial army which gets paraded up and down, up and down and cannot fight worth a damn. It has done absolutely nothing.
The hon. member may ask what this has to do with Bill C-38. Well, it has to do with this damned fool provision in the statute which deals with a negative resolution. I remember that when the hon. John Turner was minister of justice, before he became minister of finance, he brought down the act dealing with statutory instruments. We then saw for the first time the definition of affirmative and negative resolutions and the procedures for enabling them to be dealt with in this House or the other place. It was stated then that we would soon amend our procedures. That was over seven years ago.
So with Bill C-42, we get closure by statute. We are allowed five hours of debate when dealing with a negative resolution. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough, and notwithstanding that we are being offered a 3 per cent reduction in federal sales tax, I would personally be prepared to vote against this bill on that ground alone because I think it makes a travesty of the proceedings of the House. I hold the government House leader totally responsible, because a long time ago a reference should have been made to the committee on this subject and the necessary procedural changes made so as to allow parliament to be master of its own rules. Here we are being told we must behave in the House according to a statute, and to my mind that is totally wrong.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 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 Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner)-Health and
Canadian Council of Christians and Jews Welfare-Reduced insurance premiums for non-smokers- Government position; the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone)-Transport-Authority of Canadian Wheat Board to purchase grain hopper cars; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-Regional Economic Expansion-Steps to improve Cape Breton coal industry.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, telegrams and letters having to do with any negotiations between the Department of the Secretary of State and the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on January 24 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Daudlin) advised the House that the correspondence and documents which I had requested and which give details of negotiations, etc., about public grants between the government and the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews was, and I quote "too voluminous and would be inordinately time consuming and costly to prepare". I was absent on that date and I therefore extend my thanks to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Papros-ki) for requesting that my motion be transferred for debate, because there is obviously a difference of opinion on the matter.
At the outset I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am in full agreement with the aims and principles of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, an organization which had a very distinguished record under one of its former and very distinguished presidents, Dr. Richard Jones. I should emphasize that this is not the same man as, nor is he any relation to, Mr. Peter Jones, to whom I may refer in the course of my remarks and who has just resigned as president of the council.
It is a mystery to me why the government should seek to hide from public view a legitimate request for information concerning a matter which involves the expenditure of public money. In the last year alone this amounts to about three-quarters of a million dollars. How could such documents be so
4426

March 22, 1979
Canadian Council of Christians and Jews time consuming to produce? How could copies of such documents be so costly to prepare? I can only view this as a method of trying to cover up something which the government does not want made public. I can only view it as an attempt by the government to whitewash whatever it is that it does not want people to know. If this was not true, then the government would simply say to the House at the conclusion of my remarks today that it is quite prepared to produce all these documents on this matter in order to clear the air completely as a result of the numerous questions which have been asked.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) recently answered some questions I have had on the order paper since October 18 of last year, and in answer to question No. 294 he certainly severely misled the House-although I am absolutely certain it was not intentional on his part-when he stated, and I quote: "The accounts of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews are, of course, audited annually by the council's own auditors".
According to information I have, that is a complete misstatement of fact. To prove this, I draw attention to a copy of a letter which I have in my possession written by Yale and Partners, auditors for the city of Toronto. I think only one sentence of this letter needs to be read: "We have examined the combined balance sheet of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews". Therefore, the Secretary of State was wrong in saying that a full audit was conducted; there is certainly a tremendous difference between the examination of a balance sheet and a full audit. I think the minister well knows that fact.
I am surprised that the government should try to make political capital out of the fact that a member of the opposition questions the expenditure of public money, since that really is one of the many and very important reasons we are here in this House. The Secretary of State has sought to distort the entire issue through such means as issuing a press release containing incorrect information and, in effect, trying to paint me as someone who is besmirching public servants and who also apparently is opposed to Christians and Jews. I do not intend to tolerate and do not think any member should tolerate such uncalled for nonsense.
Here I would like to set the record straight on one point. An unfortunate error appeared in a Canadian Press story dated, I believe, February 28, 1979, which stated that I said outside this House that certain members of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews had paid kickbacks to members of the Department of the Secretary of State in order to receive grants. I did not at any time make such a statement with regard to members or the executive of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. On being advised of this error in the Canadian Press story, I immediately asked that a correction be made.
I admit that I did demand on that date-and I still do-an examination, an investigation and an audit by the Auditor General of Canada with regard to this whole affair. I did state that in my view the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews should welcome such an audit in view of the allegations of kickbacks which were flying around Parliament Hill, so that

the air could be thoroughly cleared for all concerned. This is far different from the unfortunate report attributed to me that members of the council were supposedly committing illegal acts or engaging in illegal activities which, as far as I know, is absolutely not the case.
My request for a correction in the Canadian Press story stands as a matter of record. That request was made to the local representative of the Canadian Press in Brockville, Ontario, to the desk editor in the city of Toronto and to officials at its bureau here in Ottawa. As a result of the questions I raised and as a result of pressure from other sources as well, the government agreed to what the Secretary of State called an independent audit which, I understand, has been going on for a few days. I find it extremely strange that the minister has been unable to answer my order paper question or to make public by means of a statement the name of the auditing firm which is conducting the audit, which is supposed to be independent. I find it extremely strange also that the facilities of the Auditor General of Canada were apparently not used.
What does the Secretary of State think such an audit will show? Surely he does not think it will provide an answer to the questions I have raised in the House and which have been raised by many persons elsewhere as well. For example, I refer to outstanding order paper question No. 1,295 which I placed to obtain answers which will certainly not be shown in any audit and which are very pertinent to this case.
For the record, I would like briefly to paraphrase some of these questions. Did any directors receive bonus payments from the council at any time in the last three years, and did such payments come from government funds? What were the amounts of the cheques issued, who received them and what were they for? I have been told that they came directly from government grants and were supposedly for overtime work performed in connection with Open House Canada. Why did Air Canada issue a pass to Mr. Peter Jones, the ex-president of the council who resigned a week or two ago?
In case there is any doubt in this regard, I would like to quote from a letter, a copy of which I have on my desk, dated June 6, 1978, addressed to his colleagues, in which Mr. Peter Jones said: "Once again I would like to attend each regional annual meeting and have been assured that I can have an Air Canada free pass in order to do this.". Is it the policy of this government to give out free Air Canada passes to all charitable organizations, just to certain charitable organizations or just to this particular charitable organization?
Why did Peter Jones recently resign as president of the council? I would like to quote from a letter written by him, dated January 28, 1978, and addressed to all regional directors. I have a copy of this letter on my desk as well. It contains the following paragraph:
I am frankly unhappy that it could be said of us that the council and its staff are taking money from the federal government and doing nothing in return. No question that we have done everything that we could. Legally we are in the right. Morally 1 am not so sure.
March 22, 1979

What is the moral principle of which Mr. Peter Jones is not so sure? Why were such prominent Canadians as John Fisher, Joel Aldred, Alex Geddes and others thrown off the executive of the council, and why was the Ottawa regional office suddenly abolished overnight?
Referring to Mr. Geddes, a very respected businessman in the city of Toronto, I would like to quote from a letter dated January 26, 1979, to Messrs. Lockwood and Ronson, co-chairmen of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. I have a copy of this letter on my desk as well. In doing so, I point out that Mr. Geddes was a member not only of the executive committee but a member of the finance committee of that organization. Here is one paragraph:
You may recall that 1 was concerned about financial control, not only of the day to day operations with reference to the cost of programs, TV commercials and other activities, but especially the proper control and full accounting of the various government grants that have been received by the council in the last two years. I still don't know the total of funds received from government grants, but would guess it is somewhere in the order of $750,000. I think proper reports should be made regarding the use of each grant.
Here is another paragraph:
I was also concerned about the capital reserve of $950,000 that the council had two or three years ago. What is the amount of this reserve today and what happens to the interest income from it?
Incidentally, speaking of that capital reserve, I have a copy of a financial statement issued by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews which shows that this reserve of $950,000 had, for some unexplained reason, diminished as of November 8 of last year to $746,000. Obviously some of this money could have come from government grants and I cannot see why the Secretary of State should object to the asking of such obvious questions.
It could also be asked of the Secretary of State why he seems so totally unconcerned that the balance sheet of the council dated September 30, 1978, did not show the amount of money received from the Government of Canada-in other words, the taxpayers of Canada; nor does it show how it was dispensed, despite the fact that the sum involved, by the Secretary of State's own admission in answer to an order paper question of mine, ran to $767,000 in 1978 and $304,000 in 1977.
Mr. Peter Jones had admitted that he received a 4.5 per cent mortgage on his home from the council expiring May 13, 1981, and a loan reported to be interest-free in excess of $9,000 also received from the council. I have asked the legitimate question, which the Secretary of State has so far refused to answer, as to whether such funds came from government grants. Perhaps he cannot answer the question if all government grants go into the same bank account as other grants, because then any amounts removed for any purpose from those accounts such as those I have named would be partially public funds; and I believe that under the circumstances it should not be the intention of any government to donate money for a specific project that even in part ends up financing a home or a loan for a private individual.
Canadian Council of Christians and Jews
Why has the Secretary of State refused to confirm or deny that a meeting of regional directors of the council was held in Toronto last year at which the president, Mr. Peter Jones, instructed regional directors present on ways he thought they could avoid paying income tax to the Government of Canada on bonuses or on honorariums received? If this happened, it is reprehensible on the part of the government to ignore it. And why have such men as Gerry Yanover, legislative assistant to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), Paul Hellyer, journalist Max Keeping and numerous others severed their connections with this organization?
No, Mr. Speaker, the audit being conducted will not show the answer to these questions. It will be a whitewash covering up errors on the part of the government of a most serious nature, and perhaps to some extent a cover up which may have been, not dishonesty, but bad management on the part of Peter Jones, president of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews.
I would also like to mention that the CBC taped an interview with me and William White of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews which was scheduled for broadcasting on Monday, March 5, a week or two ago. This broadcast was never allowed on the air and I was offered the flimsiest excuses by the CBC as to why the broadcast did not go on as scheduled. Surely the Secretary of State, whose department is directly responsible for the CBC, had nothing to do with censorship of this kind, and I would ask him to give a full explanation to the House in this regard.
In the past few days a Mr. Dennis Flack has been in Ottawa on different occasions claiming to represent the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. I might mention he is a former paid employee of the Liberal Party of Canada. I have been told by various sources, including members of parliament, that he has been attempting to call on both MPs and members of the cabinet. I understand, for example, that he did manage to see the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid) who, incidentally, raised this whole subject on the order paper before I did a year or more ago and before he was made a minister, and it is interesting to note that his own government would not even answer him. I do not object to Mr. Flack exercising the democratic right of lobbying, but it brings up the point as to who paid his expenses when he was here. I believe the Secretary of State should investigate this as well.
Referring back to the reported meeting in Toronto last year where Mr. Jones allegedly instructed regional directors on how to avoid paying income tax, I wonder if the Secretary of State is willing to determine from the Department of National Revenue whether the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews issued T-4 slips for such sums of money before the required deadline of February 28. I have been told that such slips were not issued, and while this may or may not be correct, I certainly think it should be clarified.
In conclusion, I feel there is no justification for the government not to agree now, in the absence of the Secretary of State, to having whoever is representing him here in the House rise and state that the government has had a change of heart

March 22, 1979
Canadian Council of Christians and Jews
and that all documents, correspondence and anything pertaining to the negotiations between the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews and the Government of Canada in regard to government grants be made public; in other words, that the original request which I made on the order paper be granted. Surely the Secretary of State, who is usually a reasonable man, or his representative will now rise and offer to clear the air by allowing the necessary documents to be made public without further delay and in the interests of all concerned.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest this afternoon to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) in the hope that he might do something more than the left-handed attempt to extricate himself from the innuendo and subterfuge which he used to taint both the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews and the Department of the Secretary of State in this matter.
It would only be appropriate if I pointed out to members of the House the method whereby this matter has come forward. The hon. member opposite has become expert in raising this matter on a number of occasions by motions under Standing Order 43, implying thereby that something terrible was happening and making unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations that something terrible was happening, but not following them up with any question, notwithstanding the fact that following these motions under Standing Order 43 there were periods of weeks in which the hon. member had the occasion to follow up on these allegations and put questions. But no questions were put, leaving the innuendoes and the allegations to be picked up by the public at large with no opportunity being given to answer them.
I sat here on a number of occasions in the absence of my minister hoping and waiting for the hon. member to rise in his place and put his money where his mouth is by asking questions which I would have been prepared to answer. But the questions never came. What was left was innuendo and the suggestion that something must be wrong. Again today the hon. member stood in his place and suggested that all kinds of things must be happening because he has not had a response to his questions.
On January 24 I rose in my place and indicated that there would have to be substantial costs, time and effort beyond what should be reasonable to answer a question of this type. The hon. member indicated that he was not satisfied and implied that there was something to be whitewashed and covered up. Now the hon. member says that the article was wrong. I assume this is the first time he has said this. I have seen no other occasions. I have seen nothing in Hansard. I assume this is the first time the hon. member has stood up and indicated publicly in the House that in fact the newspaper article was wrong. He has left from the time of the newspaper article until now the impression that it was not wrong.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to point out that in this House I am not able to rise and correct newspapers. I can rise and correct Hansard but not newspapers.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a point.
I could research for him and provide documentation where on a number of occasions members from both sides of the House have used an opportunity in the House to rise and indicate that they have been misquoted outside the House. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that that has not been done or the opportunity does not exist. Had the hon. member used the opportunity of a question or a motion under Standing Order 43 to suggest the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews in fact was being blamed for something they ought not be blamed for as a result of a misquote, I am sure all members of the House would have been happy to see him rise. But that did not happen.
I find it passing strange, after having disclaimed that he had made any allegations of kickback, that the hon. member would say immediately that the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews should have been anxious to respond to all the allegations going around on the hill that there had been kickbacks. By whom were they made if not by the hon. member? Yet the hon. member said that he did not say it. In the same article he is quoted as supposedly trying to disclaim that he had said anything but "Of course, I don't have any information". The hon. member has not disclaimed that it was true.
I suggest this procedure has been used very effectively by the member: to have no information, to have no background knowledge, but to make unsubstantiated allegations and then suggest through the smokescreen that something terrible must be happening.
In anticipation of the audit showing that everything was on the up and up and correctly done, the hon. member has sown seeds to suggest the audit will bring forward nothing. Even if it comes forward and proves there was no malfeasance and nothing to support the innuendo left by the hon. member, he is sowing seeds to suggest it will prove nothing, that it was a whitewash.
I respectfully suggest that almost from a sense of paranoia the hon. member thinks that not only is the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) against him, but also his agencies because they did not choose to use an interview between himself and some other person. It is ludicrous.
I and other members of the House find it particularly distressing that any hon. member should-and I use the word carefully-carelessly and with a self-confessed total lack of truth in effect vilify members of the public service. The hon. member is disclaiming now that he intended that, but it was the effect. He talked about cause and effect. That was the effect of what he left in the open press. Also it is distressing that he should vilify members of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews by making the allegations which he now disclaims.
March 22, 1979

On March 6 the Secretary of State told members that he had received a request by telegram from the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, both protesting against the irresponsibility of these statements and asking that an independent audit be made of their activities so that it could be shown the allegations are baseless. It is on record that the council is doing what it can to dissociate itself from the type of allegations which have been made. In light of those requests and the immediate affirmative reaction by the Secretary of State, it should be obvious to all hon. members that the council is not only acting in good faith, but is satisfied its activities place it above this particularly odious type of suspicion. Of course, the audit will find that members of the Department of the Secretary of State at all times have carried on negotiations with the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews in an irreproachable manner. It will establish once and for all that the activities of the council are faultless regarding the use of government funds.
Despite the time and costs involved, research is being undertaken with all dispatch to provide ultimate proof that all parties are beyond reproach in this unfortunate incident. I should like to advise the hon. member that when the results are produced, and as they are being produced by the department for the independent audit, they will be made available to him.
They will be placed before the House, at which time I am satisfied all members will see they had just reason for having confidence not only in the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews but in the Secretary of State.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is upon motion No. 13 in the name of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps it is not a point of order, but I would like to congratulate the government on showing one of the few honest moves it has made in the House by being willing to make public information which should have been made public months ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, seeing that this matter has been concluded, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 5.29 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-38, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear an hon. member suggest that this bill should pass without further debate. He probably realizes, as do other members of the House, that more has been sneaked through in this bill than with most pieces of legislation. It is a complicated bill. The fact that we will deal with it in committee of the whole gives members an opportunity to deal with specific clauses. It is an omnibus type of bill that does a lot of things to a lot of people.
I want to deal with one clause tonight which concerns the implementation of an increased air transportation tax and ultimate conversion to user charges. We have here a classic example of the application of the user-pay concept without "user say". We have a situation where the airlines are being asked to pay for the services provided by the Department of Transport, some of which are required, some of which are extravagant, and some of which are not needed.
I do not think anyone would argue that airlines and passengers who use them should not pay for the realistic services and facilities provided. The government is asking for more than that, however. In effect it is asking the Canadian travelling public to pay for the mistakes of overbuilding and extravagance of many airport facilities in this country. The Air Transportation Association of Canada has argued for some time that they have not had any meaningful input with regard to the facilities they require. The Department of Transport builds without meaningful consultation and, as a result, there is a constant conflict of opinion about the services that are provided and the services that are needed, and who is to pay for them.
The Air Transport Association of Canada represents the vast majority of airlines in this country-85 per cent or 90 per

March 22, 1979
Excise Tax Act
cent of them. It states that they are the victims in this process and, by virtue of the fact that they are the victims, they have no choice but to hand the cost on to the public. They contend that they are the captive tenants of a monopolistic landlord. In a bulletin dated February 22, referring to the air transportation tax and its conversion to a user charge, the association had this to say:
Airline passengers in Canada will shortly be paying a tax which will be typically $15 per flight-
That is an increase from the $8 we presently pay-almost 100 per cent.
The bulletin continues:
-following the government's budget announcement that it would increase the present tax by nearly 100 per cent. This unwarranted and abusive treatment of the airline traveller has taken place at the same time as the Task Force on Tourism has strongly recommended government measures to reduce the cost of travel.
In addition to the monstrous increase in the tax, the government has stated its intention to convert the tax to a user charge to be levied upon the air carriers under the Aeronautics Act. The estimated yield of the new tax rate is approximately $150 million annually.
The major air carriers affected have carefully considered the matter and state they are unable to absorb such an amount into their cost base or their market expectations, and are therefore firmly opposed to the planned conversion of the tax.
The carriers will not willingly be parties to a conversion device which would hide from parliament and the public the consequences of the government's reluctance to pare the costs of the DOT bureaucracy and instead contribute significantly to further increases in air travel costs.
In essence, that lays the groundwork for the points I wish to cover tonight. This government has been on a building binge and now it wants to implement a scheme of cost recovery. It will collect from the carrier, but in turn the carrier will collect from the passenger. I contend that users should not have to pay for the grandiose schemes, the Taj Mahals, the overbuilding, and art work, and all the unnecessary frills included in today's modern terminal buildings.
We hear a lot about restraint, Mr. Speaker, but we have to ask ourselves whether restraint has been a part of the over-all managerial plan of the Department of Transport. When we look at the estimates we have to answer in the negative. No fat has been trimmed in the estimates of the Department of Transport, particularly in connection with air transport administration. The deputy minister of transport took a great deal of pride in saying that the detrimental effects on the continuing operations of the department were minimal, that there was very little disruption to the job security of Transport Canada employees.
We all remember that in the restraint program it was proposed that $200 million be shaved off the operations of DOT, some $130 million of which shows in cutbacks in program expenditure and $70 million of which is incorporated in this legislation. This is the first time a suggested saving has led to the imposition of a further tax.
The department has reduced the person-years requirements by a mere 87 persons for air administration. Some 13,000 person-years are involved in the operations of the air administration of the Department of Transport so we have not seen
[Mr. Mazankowski.J
any real evidence of cutbacks in the operations of the air administration branch of the Department of Transport. Again I ask why the travelling public should have to pay for the failure of the administration to make reasonable cutbacks. We know there has been a growing bureaucracy. We know many of the programs could have been shaved, but why should the travelling public be asked to pay for the mismanagement of the department?
I should like to quote some passages from the 100th Annual Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978. It contains an in-depth audit of the Department of Transport, and at page 503 there is the following statement:
Our audits disclosed serious deficiencies in the systems and procedures the department used in acquiring capital assets in the projects we examined. Five of the projects did not achieve a reasonable standard of 'due regard for economy.'
This is the conclusion of a person this House holds in high regard, whose integrity cannot be questioned, and who has done a very objective and in-depth analysis of the situation. Perhaps it is no wonder that in a rather unique statement, certainly not something one would be very proud of, the deputy minister of transport suggested the Auditor General stick to auditing rather than criticizing the department. He said that he warned the Auditor General. J. J. Macdonell, against claiming too much management .erritory. Deputy Minister Sylvain Cloutier said the Auditor General runs the risk of turning himself into a management consultant or adviser, rather than sticking to the job he is supposed to do- auditing.
One of the duties given to the Auditor General by this House was a mandate to examine whether public funds were being spent on behalf of the Canadian people having due regard to economy and efficiency. The Auditor General is clearly within his mandate in making those kinds of judgments and assessments. Someone has to protect the public purse. Parliament has lost control; the Auditor General pointed that out. The government has lost control. Surely we need someone who can examine in an objective way whether the principles of accounting and good management are adhered to. It is unfortunate that a senior public servant would lash out at a man who is attempting to protect the public purse and ensure that some of the deficiencies within the management and control systems of the Government of Canada are upgraded, improved, and made more effective.
The Auditor General identified several other serious deficiencies within the Ministry of Transport. I refer here to the capital cost overruns which he cited. Here again are clear examples of the failure of the Ministry of Transport to provide a reasonable standard of due regard for economy and efficiency. The construction of the Calgary airport is one example. Its costs escalated from $57 million to $127 million, which is two and a half times the original amount. The comments which the Auditor General made confirm my remarks that there has not been meaningful consultation with the people who will be using such terminals. At page 506 of his report, in reference to
March 22, 1979

the Calgary International Airport the Auditor General stated as follows:
The air carriers expressed strong reservations as to the immediate need for, and concern about the cost of, new terminal facilities.
This is a very important statement. The airlines were concerned about the cost of the new terminals and that they did not need that sort of facility at that time because they knew that eventually someone would have to pay for it.
At page 507 the Auditor General says:
In our opinion, the Department of Transport did not give due regard to economy in the Calgary airport project.
The concerns expressed by the air carriers were not disclosed. The Auditor General goes on to say at page 507:
The Department did not reach agreement with the air carriers on user-pay cost-recovery charges until just prior to the opening of the new terminal.
Further on in the same paragraph he says:
In our view, reaching an agreement on cost-recovery charges prior to the start of construction was essential to ensure concern for economy and discourage any unjustified user demands.
The users, in this case the airlines, did not have an opportunity for meaningful input in the construction of that facility. The Auditor General examined the costs of the Calgary airport. I wonder what would have happened if he had examined the costs of the Mirabel airport which have escalated dramatically. It is costing now in the order of $1 million per week in terms of its operational deficit. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a clear example of mismanagement and irresponsibility on the part of government and of the people in charge at the Ministry of Transport. That is why we are being asked to approve a bill which will give MOT the authority literally to double the airport tax.
At the same time we are creating a huge airport revolving fund so that some of these white elephants can be hidden and so allow the spending spree to carry on. In that connection the Air Transport Association of Canada has this to say:
This cross subsidizing group of 23 airports would be able to generate about $100 million yearly from its own cash flow. This would pay for most capital expansion, and make the group effectively independent of parliamentary appropriations.
They go on to talk about ministerial powers as follows:
The Canadian commercial airline industry is alarmed and deeply concerned that the minister's power to make charges under the Aeronautics Act is not counterbalanced by any regulatory body.
It is not counterbalanced by any regulatory body because if there were a meaningful regulatory body wherein there could be the opportunity for the airlines, in this case the users, to have some meaningful input and negotiations to work out the type of user fees, and to have some input in determining what is the best kind of facility to build, and where it should be built, we would not have nearly the problem we have in terms of meeting the cost overruns and in terms of meeting operational deficits.
The Air Transport Association of Canada says it believes that legislative amendments should be considered that would subject the minister's powers to make charges to the same tests of fairness and reasonableness applied to air carriers' fare
Excise Tax Act
proposals. In other words, they are saying that they have to go before the CTC any time they want an increase in fares. There is a check or balance there. There is no check or balance here on the minister in charge, or on the bureaucracy who initiate the kind of user fees that they deem necessary with which to pay the bill.
We should look briefly at the impact of these increased charges. In addition to the impact of the airport user charge, which we have known it as, there are also some very significant increases being implemented at the same time over an eight-year period respecting landing fees, general terminal fees, the en route North Atlantic fees, and almost every service that is provided.
I have a breakdown of the cost of landing a Boeing 747 in Toronto. These figures are based on October 1, 1978, data. I put these figures on the record so hon. members can be apprised of what it costs to land a jumbo jet. The particular example I will give is of a transoceanic flight with a full passenger load. The costs include the en route North Atlantic fee in the amount of $130; the landing fee amounting to $1,596; the general terminal fee assessed at $267; security charge for 429 passengers at 20 cents per passenger amounting to $86; and the fuel throughput charge for 22,000 gallons at 1.5 cents per gallon, amounting to $330. Then we have a provincial fuel tax on 22,000 gallons at three cents per gallon, which amounts to $660, and a transportation tax, 429 passengers at $8, which amounts to $3,432. When you total all those together, and it does not take into consideration the rental of the airline space for counters and so on, it works out to $6,501 to land a 747 with 429 passengers aboard. Those are the rates effective October 1, 1978.
The impact of the transportation tax at $15 per person will change that $3,432 figure to $6,435. The immediate 30 per cent increase which is going to be imposed on an annual basis over an eight-year period when these new landing fees are going to be implemented, will increase that $6,500 figure to $9,604. Those are the kinds of increases about which we are talking.
The principal element in the plan is essentially to allow domestic landing fees and related fees to rise at a rate of 30 per cent on an annual basis to about six times their present level over an eight-year period. That is the goal of the department. We are looking at something that is very significant.
I can point out as well that the general terminal fee will be increased at the rate of 25 per cent effective April 1, 1979, 50 per cent effective October 1, 1979, and 100 per cent effective April 1, 1980. Therefore we will have a doubling of the terminal fees which will parallel this particular measure. At a time when we are talking about cheaper air fares in this country with the airlines being asked to trim the frills, cut the fat, and provide a more efficient operation, we have some of the basic ingredients of the cost of air travel provided by the government being increased dramatically.

March 22, 1979
Excise Tax Act
I talked about the commercial passenger and the impact that this measure will have upon the traveller who lands in Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton or Calgary. There is another impact which I am sure the government and the minister have overlooked. Air travel in some areas of the country is the only mode of travel. I talk here particularly about the north.
I have a letter from the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce. In addition to having an exchange of correspondence with me, I am sure they directed the same correspondence to the minister. I quote from their letter of December 13:
As you are aware, the majority of Northwest Territories communities are served solely by air, and because of this the federal tax on air transportation is unfair to Northwest Territories residents. We often have no choice but to fly, and are therefore stuck with a tax that we have no choice but to pay. At least in southern centres this tax is "voluntary"-one need not pay the tax if an alternate to air transport is used.
At present, the air transportation tax from Northwest Territories airports is gaining approximately $480,000 per year for the federal treasury, and a total of $900,000 per year can be expected after the proposed increase. This must surely represent the highest per capita revenue from any province or territory for this tax-largely because we have no choice but to fly.
Because this tax increases the cost of an essential service in the Northwest Territories, and is therefore unfair, the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce strongly urges the repeal of the air transportation tax in the Northwest Territories.
I thank you for your consideration of this matter and hope that we can look forward to your interceding on our behalf to have this tax removed.
Yours truly,
Fred Richinger
I have, as well, a letter from the Northwest Territories Association of Municipalities which says essentially the same thing. I quote:
Eighty-two per cent of our population and ninety per cent of our municipalities have no choice but to use aircraft for year round access to communities other than their own.
The north has received little benefit (proportionate to our geographic size) to compare with the federal subsidies enjoyed by Canada's transportation network; i.e. seaways, highways, canals, railways, airlines, shipbuilding and airport facilities.
This form of tax is regressive in that it applies to all users regardless of their means. In Canada's north air travel is not a luxury but the only means of transportation available to the majority of us.
That is essentially the thrust and the feeling of those who will be faced with this abusive tax. It will be more harsh for them because they have no alternate form of transportation. Travel by air is certainly not a luxury as far as they are concerned.
I said at the outset that we are concerned about our tourist trade deficit. The Air Transport Association of Canada made reference to that in their submissions which they have made public. I wish to place on record some quotations from the government's own report by the sector task force on the Canadian tourist industry. We all know there is a huge deficit in our tourist trade. Many attempts are being made to try to turn that deficit around.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) and other federal government departments are devising ways and means and coming up with all sorts of schemes to
[Mr. Mazankowski.)
attract more tourist trade to Canada and to prevent our tourist dollars flowing outside the country. On the other hand we have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Department of Transport imposing their user-pay program which is generally going to militate against that desire. It really is an uncoordinated approach.
It is not the first time this government has adopted that kind of stance. It has happened many times. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is devoted to overcoming regional economic disparity. At the same time the Ministry of Transport is imposing user-pay because it does not feel transportation is an instrument for overcoming regional economic disparities. The two departments are working against one another. It is time the government got its act together.
I will quote from this report because it is very significant. If the government followed the advice that its own study has revealed, it may be able to get its act together and work toward reversing or at least abating the current tourist trade deficit. I quote from page 28 of the report:
Apropos the Canadian Transport Commission, the task force recommends that existing CTC policies should be reviewed to ensure that, whilst these regulations govern all air travel within, to and from Canada, prominent importance is given to air transport as a vehicle to increase and improve tourism travel to and within Canada.
No one would argue with that, I am sure.
Discussions should be held with all interested parties concerned with those regulations of a potentially restrictive nature.
Then we get into the user-pay policy and the airport user tax. I quote again:
The airport user-pay policy makes air transportation in Canada non-competitive with that of the United States and is detrimental to Canadian tourism development.
Nothing can be clearer than that, and this report was published before the minister brought down his budget.
I quote again:
The industry is in general agreement with the principle of the necessary functional requirements being paid for by users whenever economically justifiable. However, governments should assume all costs related to social and/or regional development of facilities. Airports can be classified as full-recovery, partial-recovery or nil-recovery.
These are important recommendations. Living as we do in a country which is widespread and sparsely populated, we should consider them very carefully. If that recommendation were adopted we could expect a greater measure of fairness and equity, particularly for people who reside in isolated areas such as the north.
I quote again:
Anything in excess of necessary functional requirements should not be paid for by the users, for example, art work. The users must have a very strong voice in what are defined as functional requirements. All users, including carriers, concessionaires and the travelling public, as well as the general public, should share the burden of paying for functional requirements. The existing CTC policy should be reviewed to ensure that while the regulations govern all air travel within, to and from Canada, prominent importance is given to air transport as a vehicle to increase and improve tourism travel to and within Canada. Discussions
March 22, 1979

should be held with all interested parties concerned with those regulations which are of a potentially restrictive nature.
Sir, that is a good summary of the situation we are now facing. I repeat, users of airport services should be prepared to pay their fair share. They should be prepared to pay for the services needed to provide efficient and safe air transportation. But they should not be asked to pay for the government's bungling, mismanagement, waste and incompetence. Nor should the travelling public be asked to pay for the expensive tastes of the ministry and the bureaucrats.
I submit that this tax imposes a penalty which will hurt the tourist industry and the Canadian traveller. This detrimental approach of attempting total cost recovery should be thoroughly re-examined and this measure should be withdrawn.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House tonight covers a number of important items. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has talked about one of them, namely, the airport tax. I should like the minister to give us a fuller explanation with regard to the manufacturing sales tax cut.
As we all know, the tax was cut from 12 per cent to 9 per cent in the budget last November. A lot of optimism was expressed at the time that the decrease would be passed on to the consumer. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) has told us many times that his department is monitoring this situation, that CSIP was monitoring it, that the AIB was monitoring it, and that all would be well. As recently as a few days ago, however, the minister told us that his study was not yet complete, that the monitoring process was still continuing. I should like him to tell us tonight what kind of investigation is being carried out and whether it is, in fact, nearing completion. Who is being surveyed? Will the minister undertake to table the report in the House when he receives it, if there is time before an election, so that the Canadian people may see it?
I ask this because when it was introduced last fall the sales tax cut was worth about $1 billion to manufacturing companies and a great deal of concern has been expressed by consumer associations and related groups that it is not being passed on. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on November 24 just after the budget was introduced. Some Montreal retailers were quoted as saying they doubted very much whether the cut would be passed on-they believed it would be absorbed in the pricing structure between the wholesaler and the consumer.
Montreal retailers say it is doubtful consumers will see lower prices in the wake of last week's cut to 9 per cent from 12 per cent in the federal sales tax.
The cut, a part of Finance Minister Jean Chretien's budget, affects the tax that manufacturers pay to the government as they sell their goods at the factory gate-usually to a wholesaler.
By the time the retailer gets the goods, the federal sales tax is included in the price. So retailers say they would lose money if they cut prices on inventory purchased before Chretien's budget announcement.
They add they would only cut prices if their competitors did so and forced them to match prices.
Excise Tax Act
So retailers in Montreal were suggesting that consumers might not reap the benefit which was intended for them by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).
There are other statistics which lead one to suspect that the sales tax cut is not being passed on. A couple of days ago the Globe and Mail said corporate profits had gone up by 46 per cent in the last week of 1978. We are not against people making a fair profit, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot help wondering whether the reason, or part of the reason, for this tremendous increase in profits might not have been companies retaining the advantage of the tax cut. Then again, a few days ago the industrial price index for manufacturing was released. The increase was 11 per cent or a little more, the highest recorded in a number of years. That figure is for February and it is very high, especially when one considers that inventories must have been largely depleted by February, that the sales tax must by then have been removed from those inventories to the extent of 3 per cent, and that the reduction should have been reflected in the selling price.
In my opinion the Minister of Finance has been a lot stronger than the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in trying to defend the validity of the cut. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said about a week ago that the CPI showed that in January the price of clothing had dropped, or, if it had not dropped, that it had levelled off. This, he indicated, was evidence that the cut was fulfilling its purpose. I pointed out to the minister that the manufacturing sales tax does not apply to clothing, food, drugs or heating fuel, so he had to think of another argument. When the minister speaks tonight I would like him to give us a few more details about what evidence he has that this sales tax cut is being passed on to the consumer. That is really all I am asking.
In his budget speech last November the minister said:
I estimate that the cut in the sales tax will reduce the increase in the consumer price index by one half of one per cent.
Back in November the consumer price index was at an annual rate of 8.7 per cent. The latest increase in the consumer price index, which was February over February, was some 9.2 per cent. There has been an increase of one half of one per cent in the consumer price index since the minister reduced the sales tax. On the surface it appears that the sales tax has not been passed on. I admit to the minister that all the arguments I am giving him are superficial, general, and global, because we in the opposition do not have at our disposal all the facilities, money and staff required to investigate properly whether the sales tax cut has been passed on to the consumer as it should have been. That is why I want to know what kind of study is under way, who is being surveyed, what the evidence is, and what proof the government has that the sales tax cut is being passed on to the consumer as it should be. That is the first and principal point I wanted to make in the debate tonight.
As has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and by the hon. member for Vegreville, this

March 22, 1979
Excise Tax Act
bill includes a number of items besides the sales tax cut, which is by far the major item in the bill. There is an increase in the airport tax. People flying within Canada and outside will find that the transportation tax will go up to 15 per cent as of April 1. Like the hon. member for Vegreville, I do not think that type of tax is proper. It is a user-pay tax. People using airport facilities have to pay a tax when they take flights regardless of their ability to pay.
The ways and means bill before the House today includes a number of other measures. It includes the elimination of a special tax on private aeroplanes, the elimination of a tax on motorcycles, and the elimination of a tax on boat motors. It deals with non-commercial aviation fuel.
The bill also includes excise tax schedules for diesel fuel and gasoline, measurements of which are now being converted from the old imperial system to metric. It includes other things which I think are perhaps inconsequential. With the exception of the air transportation tax I think they are really not too important to the average Canadian, but things like the change to the metric system should be scrutinized closely in order to make sure that companies do not take advantage of the switch from the gallon to the litre in order to up their prices by a penny or a fraction of a penny.
I think some items in this bill would cause hardship for a number of people. One specific item has to do with storm doors and windows, which previously were exempted from tax when the government reduced the tax on building materials some time ago from 12 per cent to 5 per cent. The tax on storm doors and windows was removed, and the bill before us re-imposes a 5 per cent tax on storm doors and windows.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have here a telegram sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), which says:
The Quebec Provincial Wood Industry Association, representing the interest of the 450 door and window manufacturers of Quebec, strongly protests against the imposition of the 5 per cent tax on materials exempted since 1975.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the government's decision is unfair. There has been no consultation with the firms involved and no reason has been advanced to justify that change. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will go back on its decision and abolish the tax on windows and doors. [English]
A number of industries, some of them being small companies, could be affected in a very negative way by this bill.
There is only one other point 1 want to make in my brief remarks. I think it is very important. Within the bill is a form of closure. I believe that was referred to by one hon. member who spoke previously in the debate. Clause 16(4) at page 12 of Bill C-38 states:
A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (3) shall be debated without interruption for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate or at the expiry of the fifth such hour, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposal of the motion.
As I understand it, this refers to various orders in council which are referred to in clause 15 and in the schedules on pages 11 and 12 of the bill. I hope the minister will be prepared to answer questions in the committee of the whole and to tell us why this form of closure is included in the bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Again?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Again. It is very similar to the closure in the energy bill we debated a few days ago. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) moved a motion to remove that terrible provision from that bill, and we supported that. This bill also imposes automatic closure. We will be allowed only five hour debates on motions to implement certain things. Without really ragging the puck, I hope the Minister of Finance will respond to that matter, either when he speaks later or certainly during the committee of the whole stage.
My main point is that I want to see some evidence that the 12 per cent sales tax on building materials which was reduced to 9 per cent-which amounts to about $1 billion-has been passed on to the consumer. The government says it is studying that. I want to know what kind of study it is and who is being surveyed. I want to know what kind of evidence there is that that money is indeed being passed on.
The second thing I want to know is why the government is imposing this additional tax on people using our airports. Third, I want some explanation as to why the government is legislating closure in Bill C-38.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), and I concur in the statements made by both those hon. members. I hope not to get into the points they raised because they were very well made by both hon. members. I will attempt to confine my remarks to the parts of the bill which deal with energy, cars and trucks.
This bill is a result of the budget of November, some four and a half months ago, and this is the first time we have debated it. We see that the most important part of the bill, the reduction of the sales tax, is something that the government cannot explain. The government is unable to tell us whether the benefits are getting down to the people whom the sales tax cuts are supposed to benefit, that is, the consumers. Members of the House have asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) whether these sales tax cuts will get down to the consumers, and he told us we should have confidence in the marketplace. It is the government that has set down these policies and it is the government that should be accountable for them and responsible for how these policies operate.
I agree with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) must respond in the House on his policies. When he states that the consumer price index

March 22, 1979

should be down by half a point because of the cut in the sales tax, he should tell us whether or not that is the case and whether he is making the studies to show that corporations, which are in the business of competing and are also in the business of making profits, are passing these cuts down to the people who should benefit from them.
I have had an ongoing discussion with the Minister of Finance regarding solar equipment and whether he would be in favour of granting a tax credit for putting it in place so that people could take advantage of it. I see in the bill that the excise tax on solar water heaters has been removed. This is a starting point, although a very small one, and we are concerned about the conservation of energy in this nation. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has been telling us all last week that a crisis would be imminent if another country were to cut off oil supplies to Canada, and that the government should be concerned about alternate forms of energy and how they can be put in place. One of those alternate forms is solar water heaters. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) stated that solar heat is one of the most promising areas of energy conservation in this country, and I agree with him.
In the government document entitled "Energy Futures for Canadians" the following statement is made:
The penetration of renewable resources to the extent shown would be a noteworthy accomplishment since most of the renewables lack any significant organizational, financial or market base at the present time. To establish so large a market for the renewables, individually and collectively, in so short a time presents Canadians with a major challenge, but one which has a high priority. By the year 2000, renewables would be contributing as much as imported oil at that time, or more than four times the energy currently supplied by nuclear power in Canada-a prodigious undertaking in 20 years.
These are very fine statements, but that is all they are, statements, because with the present policies in place there is absolutely no way we can achieve that use of renewables which is stated in government policy to be likely to take place by the year 2000. What we need is a policy which will encourage people to use solar equipment.
For example, a collector for a solar water heater costs $800 or $900, depending on whether you place the collector on your roof or on a pedestal. Then you must add pumps or controls, and this will add another $600 to the cost, making it around $1,500. Then you have to instal these facilities. Perhaps a number of people would be able to instal them themselves, but most would not, and when it is done totally by the commercial people it adds another $500 to the cost of the installation. So we are looking at an investment of some $2,000.
The government has removed the excise tax on equipment which, I suppose, would come from the United States and be developed here in Canada. That excise tax may save the consumer some $30, $40 or $50 at the most, but that is not a sufficient incentive for him to instal a solar water heater in his home. What we need is a tax credit which I have announced in the House to be the policy of the Progressive Conservative party. I fully believe that if the government were prepared to offer such a tax credit we would have a sufficient usage of renewables to reach the goals announced in the government's
Excise Tax Act
study, and thus would save a good deal of oil and gas which are becoming more and more expensive.
Also, as regards solar water heaters, we find that not all the equipment is made here in Canada. For example, the heat exchanger must be brought in from the United States. The reason for that is that the Canadian market is not sufficiently significant for Canadian manufacturers to go into the business of manufacturing these heat exchangers. The only way in which that could come about would be if greater consumption of those products were encouraged in Canada. As I said, in my opinion there is only one way to do that. Also, we must have a co-ordinated policy to develop more high technology necessary to develop the renewables, particularly the solar panels and collectors, so that we set down policies which encourage Canadian manufacturers to take advantage of them.
I was interested in the figures which showed that our higher technology and manufactured imports in 1978 amounted to some $29.3 billion. We have exported higher technology equipment worth $20 billion. That means we had a deficit in 1978 in the higher technology products of some $9.1 billion. I think that speaks for itself. It means that the government has a long way to go to encourage more research in this country to develop the kind of technology which must be made available to the consumers of those products. It is necessary if we are to promote such things as solar water heaters in our homes.
As I understand it, the excise tax is a tax on luxuries. I do not want to get back to the subject of renewables, but the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) pointed out that what the government is doing through the bill is to designate transportation as a luxury because it is putting a tax on it. As has been stated by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), we have a deficit of some $1.7 billion in the tourist trade in this nation. Surely he must have something to say about the user-pay concept that is in the bill and the increase in the landing tax. I would be interested to hear the Minister of Finance explain the reasoning behind that provision in view of the fact that we are concerned about decreasing our tourist deficit.
I referred previously to research and development which are so necessary to increase some of the high technology items needed in this country. Some months ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced this great program called PUSH which was to assist in the purchase and use of solar energy items, and I assumed that this would include solar water heaters in government buildings. He announced that in the years 1979 to 1984 he would make available some $125 million for the government to purchase solar energy and renewable energy items for government buildings. We find that even though the minister is still bragging about this program the department has now decided that the first $25 million, which should have been made available this year, will be only $1.5 million. We will be watching very closely whether the department is serious about this program or whether it is just another big announcement, using big figures, so that the people of this country will be made to believe that something is

March 22, 1979
Excise Tax Act
being done to help in these higher technology areas. But, in fact, nothing is happening.
When we talk about the use of energy and the conservation of it, we find that the minister removed the tax on solar water heaters and in the next clause he added on the tax to storm windows and doors. Surely this makes no sense. I cannot understand why the minister would do that. It cannot amount to very much money. I know people in the country are concerned about the conservation of energy in their homes and that they will be buying those materials anyway. It is beyond me why the department and the minister would attempt to save energy by removing a tax in one clause and adding it on again in the next. I want to question the minister on that in committee.
The last area I should like to speak about is the removal of the federal sales tax on trucks and cars. This tax was placed in a budget some years ago, and now the minister has decided that it was insignificant to the saving of energy and that it should be removed. We are all purchasers of new cars and trucks, and we welcome that move. But by announcing it one night, the minister has placed a number of dealers in situations where their inventories on hand are open to $200 to $300 per car, and more per truck. Dealers have had to advance sales on their inventories, and now they find the price of those cars and trucks must come down because consumers are demanding it. Thus they are caught with these inventories. If a dealer had 30 or 40 cars on his lot, which many of them did at the time of the budget, this could amount to anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 which he must absorb himself. I am referring to an average small dealer.
Many dealers wrote to me and indicated that the tax cut should have been made retroactive so that they would not have to absorb it. They are the whim of the Minister of Finance as he adds on taxes and takes taxes off. No one seems to worry about the small businessman who must absorb these losses, or perhaps losses of sales because he is incapable of absorbing them. I have received a number of letters from dealers in my constituency. I know members on both sides of the House of Commons have received those letters. It is another question the Minister of Finance should answer when asked in committee. He should be asked whether he is prepared to deal with this loss for small businessmen.
There are a number of items in this bill which affect small businesses and individuals. We will be very interested in the answers the minister brings forward in committee.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that it is over four months since the budget of November 16. One must spend quite a bit of time refreshing one's memory on what was said at the time. It is interesting it took the minister over four months to get his bills before the House. I know the minister is a senior one in some people's books. We look to him to correct the errors we find in certain areas of legislation when ministers such as the Minister of

National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) are powerless to give people the relief they need in certain cases.
Essentially Bill C-38 covers three major areas: the air transportation tax, the gasoline tax, and the sales tax. I noted especially that the minister said in his budget speech he would repeal the special 10 per cent excise tax on marine engines over 20 horsepower and private aircraft, and the 5 per cent tax on motorcycles. He said that they were having an adverse economic effect. Also he indicated that the contribution of these taxes to energy conservation has been minimal. I guess the minister finally found out what taxpayers were telling members of parliament, at least on this side of the House. Regardless of the taxing policies of the Liberal government, people require boats which have more than 20 horsepower engines. One cannot move a ship which weighs hundreds of tons with a tiny motor. One requires an acceptable size motor. I suppose efficiency is related to the relative size of the motor and the vessel being moved. It should not have come as any surprise to the minister that the contribution of these taxes to energy conservation had been minimal.
As far as the tax on private aircraft is concerned, perhaps the minister realized finally that there was quite a business being done in Canada in private aircraft, and that quite a number of Canadians were being put at an extreme disadvantage whether they were flying for pleasure or not. I suggest the minister found another problem which he did not tell us about in his speech, that is, not only was it the adverse economic effects and the minimum contribution to conservation, but also the government was having trouble with collections and the enforcement of collection of some of those taxes. There is nothing like tax avoidance to make the government realize that perhaps it was not a good idea to have such a tax in the first place.
We all applauded the reduction in the general sales tax from 12 per cent to 9 per cent. I noticed with interest that the tax is referred to in several places in the bill as a consumption tax. Every time the subject of consumption tax has come up in various debates, it is interesting the government was always quick to point out that consumption taxes are regressive ones which should not be used. The government pointed out that they are hidden taxes, that they weigh hardest on people in the lowest income brackets, and that somehow they are wicked, regressive, and should be avoided.
Everyone realizes that there is retail sales tax on every purchase made in Canada. It is the tax everyone can see when he makes purchases. It is only when the government is making a change in a tax such as this, and when this kind of debate takes place, that Canadian consumers realize the 9 per cent consumption tax is included in the retail price before they pay the retail tax.
Even though the government says that consumption taxes are not very good because they are hidden, it is fair for us to note that every once in a while this government does not mind collecting hidden taxes, which in this case were 12 per cent
March 22, 1979

and are now 9 per cent. If things are collated we know what kind of effect this hidden tax has on the tax of everything we buy. We expected when this tax was reduced to 9 per cent that there would be some sort of reduction in the rate of inflation or the rate of increase in the prices of goods that we buy.
Of course no consideration was given to the inventories on hand when this reduction was introduced. There were countless millions and billions of dollars in inventory around the country on which the tax had already been paid, because the nature of the tax is such that it is paid at the manufacturing level. This inventory had to be sold, and there was no immediate reduction for those business people who had old stock. This had the effect of delaying the benefit to consumers until that inventory was used up.
I hope there is some evidence of a slight reduction in the cost of goods which consumers buy, but I have not heard anybody exclaiming, "Oh, isn't that nice, this item is 3 per cent less than what it cost when I bought it a week ago or a month ago." Certainly there has been no evidence from the monthly bulletins put out by StatsCanada that there has been a reduction in the rate increase in the price of goods. 1 hope that we will see something along this line soon.
There is another aspect of the consumption tax which I wanted to mention briefly. It is an aspect which the government applies through the Income Tax Act, and it does not look upon it as a consumption tax. I am referring to the Registered Retirement Savings Plan I know that we are not debating the Income Tax Act, but I would like to make a comparison between what the government calls an income tax and what is actually a consumption tax.
If a taxpayer in Canada finds that he does not need to spend all of his disposable income in the year in which he receives it, he may contribute it to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. Within the limits set out in the plan, the taxpayers' contributions are deductible when calculating his or her income tax for that year. The amount which is contributed to the RRSP, together with the interest, is exempt from tax during the time it is a registered plan. When the taxpayer reaches the age of 71 the plan must be deregistered, or it may be done earlier should the taxpayer decide that he needs the money for consumption purposes. When his or her contributions are taken out of the plan, for the purposes of income tax it is considered income for the year in which the plan is collapsed.
Because this plan is covered by the Income Tax Act, the government looks upon it as an income tax. I suggest, however, that in fact this is simply another kind of consumption tax because a consumption tax is levied at the time the item, whatever it may be, is being consumed. Therefore, if this money is taxed when the taxpayer decides that he needs the money for consumption purposes, I suggest that it is in fact a consumption tax, regardless of what the government would like to call it.
There is a very dangerous aspect to this Bill C-38. It is a reference which I have found in several places, and particularly in some of the motions shown in the budget papers. Of course, those motions have been inserted in the bill, but I think
Excise Tax Act
it is easier to find them in the budget papers. For instance, motion No. 5 reads:
The said act be amended to specify the time period within which any amount owing to Her Majesty ... shall be payable-
Motion No. 15 reads:
Subsection 31(2) of the said act be amended to provide that the governor in council, on the joint recommendation of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue-
Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are several such examples in the motions. As a matter of fact, here is another one. Motion No. 7 reads:
Authority ... for the Minister of National Revenue to pay such persons as the governor in council may by regulation prescribe-
What we are finding again is more government legislation by regulation rather than by an act of this parliament. I cannot recall the numbers, but it seems to me that in 1978 there were well over 3,000 orders in council issued by the government. Those orders have the same effect as legislation, but they are not subject to the scrutiny of the Elouse or the other place. Such legislation, which gives to the cabinet, the government and the governor in council, the powers contained in it, may be used by the government any number of times and may' have far-reaching effects on the taxpayers and the people of Canada. It is a very serious trend.
During the same period that the Government of Canada was passing, I believe, 3,360 orders in council, the government of Great Britain for the same period passed less than 24 orders in council, and they have the courtesy to ratify their orders later by bringing them into the House.
Bill C-38 is not a very big bill. It seeks only to put into legislation about a page of the minister's budget speech. Yet there are at least three instances where the governor in council is authorized to make regulations over which we, the members who are debating the passing of this bill, will have no say.
I have heard this argument put forth in this House for all the years in which I have been here. It is a situation that is getting worse, not better. More and more power is being taken away from this House in this way and through other means. We no longer find, for instance, that the major announcements are made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House. The Prime Minister usually decides that other fora are more suitable for his purposes. In fact yesterday we were treated to the first speech by the Prime Minister in this House for five months. The Prime Minister is expected to be just that, the Prime Minister, and to give this House the benefit of his views.
I suppose in the past there has been some justification for the Prime Minister going elsewhere because he might think his message would be more readily disseminated. For the last year and one half, since the introduction of live television broadcasting of the proceedings, and especially in the last two weeks or so when they have been broadcast across the country by satellite, there could be no excuse for him further deteriorating the powers of this House by making major announcements outside it. I am getting a little off the topic, Mr. Speaker, but

March 22, 1979
Excise Tax Act
when I think about what legislation like this is doing to the powers of the House, I have to reflect on what is happening through other forms of erosion.
I have covered the areas I wanted to comment on briefly before the bill goes to committee. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) covered the matter of the increase in the air transportation tax on passenger travel. I hope a serious examination of the effects of the reduction of the sales tax will be made in committee to see whether changes can be made. I hope there will also be close examination of the ever-increasing powers granted to the governor in council by legislation such as this which leaves many important decisions outside the legislation and in the hands of a small group of Canadians, through order in council, decisions which will have an effect on all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the other speakers on this bill. They have had very little to say. I have very little to say either, but since that has not deterred them it will not deter me and I shall make my few remarks.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) addressed some of the broader issues of sales tax and commodity taxes. I know he is partly motivated in that by the responsibilities he shares with me on the finance committee and the time he spent in the last session looking into the question of commodity tax reform. He made the observation, with which no one can argue, that the commodity taxes are hidden taxes and inflationary taxes, in the sense that they make prices higher than they would otherwise be. The other side of that coin is that without the commodity tax system in Canada, income taxes would have to be raised by something like 28 per cent to produce the same amount of revenue for the government. That would have an effect not necessarily as directly inflationary but in its own way it would be an unacceptable alternative. Although it is inflationary it seems to be an unavoidable tax and one that cannot be readily converted to extra points in the Income Tax Act.
I was very happy to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was able to reduce the sales tax by 3 per cent in this bill, a substantial reduction, which had some immediate impact on retails prices. We know that the over-all impact of a reduction of federal sales tax does not show as readily as a reduction in the retail sales tax which is added to the price of goods at the consumer level. It is obvious that in a competitive market the reduction in the federal sales tax will have some impact on prices. Indeed, the consumer price index reports in the months following the introduction of this measure showed a considerable impact. Some of the movement of prices in the months following this tax change, which have been lower than they would otherwise be, was indicated by Statistics Canada and other sources to be attributable in part to the reduction of the federal sales tax.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra expressed some regret about the length of time it takes for this parliament to

deal with budget legislation. I want to second that. I agree it is regrettable that it takes so long to put budget bills through. It is true they begin to take effect on budget night, but unfortunately certain sectors in the community, private citizens and corporations, are reluctant to act on resolutions that have not become legislation approved by parliament. This problem has become particularly acute since the Department of National Revenue began to increase the amount of assistance offered to taxpayers in the way of interpretation of the impact of legislation and proposed transactions on taxpayers.
Proposals were recently approved by parliament which permit taxpayers to present a proposed transaction to officials of the Department of National Revenue and receive some sort of ruling for their comfort in entering into the proposed transaction. When a budget like this comes along offering many good things to stimulate economic growth, taxpayers have sought the guidance of a ruling from the Department of National Revenue but have found that the department is not in a position to give them the comfort letter or ruling on a proposed transaction until the legislation is passed.
In my constituency a company wanted to buy equipment to do research and development work so that it could take advantage of the incresed incentives offered. It asked the Department of National Revenue for a ruling and was told, quite rightly, that the department does not rule on resolutions, only on legislation. Officials of the department cannot take it for granted that this bill will be passed.
Another case was referred to me today by a chartered accountant. His client proposed to purchase some Dome Petroleum warrants or participation shares in the Beaufort Sea project. These interests were made very attractive under the budget bills, and taxpayers interested in taking advantage of them are entitled to some assurance that when they put their money on the table the promised tax credits will be forthcoming. The Department of National Revenue can give no such assurance until the House deals with these budget bills.
I should like to see more respect on all sides of the House for the impact this problem has on corporations and individuals. It is certainly not a government responsibility to get legislation out of the House; it is a government responsibility to bring legislation into the House. Any member of the House of any party can claim responsibility or be given responsibility for failure to get the legislation out.
I have been urging that a method be found for bringing budget bill legislation to a head, because all parties agree that economic uncertainty is present in the Canadian economy. On this side of the House we feel that the economic uncertainty that exists is not totally justified. The performance of the economy has been good and businessmen are entitled to have a justifiable measure of confidence. The incentives that are offered in this bill do not have their fullest impact until the measures become law, and who knows when that will be?
There are rumours that there may be an election in the weeks or months ahead. If these budget bills do not become

law before the election, will they become law after the election? I say the government will be returned and its commitment to this legislation will continue. One cannot blame a businessman ready to put his money on the table for wanting the certainty of an act of legislation to rely on so that he can invest with certainty and apply to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) and to his officials for the kind of ruling that this government has recently begun to make available to taxpayers with very good effect.
Let me turn to some other provisions. I have already referred to the welcome reduction in the sales tax from 12 per cent to nine per cent. This is very far from the kind of reform that the government has under consideration for the commodity tax of Canada.
The finance committee, which I referred to earlier, has already spent some time in the past session looking at the fundamental problems that exist with the excise and sales taxes in Canada. In particular we have looked at the arbitrariness of the present sales tax act which is 56 years old. It has none of the kinds of provisions such as rights of appeal, rights of review or of statutory determinations which exist in more contemporary legislation. I know all members of this House would welcome legislation to update the Sales Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. They may remain inflationary, as the hon. member indicates, but they can be much fairer and clearer than they are. They can be designed in a way to be much more helpful and stimulatory to the taxpayers of this country, in their operations in the economy.
I urge the House to deal rapidly with this legislation and to try to get as many of the budget bills enacted as possible. None of us in this House-however much we might try to exploit the existing atmosphere of uncertainty in some parts of this country-want that atmosphere to be perpetuated by the activities of members of parliament and by political partisanship.
I close my remarks by urging members of parliament to come to terms with this important bill. I ask them to try, if possible, in the weeks ahead to pass it, to deliver it into the hands of the economic community, and to deliver to the Minister of National Revenue the means to begin to issue definitive comfort letters and rulings to interested participants in the economic life of Canada.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on Bill C-38 and to have the opportunity to give a critique and an analysis of this particular legislation which is now before us. I hear government members applauding the bill. It is quite normal for them to want to support their own piece of legislation, but I want to say that it is the role of the opposition to define, in the concept of the British parliament, and to give a critique of that legislation. My role tonight is to point out some of the specific weaknesses in the bill and if the government wishes it can as a result, make some amendments, and improve the bill.
I wish to comment on a remark made by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who just preceded me. I may
Excise Tax Act
not be quoting him directly but I believe he said that the commodity taxes are hidden taxes and are inflationary. He went on to rationalize that that was okay. By what I believe is very close to a direct quote he said that if they were removed, income tax would have to be increased by 28 per cent. 1 have never heard of a response so shallow as that particular response. If we follow the reasoning given by the hon. member for York Centre, we can ask the question, where will the line be drawn on taxation? I now cite some figures in this respect.
In 1960, in terms of revenue as a percentage of the gross national product, all governments in Canada took 25.1 per cent. In 1968 that figure had increased to 34.4 per cent, and by 1974, at the start of the thirtieth parliament, the figure had risen to 39.8 per cent. I will now turn to expenditures. In 1950 22.1 per cent of the GNP was spent by governments. By 1968 when this government first took power 33.7 per cent was being spent of our total GNP by all governments in terms of taxation, and by 1974 the figure was 37.9 per cent. As recently as 1977 the figure was 41.1 per cent.
Consider a pie of a certain size. If one continues to increase the percentage that government takes from that pie, that much less money is left for the private sector. In other words, the larger the percentage of gross national product that comes from government expenditures, less is left for the private sector.
The hon. member for York Centre says revenues were needed so certain taxes were added on. I fail to understand this thinking. It would seem more logical for the government to stop and consider how it could bring stimulus into the economy so as to get the free enterprise system working. This would eliminate the need for a heavy overburden of government increasing taxes and working toward the objective of a dominated government society, which we appear to be working toward in Canada today.
Let me take a look at some of the specifics in this bill which do just that. For instance, airport tax has increased from $8 to $15 per person. In the first place Canada is probably one of the last nations in the world-next only to the Soviet Union- that should discourage air traffic. Canada is a country with a large land mass. It has tremendous resources, some of which are found in places where roads, railways and boats cannot go. To discourage aircraft travel, whether by light plane or commercial aircraft, is demonstrating a disincentive to the construction and the building of this country. However, if we were talking about a country such as Belgium which is a small country with a dense population, and if for some reason because of air traffic density the government in its wisdom said that air traffic should be limited, this would be quite proper. But to limit air traffic in Canada by taxation policies does not seem appropriate.
We could extend beyond the particular part of the clause in Bill C-38 and talk about the whole excise tax area and bringing light aircraft into Canada. The whole discriminatory concept against air travel has as its bottom line that this government does not believe that the airplane services the free enterprise system of our country. We have an unimaginative

March 22, 1979
Excise Tax Act
government. Otherwise, we would open up the concept of air travel, making it freer to travel.
On one hand we have an opinion that has been expressed in this House, one in which I concur, by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) that Canadians should travel and tour more in Canada. That is an opinion to which most Canadians would subscribe. However, we cannot take that position and on the other hand put in the way economic roadblocks which have objectives exactly opposite to that. I find it hard to believe that the government thought it necessary to increase the airport tax on the travelling public from $8 to $15. This is one of the last nations in the world that should put roadblocks in the way of air travel.
I now move to another portion of the bill, the reduction of sales tax from 12 per cent to 9 per cent. On the surface that tends to sound very musical to the ears of most people. However, the Department of Finance, which ought to be schooled in economics and the ramifications of their recommendations, should know that when they make a recommendation to reduce sales tax from 12 per cent to 9 per cent, somewhere they catch businessmen in the middle of the year. Car dealers across Canada would love to have this election come for no other reason than to vote against this government on that particular clause. I will tell you why.
A car dealer in my constituency managed to get out of that situation into which the government had put him. He had some cars on the lot at 12 per cent sales tax and others, the same kind of cars, at the 9 per cent sales tax. In order to get out of that, it cost him $12,000 out of his pocket. That is what he spent to bail out this government for not having foresight in terms of a taxation policy.
When you do not make the sales tax retroactive to a fiscal year, all you do is box in those people dealing in major commodity items. They have to pay out of their pockets in order to bail out the government. If the government is going to reduce sales tax, it should give some kind of warning, and the various sectors of the industry will applaud that. It would be widely accepted across the country. However, when you come in with the axe because an election is coming soon and you want some goodies in the candy bag to hand out, and you reduce the sales tax from 12 per cent to 9 per cent, the result is that the private citizen has to bail out the country.
Another part of this tax that leaves us in a real quandary as to what direction the government has been taking is in relation to building materials. In this country we have a shortage of housing and one of the highest levels of unemployment of any of the industrialized nations in the world, except for Italy. We must recognize that many factors flow out of the field of housing. First, it stimulates a tremendous number of sectors of our economy such as the lumber industry, concrete industry, electrical wiring, plumbing, skilled, unskilled and professional people.
The government somehow leaves on the books the concept of having a 5 per cent building tax. Some years ago the tax was

12 per cent. It was dropped a little bit, then some more, and now finally it will be 5 per cent. A bureaucracy is always needed to look after this. Throughout the building materials industry there is extra paperwork. There is just as much paperwork with a one per cent tax as a 90 per cent tax, and just as much administration required for a 5 per cent tax as a 75 per cent tax.
If the government wants to pare some of the administration and take off some of the overburden in the business community, the best thing it could have done would have been to wipe out in total the tax on building materials. It would have given a stimulus to the housing industry. That is the kind of imagination this country needs. It is something that should have been looked at in the last budget.
There is an appalling conflict of position in Bill C-38. It talks of a reduction in tax in terms of solar heaters. It is a good idea and no one in this House would argue with it. However, it slaps a tax on double-glazed window glass and storm doors. Somehow in the political ramifications the government gives the impression it wants to move toward energy saving devices. It picks something that has a musical ring to the public and says it will remove the tax on solar heating. While the public is looking in that direction, it sneaks behind and slaps a tax on storm doors and windows. Are ministers serious about energy saving or not? If they were, they would look at it from a broad perspective and not go on this teeter-totter adventure by taking it off with one hand and putting it on with the other. While Peter is giving, Peter is also taking, and Paul does not know if he is on a Ferris wheel or a pogo stick.
One of the most important parts of this legislation is also one of the greatest frustrations I can express about virtually every piece of legislation brought forward by this government. Clauses 15, 16 and 17 of the bill contain regulatory changes that can be changed by order in council.
I notice it is very close to ten o'clock. Perhaps in one sentence I might point out that in 1978 this country, through the federal government, had 3,970 orders in council. Not a single one was referred back to parliament. By contrast, there were about 15 orders in council in Great Britain and every single one was referred back to parliament. What we end up with is government by regulation, in other words, another attempt to thwart the parliamentary system. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
March 22, 1979

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I raised a question in the House asking what the government had done or would do to encourage the Canadian insurance industry to offer discounts or premiums to nonsmokers who were physically fit. The answer I received was unsatisfactory because, as I learned later, my question was addressed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) whereas it should have been addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).
Recently I received a substantial discount on my automobile insurance premium because I had not been involved in any kind of car accident for more than five years. Included in my premium notice was a reminder to all those who totally abstain from alcoholic beverages. This group of drivers is also a low risk group and, in consequence, they receive a significant reduction in their premiums. So the principle is well-known in the insurance industry: low risk groups get a break in their insurance costs. Safe drivers and non-drinkers of alcohol are among those in low risk groups.
However, according to a study done in the U.S.A. by a company known as Farmers' Insurance, non-smoking drivers have an accident rate which is one half that of smokers. It is not difficult to understand why smokers who drive may have more accidents; the act of lighting a cigarette, cigar or pipe can be distracting, as can the butting of smoking materials or the brushing away of ashes from clothes and car cushions. On the basis of this study, the Farmers' Insurance Company in the U.S.A. decided to give non-smokers a good discount on premiums. Mr. Speaker, if proper surveys were carried out by the Insurance Bureau of Canada I am sure it would be found that non-smokers are safer and better drivers and should therefore be rewarded by having to pay less for their premiums.
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken only of automobile insurance premiums. But the same principle applies to life insurance. The Occidental Life Insurance Company in the U.S.A. is offering discounts of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent on life insurance premiums to policyholders who exercise regularly. I am advised that, to qualify, a person must sign a statement that he or she is a non-smoker and has done some form of aerobic exercise such as jogging or swimming for a least 20 minutes three days a week for the preceding year. To the best of my knowledge, these progressive measures being followed by some insurance companies in the United States have not been adopted in Canada.
The Government of Canada knows that smoking is a serious threat to health and that it interferes in varying degrees with normal daily activities. Again, the government actively promotes and encourages citizens to follow a regular exercise program. Participaction has contributed a great deal, in my view, to raising the average level of robust good health in Canada. Now is the time to go for additional pay-offs, additional, that is, to feeling better, working more effectively and enjoying life more. The extra pay-off should be applied to
Adjournment Debate
insurance costs. Low risk groups should have their premiums reduced, and what better opportunity is there than on the basis of the evidence which has been produced as a result of studies in the United States?
That is the background for my question. I wanted to know what the minister has done to convince the insurance industry in Canada that this is a logical course to follow. What will the minister do in this regard? Non-smokers are now a majority in this country and it is about time they stopped having to pay extra premiums which have been incurred by those who are smokers.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question. It is not often that we non-smokers see questions raised in this way.
About two years ago an official of the Department of National Health and Welfare raised with the Canadian Home Office Life Insurance Underwriters Association the possibility of offering a reduced premium to their non-smoking clients. At that time it was pointed out that non-smokers make up approximately 70 per cent of the total population of Canada. Shortly afterwards one Canadian company offered a reduced rate on fire insurance, which is between 20 per cent and 25 per cent less than the standard premium. The same company also provides automobile insurance at a rate which is about 15 per cent less than the standard premium. No other Canadian company offers these reduced rates.
The question of reduced life insurance rates for Canadian non-smokers has also been explored with the industry. Canadian statistics on morbidity and mortality, as well as United States statistics, particularly those used by at least one American insurance company, seem to indicate that non-smokers are good risks and that it might be logical to offer them a preferred rate. This has not yet happened in Canada, although departmental officials continue to discuss the matter with the industry with the aim of obtaining the same life insurance benefits for Canadian non-smokers as those enjoyed by our American neighbours south of the border.
One can hope that the competitive requirements of the insurance industry will eventually produce the kind of premium reduction suggested by the hon. member.


TRANSPORT-AUTHORITY OF CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD TO PURCHASE GRAIN HOPPER CARS
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, as a non-smoker I also endorse the physical fitness concepts of my good friends opposite. I am looking forward to the conclusion of this parliament so that I can start jogging.
My question deals with a question I asked on February 12, 1979, of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), after the Canadian Wheat Board purchased some 2,000 hopper cars using Canadian Wheat Board or, in essence, farmers' money.

March 22, 1979
Adjournment Debate
The question was whether there was any limit to the number of hopper cars the board could buy, and the minister said that because there is authority, of course there was not. Then I went on to ask him if there was therefore any reason why the Canadian Wheat Board could not also purchase engines to pull trains, repair tracks on which grain is hauled, and repair terminals, ports and the like. The minister's response to me was as follows:
The answer to that question is no, Mr. Speaker; and, of course, it is completely out of the context of any reality to put it, except perhaps to create worry.
The minister went on to say:
They may save as much in demurrage charges at that time or in the ability to make spot sales in the annual cost of these cars, and that is the reasoning they employed.
I was not satisfied with that answer because I did not believe it. Today the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk) put virtually the same question, and he received a very different and conflicting answer. Today the minister said that the board has its own authority on this matter. 1 am referring to the "blues" of this afternoon's question period. The minister said that the Canadian Wheat Board went back and concluded that the right thing to do would be to go ahead and make purchases. I wrote a letter to the minister to ask about this, and I will quote a paragraph of the letter I wrote to the minister, as follows:
So that I might be precisely informed as to the specific authority that grants the Canadian Wheat Board the power to make the above said purchases, I would be pleased if you would cite the regulations or statutes that grant the Canadian Wheat Board the right to take such action.
I have now received a response which reads in part:
In reply to your letter of February 12, 1979 regarding Canadian Wheat Board authority to purchase hopper cars, this authority is contained in section 4 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, Chapter 12, as amended.
The following paragraphs of section 4.4 are the pertinent to this matter: Paragraph (a) empowers the board "to buy, take delivery of, store, transfer,
sell, ship or otherwise dispose of grain"-
The fact is that they could buy the engines and build the railway lines, and build anything else in accordance with the wishes of the Canadian Wheat Board to enable them to sell, ship or otherwise dispose of grain. This provides me with a very interesting perspective in view of the fact that a week ago I met with the president and executive of CP Rail who stated that CP is no longer sure they can pay $800,000 per rail engine, and that grain trains often use as many as four of these $800,000 engines.
The fundamental question is not with regard to the 2,000 hopper cars. What I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) tonight is this: we want some assurance, as we go through the list in this letter, a portion of which I read, stating that since they purchased 2,000 hopper cars and that the Canadian Wheat Board says it would like to have 10,000 hopper cars, they can no longer give an assurance that they can afford to purchase the engines, and noting the fact that some railway lines handle nothing but grain, what guarantee can he give to the farming

community that after they have seeded the grain, fertilized it, used pesticides and herbicides, then harvested it, stored it and hauled it to the grain elevators, the Canadian Wheat Board will not use up all their money to improve the transport system without paying the farmers?
I should like to quote a section of the Revised Statutes of Canada relating to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The pertinent paragraph in the minister's reply reads as follows:
Paragraph (d) empowers the board "to acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property ..Legal officers consulted were unanimously of the opinion that personal property includes such items as hopper cars.
Why could it not include any other item? It was their decision that it included hopper cars. In his answer to me the minister said that obviously they could not purchase the engines or fix up the rail beds or the ports. I do not believe that answer because of the different answer he gave today to the hon. member for Portage in which he indicated that the Canadian Wheat Board can use its money in any way it deems fit so long as it is for the purpose of buying, selling, shipping or otherwise disposing of grain. This is the first time in Canadian history that the Canadian Wheat Board has used farmers' money for any other purpose than to pay demurrage charges which occur on the west coast usually because of strikes or because of the unfortunate scheduling of ships coming to port.
We are now on the threshold of a change in how farmers' dollars are used. What I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary this evening is what assurances he can give us, clearly and simply, that the farmers from this day henceforth, when they make a sale of grain, will get even $1 back, and that somehow in the judgment of the Canadian Wheat Board it will not be necessary to use that money to fix up some rail lines or to buy some more hopper cars or engines to pull the grain, or to fix up the grain drying facilities, or a whole host of other expenses. If that act is to be interpreted in the loose way it is drafted, it cannot be left simply to the judgment of the elected officials of the Canadian Wheat Board. There must be a distinct difference between making policy direction decisions and decisions which relate to the actual dollars that go back to the farmers' pockets. I should like the parliamentary secretary to address himself to that second point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I find it most surprising that a member opposite should show such a lack of confidence in the Canadian Wheat Board and I find it even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should imagine that the Minister of Transport, any other minister or any other member of this House would know by heart all the sections and subsections in the statutes of Canada which fill at least 30 library shelves.
March 22, 1979

What surprises me even more, Mr. Speaker, is that if the hon. member had indeed listened to the answers the minister gave today the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk) he would probably not have to quote from the letters he wrote or even the statutes of Canada.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to quote in turn, the way the hon. member did, the answer the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) gave today to the question by the hon. member for Portage, on exactly the same subject when the minister indicated with respect to the purchase of 2,000 hopper cars by the Canadian Wheat Board, and I quote:

-indicated at that time that my consent was not required and that the board had its own authority in this matter. I had advance knowledge of its consideration of the matter, and of course I realized they had discussed the matter with the elected advisory committee of producers. After public reaction about the hopper cars, I was concerned that they review the matter.
The minister went on to say that the Wheat Board went back to the advisory committee, looked at it again, and concluded again that the right thing was to go ahead with the purchase.

With respect to the second point, Mr. Speaker, about farmers and the funds necessary to operate the Canadian Wheat Board, the minister clearly indicated they too have a word to say in the decisions of the Canadian Wheat Board, and I would like to quote from the answer the minister gave in this House today as follows:

-that there is an elected body of advisers to the Wheat Board who were elected just freshly toward the end of last year, the first year of their term." They were consulted, but beyond that, as tc what they can or cannot do in precise legal terms, the minister suggested that the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk) should consult his own advisers.
The decision of the Canadian Wheat Board must be taken in the context of what the federal government has accomplished over the past few years to upgrade the grain handling and transportation system. The government has already purchased 8,000 hopper cars for grain movement at the cost of $260 million.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the government constantly reassesses the need to purchase additional hopper cars. However, it must make sure these are absolutely necessary before allocating public funds for that purpose. That precaution is particularly important in this period of government restrictions.
To get the most out of the cars used for hauling grain, Mr. Speaker, we see that improved efficiency in the past three years shows one third fewer cars were required in 1977 to haul the same amount of grain as was moved in 1974.
Adjournment Debate


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-STEPS TO IMPROVE CAPE BRETON COAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, in his answers to my questions of March 15, for giving the people of Cape Breton such hope, and especially for assuring coal miners and the unemployed that they could expect a positive answer from the federal government on the question of opening a new coal mine at Donkin outside the town of Glace Bay.
The minister mentioned that the past help given to the coal division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation is a sign that the Cape Breton mining communities can anticipate good news about Donkin. That is how I interpreted his answer to my supplementary question. I want to tell him we all appreciate that help. Despite some mistakes, Devco's coal division has done a better job for the miners than its predecessors, Dosco and Hawker-Siddeley, which fed at the federal government from the 1920s until they abandoned Cape Breton in the mid-1960s.
In passing I just want the minister to know that if the Liberal government has listened to the late MP, Mr. Clary Gillis, in 1947, it would have nationalized the mines in Cape Breton earlier. If it had adopted his plea for a national fuels policy then we all would have been better off in Canada and we would not have had to wait until the end of the 1970s to get some adequate measures with regard to coal reserves in Cape Breton.
The drilling measures carried on in the last two years have been very encouraging. In the words of the late Devco president, Mr. Bob Matheson, "The coal that was drilled in front of Lingan and No. 26 indicates that Lingan, instead of having a lifespan of 17 years, probably will be able to continue viably for 25 years and this automatically extends the life expectancy of No. 26 as well because it is on the same front."
A paper written by Mr. W. Potter, geologist, on the results of the offshore coal drilling program of 1978, had this to say in paragraph two: "Three holes were drilled at Donkin to examine the quality of the coal found during the 1977 program and to assist the feasibility study for a proposed new mine. The geological resources for the four seams, that is Point Aconi, Lloyd Cove, Hub and Harbour, are two billion tons." Reserves were also found that hopefully will see a new mine at the Prince mine site on the north side.
We all realize that having such a large amount of coal does not mean that present mining technology or the economics of extracting the coal are all favourable. Certainly the coal has been proven to be of good quality for thermal use, if not for coke oven use in a steel plant. Therefore the demand of the Nova Scotia government and its power commission play a crucial role in determining the beginning date for the tunneling operation that must procede the actual extraction of the coal. There is every indication from the premier of Nova

March 22, 1979
Adjournment Debate
Scotia and his minister of mines that they are anxious to get the Donkin mine started as soon as possible.
The minister of mines, Mr. Barkhouse, who is also chairman of the Nova Scotia energy council, sent a telegram to the minister in charge of Devco, Mr. Lessard, on February 27, which in essence urges the federal government to open Donkin. This is good news but before a final announcement of a starting date for opening Donkin can be given, the contractual price demanded by the Nova Scotia Power Commission, as well as royalty rates and length of contracts, all have to be negotiated between Devco and the Nova Scotia Power Commission. The present royalty paid to Nova Scotia government is 25 cents per ton. Is that going to be constant for the life of the Donkin contract?
When does the province intend to build the third and fourth stages of the generating station at Lingan? The first two stages which will produce 300 megawatts of electricity at a cost of some $180 million are due on stream by 1980. They will burn some 800,000 tons of coal. The next two stages or, if there is only a third stage, will produce an additional 300 megawatts and burn another 800,000 tons.
The accelerating price of crude and bunker C oil, which all the evidence shows will go much higher, is a special incentive to use coal-fired thermal plants. Given the insecurity of foreign oil supplies, security of supply from having coal at the backdoor, so to speak, is another very important reason for going ahead without further delay. It will take some four to six years to develop a mine producing some two million tons a year from Donkin. The federal promise of last year should now be confirmed, and Devco and the Nova Scotia government should start negotiating immediately.
There is no good reason that I can see why the Donkin mine cannot be started by June or July. There is every indication that this will prove to be a good investment for the federal government and the Nova Scotia government, as we try to limit imports of foreign oil. Millions and millions of dollars of oil compensation payments by the federal government will be saved. Our country's serious balance of payments situation will be helped. The desperate unemployment problem in the construction and in the coal mining sector of Cape Breton will be greatly alleviated. These are the major important economic and social benefits that will far outweigh financial costs involved.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about Devco tonight. I am sure that the hon.
member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) shares my pride and that of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) in the solid record of achievement of Devco.
Devco is an excellent example of the courage and determination of Cape Bretoners and what they can achieve when backed by a committed federal government. It should be widely recognized and appreciated that Devco has turned the Cape Breton coal industry around, that, for example, the Lingan mine is recognized by mining experts around the world as the most productive advancing longwall coal mine in the world.
The hon. member has raised the question of the proposed new Donkin mine. Let there be no doubt as to this government's commitment to do everything possible to develop a viable mine near Donkin. It was this government that spent over $10 million to finance the coal exploration which proved the reserves necessary to support a new mine. It is this government, through Devco, that is paying for the feasibility study of which the hon. member speaks. It is this government that committed itself in principle almost a year ago to proceed with a new Donkin mine if it is shown to be feasible.
The engineering consulting firm which Devco engaged to do the feasibility study on the Donkin mine proposal is now in the final stages of writing its report to the corporation. The report will be a rather lengthy document of up to six volumes, and as soon as it is ready the corporation will make a copy available to the minister and review the document with him.
One volume of the report will be an executive summary and this volume will be the first released. The hon. member may be assured that we shall keep him advised of the progress of this matter.
The hon. member expressed concern as to whether or not the final federal decision will be made before, during or after the election campaign. This is a most difficult question to judge. As the hon. member knows, there is much work involved in evaluating a report of this size. He knows as well that no technical report can replace good policy judgment even though those reports are an essential part of decision making. He knows too that Devco must prepare its plan for development for government approval.
I can only assure him that the government will move with the same determination it has demonstrated in the past and that a decision will be made as quickly as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.


Friday, March 23, 1979