1979-12-10

Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 7, the Prime Minister made a statement in the House to the effect that the government would tax away 100 per cent of additional revenues accruing to the oil companies as a result of any oil price increases. This sent the Toronto Stock Exchange oil price index crashing 109 points and caused panic in the Toronto and New York investment communities before the right hon. gentleman's office could clarify the position. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vercheres (Mr. Loiselle):
That in light of the Prime Minister's continuing obsession with contradictory and confusing statements, from now on the North American investment community be instructed to check with the office of the Prime Minister before believing anything he says.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Today marks the thirtieth anniversary of the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, thus making the Supreme Court of Canada the ultimate appeal tribunal for Canadian law. What is not generally recognized is that the Supreme Court of Canada, unlike the supreme court of the United States, is not a constitutional court but merely a creation of Parliament and, therefore, subject to abolition by an act of this legislature.
In order to provide our supreme tribunal with formal as well as substantial independence from political institutions so that it can enhance its role both as a court of appeal and as a constitutional arbiter, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan):
That this House urge the government to introduce a constitutional amendment making the Supreme Court a constitutional court fully protected by entrenchment in the British North America Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent of the House is required before the motion can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the residents of communities in the Mackenzie Delta area are experiencing severe hardship as a result of power shortages caused by faulty generating equipment, and whereas the Northern Canada Power Commission has blamed its inability to properly repair and maintain this equipment on lack of funds, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That emergency funds be provided to NCPC so that they can immediately carry out necessary repairs and restore full service to the affected communities.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed. Is there unanimous consent that it be presented?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that a company by the name of S.C.A. in the United States has been dumping thousands of gallons of PCBs and other harmful chemicals into the Niagara River on a daily basis, and in view of the fact that the continuation of this method of disposal has a potentially harmful and lasting

December 10, 1979
effect on the health of all citizens, Canadian and American, who live along the river, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Froese):
That the government express its concern that the S.C.A. Company of the United States has been dumping thousands of gallons of PCBs and other harmful chemicals into the Niagara River on a daily basis, and urge the government of the United States to look directly into this matter and take what action is necessary so as to alleviate the potential danger of such a continued disposal method of harmful chemicals.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate, under the terms of Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that in a letter dated November 6, 1979, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) gave us assurances as to the gas and heating oil supplies for eastern Canada; considering the many inconsistent statements made by the Prime Minister since then; considering that the people of Quebec and the maritimes are facing uncertainty this winter, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert);
That, in the opinion of this House, an emergency debate should be held on oil supplies for this winter, in order to review and ascertain the situation by examining proposals or measures to ensure sufficient supplies to meet the needs of eastern Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent of the House is required before the motion can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Farm Credit Corporation uses its status as a Crown corporation as an excuse to ignore municipal bylaws, especially zoning bylaws, as happened recently in Cumberland where the Farm Credit Corporation divided a piece of agricultural land to resell the lots at residential and speculative rates, contrary to the zoning bylaws of that municipality; considering that it is both urgent and pressing that this practice be stopped, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation, order the corporation to refrain forthwith from such practice and that a letter be sent to assure the municipality of Cumberland that such action will not be repeated.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be introduced for debate without unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ English ]


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my motion, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity comes in light of the fact that Talonbooks Ltd., of Vancouver, has basically existed on Canada Council grants and has published much material which is greatly questioned by Canadians. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this Parliament urge the Canada Council not to announce a final decision respecting extended grants to Talonbooks Ltd. until such time as both the council and the publishing company have appeared before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
I might add that I understand the Canada Council will be reviewing that in the next three days.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion as presented cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 10, 1979


SUPPLY OF GASOLINE TO INDEPENDENT DEALERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that independent gasoline dealers are being unfairly cut off their supplies by large multinational oil companies-specifically, 41 independent service stations will be out of gas this week in the Ottawa area because of these unfair market practices by Gulf Oil-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Inter-lake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources immediately investigate the current marketing practices of large oil companies in cutting off supplies to independent gasoline dealers, in order to stop their unfair and unethical practices.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be introduced for debate, under the terms of Standing Order 43, only upon unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. As we know, the Toronto Stock Exchange oil index dropped down 109 points in one day, which is a 4 per cent swing from high to low, due to the Prime Minister's incredible and unprecedented statement during question period on Friday that he would-
-ensure that virtually 100 per cent of the revenues that would go to the companies as a result of increases in energy prices will, in fact, be regained by the Government of Canada-
Will the Prime Minister be announcing any further economic measures in relation to corporate taxes?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is seriously interested, I suggest that he pay attention to questions in the House and also be present here for the budget tomorrow.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That will be a clear indication to the Canadian people of how well the Prime Minister of Canada answers questions in the House. I have a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious effect of such rash statements, and will he try to break the stock market single-
Oral Questions
handedly again soon with such irresponsible and careless timing of his remarks?


Charles Joseph Clark: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, and the answer to the second part is no.


ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY BY 1990-EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it relates to the often stated proposal by his government of the intention to reach energy self-sufficiency by 1990.
1 would ask the Prime Minister how he rationalizes the sale of 3.75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the United States with the statement by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on oil and gas supplies of November, 1979, stating that additional sales to the United States would make Atlantic Canada continue to be dependent upon foreign oil supplies.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure to which statement the hon. member is referring. It may well have referred to the statement of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to heating oil, or to oil, and not to natural gas. In any event, since it came down in November, it was a statement which predated the publication of the National Energy Board report which indicated that the amounts recommended for export to the United States were clearly surplus to Canadian needs, and that those Canadian needs to which they were surplus included the possibility of significant substitution in eastern Canada.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister about his statement on Friday not to extend the natural gas pipeline to the maritime provinces, thereby making the maritime provinces continually dependent upon offshore oil supplies and, once again, putting the Atlantic region in an inferior position to the rest of Canada.
1 would ask the Prime Minister why his government does not extend, right now, the natural gas pipeline into the maritime provinces, thereby enhancing the possibility of an early extraction of natural gas from the Sable Island area and reducing the dependence of the maritime provinces on offshore oil.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the hon. member's misrepresentation of what I said was not intentional. Our position is that if there is a desire on the part of the maritime provinces to have a gas pipeline extended beyond Quebec City, we are prepared to consider that with the utmost seriousness. Indeed, if they agree, we would be prepared to go ahead with such an extension beyond Quebec City.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But we are not going to force down the throats of Atlantic Canada a pipeline that they do not want. So we are waiting for the agreement of the Atlantic provinces.

December 10, 1979
Oral Questions


PROVISION OF NATURAL GAS TO EASTERN CANADA
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, in a press release of December 4, the Foothills Pipe Lines group put forward some projections that there would be labour shortages in some of the key pipeline areas in eastern Canada and in western Canada where the Alaska pipeline and the Q and M pipeline and others would be laid down at the same time.
In view of the government's program to substitute gas for oil in eastern Canada, would the government give the assurance that these labour shortages will not delay the provision of natural gas for eastern Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly take account of labour shortages and act to try to anticipate them. 1 am not sure whether the hon. member is suggesting that the position of the Liberal party is to oppose the Q and M pipeline and to oppose substitutions of natural gas for oil.


STOCKS OF HOME HEATING FUEL
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In its Friday statement on oil product supplies, the National Energy Board revealed that not only at the end of October were stocks in Canada of home heating fuel down by 6.3 per cent but, incredibly enough, exports from Canada for the same period of time were up by some 27 per cent. In a statement last Friday, the Prime Minister said the following:
We knew all along that shortages were possible.
He was referring to shortages of fuel oil this winter. In view of that statement, how could his government, during the six months it has been in office, possibly have permitted the exports to have taken place?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in some of the cases where exports took place, they took place as a result, as 1 understand it, of the fulfilment of a condition having to do with the construction of certain refinery capacity in plants and in areas where there was not likely to be, and indeed will not be, any shortage this winter.
I think the hon. member will understand the reports to which we were referring from the National Energy Board are reports that give us, as up-to-date as possible, an assessment by the National Energy Board of the possibility of shortages in a particular region at a particular point in time. The latest information is that there is the possibility now of some interruptions, although they can be avoided if there is control upon exports and if there is conservation practiced. My understanding is that companies which had been in the practice of exporting previously have not been exporting since October or November.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister confirm that had his government been on its toes for the past
[Mr. Clark.)
six months in this regard, instead of being faced with a 6 per cent shortfall of home heating fuel in Canada, compared to last year, in fact we would have had a 6 per cent surplus?
If he will admit that, could he possibly explain, in the case of Irving Company, why that company was permitted to increase its exports very substantially during the precise period to which the Prime Minister referred in his comment on Friday, that the rest of us, particularly in Ontario and eastern Canada, could be anticipating shortages?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I reject the invitation to make the statement that the hon member extended to me. With regard to the Irving plant, my understanding is that in November, Irving had very little in the way of exports; that in terms of Irving's service areas, no area has been short of heating oil or heavy oil; that last month Irving was denied a number of export licences because there was not a great surplus.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there are no shortages yet, but it has been the Prime Minister and others who have warned about the shortages which will come this winter. Because I checked just before noon today, would the Prime Minister confirm that the National Energy Board now is still permitting exports to take place, and that it has before it applications for permits which will allow companies to export more home heating fuel later on this winter? In answering those questions, and I think the answer will be unequivocally in the affirmative-


An hon. Member:: Then why ask?


John Edward Broadbent: -could the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the people of Canada why he has not issued an instruction to the NEB that no more exports of home heating fuel should take place in Canada this year?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will check into those matters on which the Leader of the New Democratic Party has informed himself, but they are details on which I have not yet been informed. 1 will not only look into the particular questions the Leader of the New Democratic Party has asked; I will also look into the existence of any other conditions that, if the case he suggests is in fact true, would have led the National Energy Board to make that kind of authorization.


REQUEST FOR PRECISE DETAILS ON SUPPLY SITUATION FOR INDEPENDENTS
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is also directed to the right hon. Prime Minister, naturally deals with the energy issue. In his letter to us which was included as an appendix to Hansard of last November 6, the Prime Minister indicated the steps his government had taken to reassure the people of Quebec and the maritime provinces, that is to say, eastern Canada, concerning oil supply security.
December 10, 1979

He also indicated the steps his government had taken to maintain quotas and ensure supply for independent distributors. Could the right hon. Prime Minister advise us, taking into account everything that has been said over the past few days, where we stand now as far as supply for independent distributors is concerned?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it would be necessary for me to check the exact situation of the independent distributors. I do not have the relevant information with me today. I should like, however, to mention to the hon. member that in the letters I wrote him 1 indicated the following:
Should we be faced with a disruption of oil supply sufficient to cause a national emergency, then I can assure you that the government is prepared to use the powers available to it under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 to conserve supplies and to provide for their equitable distribution.


FUEL OIL-REQUEST FOR STUDY OF REDUCTIONS IN SUPPLY FOR INDEPENDENTS
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he was informed that independent distributors had their quotas reduced by almost half for December alone. I have an example for him. An independent distributor who had a quota of 98,000 gallons of heating oil had it reduced to 58,000 gallons in December, which means that his quota was reduced by 40,000 gallons. I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he is prepared to inform the House today that his government will take every measure necessary to correct the situation forthwith.


Charles Joseph Clark: First, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to review and consider the situation referred to by the hon. member. Second, last week 1 indicated that the government intends to announce the names of the members of the supply board later this week.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader in his capacity as Minister of National Revenue. Not long before the House opened today, it was alleged to me that not only have the personal income tax forms for the 1979 tax year not yet been mailed out, but the printing of them has not yet been completed. This clashes with what the minister told the House on November 28, when he used words to the effect that they had been printed and the mailing was to be completed by early last week.
Could he tell the House, now, exactly what the state of affairs is and, in particular, if they were printed, the exact
Oral Questions
dates the printing was carried out, and if they were mailed, the exact dates on which they were mailed?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. member the exact dates, but when I made the statement in the House during the course of the debate on Bill C-20, the forms were in fact ready. I am advised that the mailing has begun in respect of those forms. I want to assure the hon. member-and he should know, as a former minister of national revenue-that the decision had to be made when it was made, and the action taken when it was taken.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, since this is important in terms of the vote we will be taking on the closure motion later this day, 1 would ask the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue if he could give us the exact information before that vote is taken. Exactly when was the printing of these forms completed; exactly how many forms were mailed out, and on what date, and exactly how many forms remain to be mailed out? The minister should know that there is no absolute legal requirement within the law insisting that the procedure had to be carried out, as he said when he spoke in the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as a former minister of national revenue, ought to know that the Department of National Revenue would act on behalf of the provinces with respect to property tax credit legislation, as it does with the child tax credit. These refunds would be delayed if the steps which I outlined in my speech on Bill C-20 were not taken. These steps were taken for administrative necessity, and the hon. member, being a former minister, ought not to be so silly as to deny that they are necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[Translation\


FINANCE
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last July he gave us to understand that the formula to establish a duty-free zone between Canada and the United States deserved serious consideration. Can the minister say whether he is still in favour of such a duty-free zone between Canada and the United States, and does his position reflect the position of the government?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have never said whether 1 favour a duty-free zone between Canada and the United States or any other kind of zone. What I suggested, and what I suggest again today, is that it is time
2174

December 10, 1979
Oral Questions
for Canadians to assess very carefully the options that they have for the future, including questions such as whether we should have freer trade between us and the United States, a North American common market, or a policy of more Canadian independence and more Canadian control over Canadian industry.
I have indicated that these are matters which should be seriously studied and on which the public should be informed so that they can make a conscious decision in the next few years as to our economic future. What 1 favour is a complete study, a weighing of the costs and benefits and a conscious decision by the Canadian people as to what direction we should take.


INQUIRY WHETHER HOUSE COMMITTEE WILL STUDY ADVANTAGES OF PROPOSAL
Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the minister is so interested, can he tell us if he has formed a committee to consider the pros and cons of that matter and, if so, when can the House expect to receive its recommendations?
[English\


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what I am in favour of is not proceeding blindly down a path which leads to we know not where, as the last administration did. I am in favour of adopting a course consciously. No committee has yet been appointed, but I have asked the officials of my department to have a preliminary look at these questions and to prepare the data.
1 agree with the Senate committee which studied this issue, and the Economic Council of Canada, that these are matters which should be seriously looked at before we decide what is the most reasonable way to determine our future on these matters.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Five weeks ago, in answer to questions in this House, the Prime Minister stated that the effect of the Buy American act on Canadian exports of urban transportation equipment was a very serious concern to the government, and that the matter was on the agenda for discussion with President Carter.
The Minister of State for International Trade stated in the House the next day that he had discussed the matter that very morning with the U.S. ambassador. Last Thursday morning the Gazette reported that Bombardier may have to move its 800-employee transit vehicle manufacturing operation to the
[Mr. Crosbie.)
United States because of that act. Last Thursday evening, the government announced increased gas exports to the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his question.


David Berger: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As 1 said, last Thursday evening the government announced increased gas exports to the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Berger: Was any consideration given by the government to tying one to the other, that is, to provide increased gas exports to the U.S. if they provide us with markets for our manufactured goods?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right, that the possible move of Bombardier to the United States is a very real concern of this government. It is a matter on which I had discussion in Washington last Thursday. To specifically answer the question on whether consideration has been given to tying the two matters together, the answer is no.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of State for International Trade. After the minister's discussions with the United States, would he now give an indication as to our chances of obtaining amendments to that act?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a very good chance that we will be able to settle this matter on a satisfactory basis for the urban transportation industry. Our ambassador in Washington has had discussions with the new administration for the department of transportation in the United States. He advised me last week that there is a good opportunity for a satisfactory agreement. At this stage, I do not have any details which I can put before the House, but as soon as 1 have something I will do so.
*	* V


FINANCE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the urbane, refined and cultured Minister of Finance.


Mr. Knowles:: He isn't here.


An hon. Member:: Did they change ministers?


Mark Willson Rose: backs, high interest rates or a combination of both. Is the minister aware of the tragic effect this policy is having on the Canadian book publishing industry and its employees-10 per cent of whom have been laid off already-and what contingency plans has the government to ensure employment stability within that industry and the survival of Canadian book publishing?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have greater faith in the Canadian book publishing industry than does the hon. gentleman. My seatmate has already announced a policy to help the Canadian book publishing industry. As far as the high interest rate condition is concerned, that of course has its effect on all businesses. We are hoping for improvement as soon as our policies get a grip on the economy. 1 can assure the hon. gentleman that his worries and concerns are shared by the government, but we have more optimism for the future of the industry than he does.


FUNDING OF THEATRE COMPANIES
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I will extend the minister's sympathy to the industry and assure them that we know that the government has a grip on that industry. My supplementary question is to the Secretary of State. Have any officials of the Stratford Festival approached him with regard to funding discrimination, and is the minister considering reallocating the $10 million budget for the National Arts Centre in Ottawa to assist the smaller theatre companies across Canada, in general, and Stratford in particular?


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Stratford Theatre Company-a very important theatre company to all of Canada-the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations has raised this matter with me many times. I have had meetings with representatives of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres in an attempt to develop some long-term and positive policies with respect to professional theatres across Canada. I think we are making good progress in that regard.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It stems from recent discussions which I have had with Bell Canada and the CRTC that there is an impending likelihood that a study by Bell Canada will take place to determine a new means of billing Canadian consumers. My concern is that this-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question.
Oral Questions


William Henry (Bill) Domm: My question is, would the minister use the authority of his office to ensure that this new study is not a means by Bell Canada to increase consumer rates?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the proposed experiment by Bell Canada of usage-sensitive pricing is a controversial topic and one with considerable implications in terms of possible increased charges to individual subscribers. Even though there has been no clear decision as yet on whether or not the proposal and the experiment put forward by Bell two months ago is acceptable, I will inquire of CRTC to make sure that there is no momentum given to this issue which would, in effect, contribute to a decision that would not be in the public interest.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I will put my question to the acting minister.
It relates to the Vietnamese refugee program. Last week, when the Minister of Employment and Immigration appeared before the committee and announced the end of the Vietnamese refugee aid program, he said that he had consulted with his provincial counterparts, including Mr. Couture, the Quebec minister of immigration, and that they had given him their support. Mr. Couture denies that these consultations ever took place and he says that he is opposed to the withdrawal of the program. My question to the minister is this: Is Mr. Couture lying on this subject? Would the minister be willing to take his advice and restore the program the way it was?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very important question. As 1 understand it, Mr. Couture was concerned about the fact that we not receive some 10,000 refugees which was the understanding of all the parties involved. In terms of who is telling the truth, 1 must state that I stand by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who indicated that he had consulted with the provinces and they were in agreement with his plan, given the fact that the total number involved is 50,000.
As the hon. member knows, there was a recent release, under the date of December 6, which has now placed more emphasis on the private sector in order that moneys can be freed to assist those who are suffering in Cambodia which, in all, is still part of the refugee question. In other words, we had

December 10, 1979
Oral Questions
the 50,000 limit, but we are involved with the Kampucheans and also with other refugees.


REQUEST FOR RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF AID PROGRAM
Robert Phillip Kaplan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When he appeared before the committee, the minister also said that he had consulted with and been given support by the private sector. We know now that they are almost unanimously opposed to the proposed changes in the program. Therefore, what we have here are two instances of ineffective consultations and one instance of denied consultations, namely, by Mr. Couture. Will the minister undertake new consultations, or will he restore this excellent program to what it was before?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it has already been indicated by the minister that there is, indeed, a great need in Cambodia. We have not given up the refugee program one bit, but there are two prongs to it: one happens to be the boat people, and the other happens to be those in Cambodia who are suffering from lack of food, who are in need of temporary shelter and who are in need of medical aid. Therefore, this is a good cause.
In terms of reversing ourselves, I have no knowledge at this time whether the minister will or will not, but my understanding is that he intends to proceed in accordance with the press release, which he has now on his desk, dated December 6.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker,
1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There are now confirmed reports that the Argus Corporation is proposing a major takeover bid of the FP newspaper chain. Under these circumstances, we would have one of the largest economic conglomerates in the country taking control of one of the major newspaper chains.
1 should like to ask the minister if the government has expressed any concern over this action in relation to how it would affect the public interest of this country. In particular, has the minister instructed the director of combines investigations to undertake an inquiry as to whether this proposed takeover would be in the public interest, and whether the government has any involvement in the case?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government has expressed concern. The director of investigations will certainly look at this matter.


Lloyd Axworthy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the imminence of the takeover bid, does the minister have any timetable in mind as to when the director of combines investigations will report? Does the minister also intend to make a public statement about the government's concern regarding this proposed takeover, and does he intend to take any immediate action to declare a moratorium on the takeover until the director has had an opportunity to fully assess and study the implications?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the director of investigations is an independent office. I imagine the director will require some time before he will be in a position to indicate whether a formal investigation is required.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: In view of the absence of the Minister of Transport, the minister of state for maritime transport and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, I shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to know whether the government has been advised of the very extensive damage caused to the Pointe-au-Pic wharf, which is one of the most important economic factors in that area, and whether the government would be willing to consider allocating special funds to undertake the urgent repairs to that marine structure with a view to saving this economic tool which is of such importance to the riding of Charlevoix?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss the matter with the minister.


AIRTRANSPORT
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: In view of the absence of the same people, Mr. Speaker, my question will be directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since he is an expert on easy solutions, and since the Gagnon group has now withdrawn its offer to buy Nordair, and now that Quebecair is the only group left, does the Prime Minister intend to announce to the Canadian people before the holiday season- before Christmas-that the Quebecair group's offer to purchase Nordair will be looked upon favourably?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the sale of Nordair is a matter which is now under consideration
December 10, 1979

by the government. The Minister of Justice discussed the matter with some of the interested parties in the Nordair charter before the announcement alluded to by the hon. member. I have not yet had a chance to discuss that conversation with the Minister of Justice. I should like to do so with both him and the Minister of Transport.


INQUIRY WHETHER EARLY DECISION WILL BE MADE TO SETTLE PROBLEM
Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, now that there is only one group from Quebec, and that the main reason the Minister of Justice is involved in the matter is that, as minister representing Quebec concerning his counterpart, he takes care of Quebec problems, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, now that a serious group has offered to purchase Nordair, he and the Minister of Transport-and not only the Minister of Justice who sits in the other place-will reach a decision so that the matter can be settled? They have been in government for six months now, so a decision could now be expected and now that the situation is easy to solve, and since the Prime Minister likes easy solutions, will he soon be in a position to make a statement to the House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question is now under consideration by the government. As the hon. member has just recognized, only three or four days have elapsed since the situation changed with regard to Quebeckers interested in Nordair. With the change in circumstances, we shall now probably look into the matter in depth this week.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 put a question to the President of the Privy Council? In view of the fact that a notice of motion has already been introduced by the Solicitor General which would give the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the authority to completely review and amend the whole aspect of gun control legislation, I should like to ask whether the President of the Privy Council would tell us on what date the committee will be given the necessary authority to delve into this legislation?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is unlikely, given the calendar of the House between now and the expected adjournment date for Christmas, that we could deal with the matter before then. It would be my intention to discuss the matter with the House leaders in terms of time. It is our intention to proceed with the reference as quickly as we can after we come back in the New Year.
Oral Questions ENERGY


SENIOR CITIZENS' DISCOUNT ON HOME HEATING FUEL
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It is based on the fact that some of the multionational oil companies, Imperial Oil and Shell in particular, have given notice to their agents in Canada to terminate the two cents per gallon discount on home heating fuel that has been available to senior citizens.
In view of the fact that this action must be offensive to the Prime Minister, coming as it does just after the government has talked to Imperial Oil about an increase in the price of gasoline, will the Prime Minister, either himself or through his ministers, make strong representations to the oil companies in this country to continue to make available to senior citizens a discount on heating fuel?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the information the hon. member gives the House: it is the first I have heard of it. 1 am concerned about it, and I will be in touch with the companies that have been cited.
As the hon. member knows, it is the intention of the government to ensure as much as we can that actions which the government takes with regard to increases in fuel costs will not fall disproportionately upon the elderly of the country, but that, indeed, they will be helped by government programs. I would think as a matter of general principle that should be followed by the private sector as well.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and deals with the Open House Canada program, an excellent program established by the former government which enables a great many young Canadians to visit their country and meet other young people of different backgrounds. Can the minister tell us whether it is true that his department has decided that CP Air instead of Air Canada shall provide transportation for these young people? If so, why; on what criteria has the minister based his decision, and does this decision not run counter to the government's policy of favouring Air Canada when public funds are involved?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that the hon. member is misinformed.

December 10, 1979

Oral Questions FINANCE


RECOVERY OF TAX EXPENDITURE UNDER BILL C-20
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, in view of the government's determination to ram Bill C-20 through Parliament, thereby depriving members of a full opportunity to put questions to the minister and to come forward with reasonable amendments, can the minister inform this House how he intends to recover the mammoth tax expenditure under the bill? Will it be by the introduction of capital gains tax on the sale of principal residences of Canadians, or will it be by scratching the registered home ownership savings plan? How will the Canadian people pay for the election goodies?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was certainly scratching when he made those suggestions. We are hopeful that hon. gentlemen opposite will stop their obstruction of this tax credit legislation in the next few days so that it can go through before Christmas. The way it will be paid for is this: the taxpayers of Canada who are now home owners, who pay federal taxes, who have mortgages or who pay or do not pay municipal taxes, will retain in their pockets next year $575 million that they would otherwise have had to pay the government in taxes. However, if hon. gentlemen opposite had their way, the taxpayers of Canada would not be in a position to do that and would pay $575 million more next year, $1,200 million the year following, up to $2,900 million. 1 hope they will see reason and allow the taxpayers to keep that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* *
*


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
ACHIEVING OF LEVEL ESSENTIAL TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN 1980s
Hon. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. At committee, the National Defence officials indicated that the cost of the new fighter aircraft in 1982 dollars would be approximately $3.5 billion. What guarantees can the minister give Canadians that such a massive expenditure of taxpayers' funds will help to achieve the level of research and development that his government has stated is so essential to the economic development of Canada in the eighties?


Hon. Heward Grafftey (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that officials of my department are on the review panel for the new fighter aircraft. We are ascertaining to as great an extent as possible that research and development offsets and technological transfers will be maximized as much as possible.
Let me repeat, that my officials are monitoring this matter very, very closely. I appreciate the hon. member's interest. 1

can assure him that everything possible is being done with either of these aircraft-as he knows, the choice has not yet been made between the aircraft-to ensure that the R and D offsets are as great as possible.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, all available information indicates that there will not be one ounce of Canadian technology in these fighter aircraft. Can the minister indicate how much indigenous, high-Canadian technology will be in the aircraft and how much will be simply paint-by-numbers or work-to-drawings type of assembly?


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure that when the last government narrowed the choice down to these two, they did not agree with what the hon. member has just said. One is never satisfied: I am the first to admit, with the hon. member, that we are never satisfied with the totality or the quality of the R and D offsets. But we are making sure, by monitoring this matter as closely as possible, that they are going to be maximized as much as possible in terms of R and D done in Canada from whoever gets this contract.
* *
*


POST OFFICE
Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. The President of the Treasury Board has issued a directive for a 2 per cent reduction of staff in each department. In the Post Office, these cuts would mean a requirement of about 3,600 person-years in the remaining four or five months of this year.
Since the Postmaster General told us last week in committee that, and I quote, he cannot tolerate a 2 per cent cut in person-years in the Post Office, because if he did he could not even maintain the limited service that he is trying to maintain under very difficult conditions-that was his public answer to the Treasury Board-can the Postmaster General tell us if he has received a favourable answer to his ultimatum to the Treasury Board making the Post Office an exception to this arbitrary directive?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the statement that I made was to a committee of this House. That statement and that information stands. It is the best assessment that we in the Post Office can give it. It has been transmitted to my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. There will no doubt be discussions. I remain of the opinion, and it is soundly based, that a 2 per cent across the board cut in person-years is not possible at this time.
December 10, 1979

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, we did not, of course, get a clear and specific answer from the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the promise made by this government to eliminate 60,000 civil service jobs, could the Postmaster General tell us what has been his department's contribution up to now to this generous promise as a result of which postal services are eliminated or reduced just about everywhere in Canada?
[English)


John Allen Fraser: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot give an exact answer except to say this: under my direction there has been strict adherence to the principle which was enunciated earlier by this party, and then by this government, that there would be no reduction in person-years except by attrition. 1 have pointed out, as the hon. member well knows, publicly to a committee of this House that the difficulty in the Post Office is that we are having a serious problem in maintaining service and that it is not a department of government that can withstand severe cuts in personnel.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. We have now heard this minister indicate twice that he has taken positions that are diametrically opposed to the decisions or the policies of this government, first in terms of opening the mail and now in terms of the 2 per cent cutback. In view of the fact the minister has made public declarations on two of the major issues that affect his department, should he not be successful in persuading the members of the cabinet of the position that he has made public is he ready to submit his resignation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is, of course, hypothetical by its very nature.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns a very serious problem in the Atlantic provinces, namely, the fact that many potato growers in the Atlantic provinces have seen all or part of their crop rot because they cannot find markets for it. This is the third year in a row that potatoes have been sold at less than the cost of production.
Can the minister guarantee the producers in that part of Canada that there will be compensation so that they will at least get back the cost of production? Can he assure the House
Oral Questions
there will be a pay-out under the stabilization plan to the potato farmers in eastern Canada?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touches on a very serious problem. I have answered questions on this very subject over the last number of days. As of today, no, 1 cannot stand here and say there will be a stabilization payment for the 1978 crop year; nor can 1, in all honesty, say there will be participation on behalf of the federal government with reference to the diversion program that the maritime producers want.
I fully appreciate the difficulty in which the potato producers of Canada find themselves. This afternoon I am meeting with two of my provincial counterparts to discuss this whole situation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In the light of the fact that Irving Oil, of all companies, has bought out a potato processor in Prince Edward Island, and that Europeans are now purchasing potato farms in the Atlantic provinces, will the minister take the initiative and begin discussions with the provincial governments and the producers with a view to forming a potato marketing board or commission along similar lines to the Canadian Wheat Board, so as to ensure producers some protection?


John Wise: With reference to the hon. member's first question, it seems to me he is talking more about land use or land tenure control, and that, as I am sure he will appreciate, is an area which lies directly within the control of the provincial governments. With reference to his second question, that is the number one item we intend to discuss this afternoon. I am pretty certain that my officials have been successful in setting up meetings with all my provincial counterparts in eastern Canada for dates prior to the Christmas recess.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In a recent newsletter, the Public Service Alliance allowed its members to take part in non-political and non-partisan activities in the Quebec referendum campaign, thus endorsing the position taken by the Public Service Commission. Now, Mr. Speaker, unless one is very naive, it is obvious that political and partisan activities will take place during the Quebec referendum campaign. I therefore ask, what will be the grievance procedure against civil servants who might break the law to the effect that only a candidate in an election can file a complaint with the Public Service Commission? Since there will be no election or candi-

December 10, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Ethier
date as such, what will be the procedure to file a complaint against those obstinate civil servants?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I will get the cabinet minister directly concerned to reply in writing to the hon. member.


TABLING OF LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: In that case, does the Solicitor General intend to table the legal opinion or opinions that the Department of Justice is reported to have sent to the Public Service Commission on the interpretation of section 32, because I understand that the legal opinions, one sent in July, the other in October, were contradictory? Can the Solicitor General table these documents or clarify this matter immediately?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, 1 know nothing of any single legal opinion on that subject, much less about two of them. But, as the hon. member knows, it has not been the practice of past administrations to make public legal opinions coming from the Department of Justice. However, I will check into the matter and make sure the hon. member receives a written reply.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There remain outstanding two questions of privilege, one raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) and the other by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Brief interventions were made by both ministers involved and neither minister seeks the floor again. One intervention was by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the other by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) in regard to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.
Both questions of privilege make reference to a practice which was admitted to by the Minister of Transport and, to a lesser extent-or to a less formalized extent-by the Minister of Agriculture, in the sense that in the months since the election and the formation of the new government committees which were in fact entirely committees of the government caucus were encouraged to carry out investigation work in

their particular fields and, in addition to being encouraged, were in fact financially supported through government funding. In some cases this entailed assistance in travelling, in some cases in defraying staff charges or research advice and in others in the printing and publication of documents.
There was an additional grievance advanced by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, namely that the committee work resulted in a report which was essentially for internal use and was published therefore only in the English language, the language of the members involved, and that since it was supported by public funds it ought to have been published in both languages.
The House has, I think, given very serious consideration to both problems raised; I certainly have done so. As 1 indicated to the House in the course of the discussions, in addition to the excellent presentations made by the two members involved there was an intervention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which related particularly to the second question and which I think hon. members might like to refer to. It was an excellent summation not only of the arguments on both sides but also, if 1 may say so, of the feelings of the Chair, feelings which I tried to express during the course of the discussion.
Very much along the lines of that reasoning, having examined the points raised by both members, 1 have concluded that it is most difficult for the Chair to determine these circumstances with technical precision-especially since, in one case at least, there has been an order in council passed and to place in conflict with the House an order in council and, therefore, to decide that there is a limitation on the order in council in confrontation with the privileges of the House. What 1 am saying is that this may very well be the situation but it is a very difficult point for the Chair to decide, and before making such a decision I would want very much more detailed information and would wish to hear far more argument.
However, I am able to say to the House that while 1 am absolutely satisfied-as I am sure the House is-that the practice initially entered into by the government since the election was entirely in good faith, and while it may in fact be defensible against the argument of privilege of the House, I hope hon. members will understand that it is a rather dangerous practice to embark upon. I refer to the practice of supporting from public funds a committee composed of members of any one caucus. In theory, I suppose, it is not likely that government funds would be used to support a single activity of an opposition caucus, but in any case that is no better.
The support of public funds, where applied to parliamentary activities, ought, I think, to apply across the floor of Parliament, particularly so since there has been a recent alteration of our practices, one that has been heartily endorsed, encouraged and, indeed, slightly expanded by the current administration; that is to say, the provision of funds for researchers for individual caucuses. This being the case, that fund is available for individual caucus committees to carry out research, to be used in whatever way the particular caucus sees fit.
December 10, 1979

1 am sure the House will accept that these committees fulfil a useful function in providing information and communication with the public with respect to important policies and decisions, but while these are confined to one caucus it seems to me to be preferable that it is strictly the caucus research budget that would be employed to that end. Where public funds are used, 1 do not want to take the extra step and indicate that those public funds can be applied only to standing or special committees of the House. That may not necessarily be the case at all. It may be that public funds can in fact be used for ad hoc committees of the House, as was the application here. I am simply saying to the House, though not in a formal finding of privilege, that in my opinion the greater wisdom would be to ensure that in every case where this is done, where public funds are used to support such a committee even if it is an informal committee, such a committee consist of members of more than one party in the House. 1 think that is a wise practice to follow. Whether or not it conforms entirely to our practices and precedents or the departure from them that has been raised here is in confrontation with the privileges of members of the House, I do not need to decide at the present time.
I hope the House will take the sense of the argument, which I think is a very serious argument, and the sense of the Chair in this respect, that it is a practice which ought to be considered very carefully before it is entered into again. If it were to be attempted again, 1 would think the House ought to be consulted.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order with respect to House business. On Friday, December 6, the government House leader said that Friday, December 14, would likely be the first day of the budget debate. I wonder if he would be in a position to confirm that it will be the first day and, if not, when the first day will be.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no reason-at this point in any event-to change that date as the first day or to suggest a change in that date as the first day of the budget debate. I realize what the hon. member is referring to and his concern about that, and I undertake to him that if there is a change in that I will communicate it to him either directly or through his House leader. I realize that the hon. member does not want to be caught by surprise. It is not my intention to catch the House by surprise either.
Point of Order-Mr. Lapointe INCOME TAX


MAILING OF PRINTED TAX FORMS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) put a question to me as to the date of the mailing of the forms. 1 can indicate a reply to that question. Part of it is contained in a speech I made in the House on November 28, 1979. The forms were put into envelopes about November 21. My speech was on November 28. The tax forms were sent to the Post Office prior to December 1 with an embargo put on their mailing until December 1, so the forms are in fact going as 1 had indicated in my speech would take place.
With respect to this I just want to repeat what 1 said in the course of that speech. Given the circumstances with respect to this, the mailing is two weeks later already this year than it has been in prior years.


POINTS OF ORDER
Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the question period today. As you know, we now have in cabinet a Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), a Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Howie) in charge of water transport, and a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jelinek), and they managed today to be absent all three of them at the same time. 1 would like to remind you that, in the past, having had the honour to serve as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport under the previous government, there was a rule in force at that time for the question period to the effect that when the Minister of Transport was absent, I, as parliamentary secretary, had to be present in the House. I would like to know whether it is still the opinion of the Prime Minister that parliamentary secretaries have no importance in the new government. Also, now that there are two ministers of transport rather than one, for the information not only of hon. members, Mr. Speaker, but of the people who want to get answers to the problems in some areas in Canada, I would like the Prime Minister to tell us whether he is going to instruct his cabinet colleagues that at least one representative of every department should be present during the question period.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker there could be an implication raised by the comments of my hon. friend as to the habits of attendance of the two ministers about whom he has directed his remarks. I think he knows-and he will accept from me the assertion-that the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Howie) and, indeed, the Minister of Transport (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 10, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Ethier
Mazankowski) are two of the most faithful adherents in the House, and that the only reason they would be away would likely be because of public business.
I am advised that the Minister of Transport is in Winnipeg today meeting with the western transportation ministers, and I do hope that the hon. member would think that that is part of ministerial practice. The government has taken the view from the beginning that, except for the necessary attendance of ministers at meetings elsewhere, their appropriate place is in the House of Commons, and I think we have adhered to that pretty well.	,


MR. ETHIER- -REQUEST FOR PRESENTATION OF REPORT IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker I understood earlier when you ruled on our two questions of privilege, namely that of the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) and mine, that there might have been an error. After 1 stated my point of privilege, 1 attached a motion to it, and 1 said:
That the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) be asked to appear before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that it be ordered that the said report be withdrawn and not made available to anyone until all hon. members can get it in either of the two official languages.
1 believe, Mr. Speaker, that you ruled on the propriety of that report. But I said during my intervention, and 1 repeat today, that a less than scrupulous government can do what it wants. That is not what I want to say. 1 asked for a report in my own language, and 1 did not hear anything about that. If it is your decision that those reports can continue to be released in English only, 1 must say it is a sad day for us French Canadians and that this promotes the cause of Mr. Rene Levesque in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think the hon. member will realize in reading what 1 have said today that the document to which he referred became, in that context, an internal document, and it was so treated in terms of the actual report itself. The public document to which he referred, the press release, may be what he was referring to as being in one language. However, 1 understood that his complaint was with regard to the report of the internal caucus committee. 1 have already indicated to the House that that is one reason why there is a severe danger in making such reports and then supporting them with public funds. The minute they are supported with public funds there is the demand that they be presented in a bilingual form, respecting the Official Languages Act, and that, therefore, is an unwise activity.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
(English]

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to inform the House today of several steps I am taking to deal with questions and concerns relating to Statistics Canada.
First, 1 do not want my remarks to imply that I consider Statistics Canada to be ineffective or deficient in carrying out its mandate. While I have listened to the crescendo of complaints and criticisms of the agency, I am also well aware that Statistics Canada is vitally important to Canadians and to Canadian institutions and businesses, and that to many of those who deal directly with it. Statistics Canada is one of the best agencies of its kind in the world. For example, 1 received the following comment just a few days ago in a letter from the general manager of Data Resources of Canada:
We currently reap the benefits of the best statistical collection agency in the world.
That view is shared by others who have been in touch with me directly to express their support for Statistics Canada and, in particular, to commend that agency's technical know-how.
It is worth noting here how critical it is that we can continue to have the utmost faith in this agency. Think of the legislation based on its figures and the programs and decisions involving processes which cannot do without Statistics Canada data. Let me cite a few examples. The consumer price index is used for indexing of old age security and family allowances and in support of COLA clauses in collective agreements, public service pensions and personal income tax.
The labour force survey is used for virtually all labour market policies and planning. The census underlies all social and economic planning and programming. Trade figures have a great relevance. Gross national product statistics are vital, and the monthly employment and unemployment releases are critical. In short, in a modern society about everything we do requires some sort of measurement, and without Statistics Canada we cannot function as a modern society.
Because of Statistics Canada's importance to Canada and because of my desire for a full and constructive review, the easiest thing for me to do would be to agree to a public inquiry into Statistics Canada, possibly by a parliamentary committee.
I have been critical of the agency in the past, and 1 have no interest in concealing any inadequacies which might exist. I am greatly concerned, however, that if we do not deal sensitively with the perceived and real problems of Statistics Canada, we may destroy the agency's credibility, morale and, ultimately, its effectiveness. I say this because it appears that many of Statistics Canada's alleged problems are inextricably bound up with human relationships and attitudes, not with the basic methodologies used by the agency.
December 10, 1979

1 have decided, therefore, to initiate a comprehensive but private examination of Statistics Canada's operations, with the undertaking to Parliament that 1 shall make public the conclusions of the examination, subject only to the protection of innocent people. Because of the unusually complex and technical nature of the work of Statistics Canada, 1 am adopting some very special measures in this examination. First, as 1 have already indicated, I asked several management consultants to make proposals to me for studies of Statistics Canada's management processses and structures. I have accepted the proposal by Price Waterhouse Associates, and 1 expect their report by February.
Let me deal with the terms of reference for their study. First 1 will speak about the objectives. The over-all objectives of the inquiry will be to identify areas for improvement in the management, organization, personnel and communications processes in the agency, to recommend practical solutions that may be implemented expeditiously, and to provide advice on the terms of reference and work plan for a review of the methodology employed.
Now 1 should like to speak about the scope. This study will include a review of the agency's mandate and objectives and the relevant policies and practices affecting its organizational structure; a review of the agency's organizational structure; a review of the division of responsibilities, authorities and accountability in the decision-making process; an examination of the way in which resources are deployed in the agency; an analysis of policies and influences outside the control of the agency that might affect its policies, plans and programs; a review of the procedures followed in matching the qualifications of individuals with job skill requirements; an assessment of manpower and succession planning and other practices affecting human resources and human relations; the development of guidelines for a methodology audit and the provision of co-ordination and liaison with the technical audit team; an analysis and an assessment of quality assurance practices and procedures as they relate to the application of methodology and execution of plans and programs in general; a survey of the internal and external quality audit process, including surveillance over incoming and outgoing materials; an assessment of the methods employed in transmitting information in and between sections and upwards and downwards in the agency; an examination of the process for communicating with users and the news media, including guidelines for the preparation of releases and security over confidential information.
Finally, let me refer to the timing. The study will commence today, December 10, 1979, and a report will be presented to me in early February of 1980.
1 should like to go on to the second item. 1 am negotiating with a well-known international expert learned in statistical science to study the technical and statistical production aspects of the agency's work. As the person is not a national of Canada and does not live in Canada, 1 am sure the House will understand that it takes a few days to negotiate a suitable
Statistics Canada
contract with this gentleman. I shall announce the expert's name and the terms of reference of his study in a few days' time, however.
In order to help me in the co-ordination of these two studies and to assist their reports, I have secured the assistance of three senior public servants: the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Comptroller General of Canada, and the Secretary of the Treasury Board, to act as an advisory committee to me.
I am also taking a third step, which 1 do not wish to see misunderstood or given undue importance. 1 shall recommend to the governor in council that Mr. Edmund Peter Newcombe, Q.C., be named the commissioner under the Inquiries Act to investigate allegations regarding Statistics Canada made by Mr. Boris Celovsky or others. I must emphasize, however, that 1 have absolutely no reason to believe nor, for that matter, to disbelieve some of the observations that have been made. The commissioner will help us to dispose of these observations one way or another.
I have indicated that 1 shall make the conclusions of these reports public. 1 expect they will demonstrate that Statistics Canada, with whatever problems it might have, is, nonetheless, strong and reliable and its professional integrity is fully intact. We might learn that we have loaded the agency with so many demands for reports and data and have charged it with such difficult technical tasks that some problems are almost inevitable. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if problems of a continuing nature are revealed, be they in methodology, personnel or organization, they will be corrected. In due course, if Parliament sees fit, 1 am quite prepared to have the report's conclusions, together with my plans for any remedial action, referred to a parliamentary committee for review.
Finally, let me make one thing clear. While Dr. Peter Kirkham, chief statistician, took no part in the final decisions I have announced today, I advised him of them, of course, after the decisions were made. He assured me of his full co-operation, that he welcomes my approach and he is confident Statistics Canada will emerge with its credibility undoubted.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will give the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) a C minus for courtesy in sending copies of his statement to the leader's office only at about two o'clock. I received one copy only after he came to the House. We got the copy but 1 think it is fair to suggest that it would have been better had we received it earlier and, furthermore, had it contained the terms of reference of the inquiry to which he referred in his statement. At this time 1 will say only that perhaps this is due to inexperience, but we are asking him and other ministers to perform in that sense the same way as they asked us to do when we were on the other side.
With regard to the substance of the statement, may I say that perhaps in any circumstances there should be notice of such a statement, but in this case when the issue arose because of questions asked in the House of Commons, most particularly by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and

December 10, 1979
Statistics Canada
myself, 1 suggest that it is even more important for that kind of co-operation to be forthcoming.
Having said that, we welcome the fact that the minister has now acceded to the recommendations that this issue be aired. He has been careful, as I would commend him to be and as we would be, not to proceed on the basis that there is guilt before proof, that there is proof that the methodology and the economic information provided by StatsCan is in fact bad or erroneous, but recognizing that it is now in doubt. Most certainly, there is no attempt here to destroy the credibility of StatsCan but rather to maintain it to the maximum degree possible and in fact to restore it in the face of some questions that have been cast upon it.
The information we receive from Statistics Canada is extremely important; it is not just dull statistical data that we are getting here. The minister has indicated the usefulness of that agency in preparing information on the cost price index and all the economic decisions that are taken as a result of that information, such as the indexing of programs, labour relations and negotiations, and a host of very important economic and financial considerations based upon the flow of information. He has mentioned two or three others, and 1 have mentioned another one, to emphasize the importance of the accuracy of information such as the balance of payments information which we get from time to time stemming from Statistics Canada's collection of information.
1 can remember when, a little over a year ago, a trade deficit was reported in one month which the following month was corrected to a trade surplus. I think the present government might have faced this same problem very recently. That is not just an accident or a casual error that can be corrected by some improvement in the arithmetic because speculative investment in the Canadian dollar took place as a result of that information. The dollar went down and corrective action was taken and millions if not billions of dollars were spent as a result of that decision. The correction took place, but that did not change what had occurred as a result of the interpretation of what turned out to be inaccurate or incorrect information. So accurate information is extremely important.
We commend the decision to proceed with this inquiry on the administrative, personnel and management side of that agency and, as we coaxed the minister to do and as he has now done, to move beyond that to look at the methodology of how information is collated, distributed and interpreted. To me this is even more important than the first, although they may in fact be related.
We commend him for the commitment to make this report public. He has sort of hedged a little on making the process or the actual inquiry public, but will make public the final report by the consultants who look at it. Perhaps 1 can understand why that is done.
Very much depends upon the quality and the reputation of the consultant who is finally selected. 1 understand that the firm named will do the management consultant analysis on the
[Mr. Andras.J
administrative personnel side. The other side, that is the question of accuracy of the information it conveys to us, is extremely important. I am a little intrigued by the suggestion that the person involved will be an international expert in the field, which of course means foreign. We will delay judgment on that until the minister is in a position to advise us who it might be and what indeed his credentials and reputation are. We will be looking at that very, very closely.
The minister went on to talk about the naming of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act to investigate the allegations regarding Statistics Canada made by Mr. Celovsky. We will accept that guardedly at its face value. The minister said that he did not wish to be misunderstood or to be thought to give undue importance to this additional inquiry which he announced today. I think all of us in the House will want to follow that very closely to ensure that there is no undue pressure brought to bear against anybody who has had the courage to state his mind, even if it is critical of the operations of the agency.
We are glad that we have received from the minister concurrence in the recommendations we have made at this time, which resulted from the stimulation we gave him when we raised the question in the House a few weeks ago. We look forward with a great deal of interest to the results of all the inquiries which he announced today. We hope that he will proceed with dispatch with the naming of somebody to look after the methodology, which I think in the end is the most important aspect of this approach.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Through Mr. Speaker, 1 want to register a very serious complaint to the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens). Not only did we not receive this document until well into the question period, but we did not receive the document as it was read by the President of Treasury Board. The report which he read-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not even listening now.


Bob Rae: If he will take the courtesy to listen to what I have to say to him, the report which he read was significantly different from the one presented to me. I see the minister shaking his head. I should like to tell him that it was. The guts of what he read had to do with the terms of reference for the report which Price Waterhouse will make. I have not seen those terms of reference. The minister departed from the text he left with me and took off on the guts of this report to the House concerning the very significant report Price Waterhouse will make on Statistics Canada. If that is respect for all the parties in the House, I think we are in for a very sad and difficult Parliament. Is that the standard of consultation we can now expect from the President of Treasury Board?


Mr. Breau:: For just a few more months; it will not be very long.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let me hasten to assure Parliament and at least to attempt to dispel the righteous indignation which seems to be welling up in the
December 10, 1979

NDP. Any changes I made were simply of a non-substantial nature. 1 referred to the terms of reference and read them into the record because, as the hon. member knows, in the document delivered to him it was proposed that those terms of reference be tabled. Unfortunately, for technical reasons, the French version was not available in time. 1 thought that rather than delay the tabling until tomorrow, I should read it into the record, which I did.


Herb Breau: In French'?


Bob Rae: 1 can assure Mr. Speaker that any righteousness or any righteous indignation which 1 feel is completely justified, even with the explanation we have just had by the President of Treasury Board. I do not see any reason why we should be expected to respond on 45 minutes' notice to a major statement concerning Statistics Canada, and then find, even as the minister is reading his statement, that the guts of what he has to say with respect to the terms of reference are missing from the heart of the report for what he calls technical reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) that translation matters are not technical matters. They relate basically to the attitude of the government towards bilingualism and the principles of bilingualism, and it is not good enough for the President of the Treasury Board to come and tell us that he is not in a position to give us a full report of what he is going to say, suggesting he is unable to do so for reasons of translation. 1 must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is an intolerable attitude as far as opposition parties are concerned. It is not good enough for the minister to hide behind technical problems of translation and tell us there was not enough time. I would say to the minister that if it is a question of time, then let us take the necessary time to have them translated and to do everyone the same courtesy. [English]
Dealing with the substance of the report, the one thing I would say to the President of Treasury Board is that there is a certain irony in the presentation of the report itself. On the one hand, he said that he has complete confidence in Statistics Canada and that he does not want there to be any morale problems. Then he announced not one commission into the condition of Statistics Canada but three. Rather than having appointed three, the minister would have been far wiser to have appointed one commission, the membership of which could be drawn from the areas of expertise that he has outlined.
We are quite prepared to recognize the necessity of a major study on all the fronts which he suggested. I see the minister is shaking his head. As usual he is "so willing" to accept suggestions coming from the other side! I would suggest to him that not only will there be problems of morale which will be devastating as a result of the establishment of these three commissions, but the very real danger that what is not solved before one commission then will become a problem for another
Statistics Canada
commission, and that what is evidence before one commission will become second-hand evidence before yet another commission. Also there is the potential of conflicting reports among the three different commissions. 1 would suggest to the minister, with all respect, that it may well cause very significant personnel and other problems in the future.
I suggest to the minister that that, coupled with the attitude and the reputation of this government with respect to its public servants and the attacks which the minister himself launched on Statistics Canada while he was in opposition, does not bode well for the future of Statistics Canada. We in my party are in full support of the notion that there should be a commission of inquiry armed with the necessary expertise to deal with the technical matters concerning the technical and statistical techniques used by Statistics Canada. We think that there is need for a commission which will take into account the problems of morale, personnel and general management orientation of Statistics Canada. We are prepared to recognize that. However, we are deeply concerned that this government has chosen to throw not only one commission into Statistics Canada but three. We are deeply concerned about the possibilities of conflicting terms of reference among them.
Finally, we must say to the minister that we have some concern as to the protection of the independence, the integrity and the ability not only of Statistics Canada but of all the personnel of Statistics Canada to withstand the onslaught of not one but three inquiries.
That having been said, we support the notion that there should be a commission of inquiry. I hope I am not correct and that my fears are not borne out by events, but I suggest to the minister that by setting up three separate commissions of inquiry into Statistics Canada he is asking for trouble. Had he established one, it seems to me it would have been possible to have assured members of Statistics Canada that there was not a witch hunt going on but that this was a serious inquiry which had a good deal of good intention behind it. I think there is some ground for concern on the part of employees at Statistics Canada who will ask themselves what are the real intentions of the government.
I do not give the minister a C minus, 1 give him a failing mark for having failed to show us the minimum courtesy of giving us the terms of reference of the Price Waterhouse study which, as the minister knows, goes to the guts of this inquiry. Quite frankly, we have some real concern about the necessity of having three commissions in relation to Statistics Canada when the minister said at the outset that he has full confidence in Statistics Canada as it now stands. If the minister has full confidence, why should he have three commissions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The spokesmen for all parties have been heard, but as before, 1 am ready this afternoon to allow questions to be put to the minister. I will begin the questioning with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy).

December 10, 1979
Statistics Canada


Fabien Roy: 1 want to make a few brief comments on the statement just made by the minister and of which I heard at the same time as my colleagues, since it was handed to us in the middle of the question period. I would like to ask the minister why a public announcement was made today when the minister said in the first paragraph of his statement:
I do not want my remarks to imply that 1 consider Statistics Canada to be ineffective or deficient in carrying out its mandate.
The minister does not want people to entertain any doubt as to the role assigned to Statistics Canada. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the first concern of every member here, on either side of the House, is that Statistics Canada must remain above suspicion. This agency must not be a political instrument in the hands of the government. It must be ready and willing to serve all members of Parliament, because Statistics Canada has historically been, and shall be even more so in the future, a guide for all members of Parliament and all political groups in this House. In the first place, the reports issued by Statistics Canada are used to figure the consumer price index, and this in turn is the basis for indexing Public Service pensions, personal income tax, old age security pensions, family allowances and a number of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Beauce is entitled to put questions to the minister pursuant to Standing Order 15(3) and he should put them forthwith.


Fabien Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, although I can hardly understand why 1 should be treated differently this afternoon, when other members from the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party have had their chance to make their own comments, because it is stated in Standing Order 15, on page 10:
A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon and members may be permitted to address questions thereon to the minister.
The rules are the same whether they apply to the New Democratic Party or to the Social Credit Party of Canada.
1 therefore respectfully submit that it is my right and privilege to add a few comments on the minister's statement as my colleagues have done.
Mr. Speaker, 1 can see that several members of this House would like to chair our proceedings, but nonetheless I would ask the minister, coming back to the first question, why he decided to announce publicly a private investigation of confidential documents at this point, rather than wait until he has more detailed information and to come up before this House with a concrete proposal. This would have prevented the credibility of Statistics Canada from being jeopardized.
[ English j


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member I would simply say that it has always been our undertaking that we would announce the appointment of the management con-
[Mr. Speaker.)
sultants to look into Statistics Canada, and that we would not only name the management consultants who were retained but would set out the terms of reference for the management consultants to follow.
Secondly, we felt that rather than incorporate in the management consultant terms of reference framework, if you like, an expert to look at the methodology, the expert should come from outside Canada. Incidentally, we felt that if we simply turned to somebody who was learned in statistical information within Canada there might be some suggestion that he was not objective enough to pass on Statistics Canada. As a result, we chose to go outside Canada to retain an expert in statistical science to pass on the methodology of the Statistics Canada operation. Incidentally, that is why, in answer to the question by a member of the NDP as to why we did not incorporate this all under one, I said we felt there was merit in divorcing the two; having the internal Canadian study dealing with organization, personnel and management, with the outside study dealing in a very objective way with the technical side of Statistics Canada and methodology.
Finally in answer to the hon. member's question, the reason we wanted to make it public that Price Waterhouse are commencing today is that I did not want to delay making a statement to the House, as it may well have become public, through the usual brown envelope or leak fashion, that Price Waterhouse was already conducting a study. I felt that I should inform the House at the first opportunity.
I once more apologize for the fact that the terms of reference are not available in both official languages for tabling. They were not settled until a few hours ago, and unfortunately the French version is not ready. I thought the second best thing, in order to get it before the House as quickly as possible, was simply to read it into the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put one question to the President of the Treasury Board. In his statement today about Statistics Canada he emphasized the importance of its work in connection with the indexing of old age security and other pensions and benefits. As the President of the Treasury Board will recall, in October I raised with the Prime Minister the question of a special index for senior citizens related to the things they have to buy. Outside the House that day the President of the Treasury Board said he would give serious consideration to that proposal. May I ask if any action has yet been taken on that?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to that question. I did follow it up and a report has been prepared. If the hon. member feels that it would be helpful, I could either deliver it to him personally for his consideration or I could table the report in the House.
December 10, 1979


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of freedom of information 1 suggest that it be tabled.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be pleased to table the report.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board indicated that they decided that a Canadian could not objectively look at the methodological questions dealing with Statistics Canada. Perhaps 1 am mistaken, but is it not true that the contracting and staffing regulations of the Government of Canada as promulgated by the Treasury Board indicate that non-Canadian citizens can be retained by the Government of Canada only when it can be clearly shown that there is no Canadian capable of doing the particular job? Could the President of the Treasury Board indicate whether such a search was conducted to determine whether or not a qualified Canadian was available to do the job and, if such a search was conducted-as is supposedly required by the Government of Canada in such cases-is the minister saying that he could not find a qualified Canadian in the area of statistical methodology to carry on this study?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has overlooked the main thrust of what 1 was saying. It is not in any way a reflection on the capabilities of those who are educated in the statistical sciences in Canada. It is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to find such a statistician who does not have ongoing activity with Statistics Canada at the present time. These people are using the data and talking to Statistics Canada personnel, if not daily, at least on a weekly basis. Consequently, if we do retain such a person, he or she may in our mind not be purely objective. He will certainly be capable, but there could always be the suggestion that he did not have that degree of objectivity that one would like as would somebody who does not have an ongoing connection with Statistics Canada.
We consulted management consultant firms and people in government as to whether it was wise for us to go outside Canada for a suitable person. To eliminate any question concerning objectivity, it was unanimously agreed by the people whom we consulted that we should secure the services of one or more experts outside Canada who are world renowned as statisticians and let them pass on their views on methodology within Statistics Canada, and that is what we are proposing to do.


John Leslie Evans: Since the minister is undertaking a procedure which is in violation of his own regulations, does he intend to expand upon this particular principle in other studies which will be done by the government and allow other government departments and agencies also to expand upon this principle of hiring whomever they consider to be the most qualified person, regardless of the fact that there may be a Canadian who is equally as qualified but who, in the minister's judgment or whomever, may not be as objective as one might like in conducting the particular study? I am quite concerned because it is not only a question of objectivity. Would the minister
Statistics Canada
indicate whether objectivity or the ability to conduct an objective study is no longer to be the criterion for selecting contractors for the federal government?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member is desperately trying to make a point, but once again he has overlooked what I think is the very significant point in what we have done. We have deliberately gone to persons who are recognized in the world as being experts on this question of statistical data and the operation of institutions such as Statistics Canada. We have asked them to pass judgment on our Statistics Canada and, in so doing, have taken the most objective approach conceivable to ensure, if they do return a report that Statistics Canada is undoubtedly credible or, on the other hand, that there are problems, that we have a truly arm's length, objective study and review of the organization. I would think that most members of the House would welcome such a review.
What the hon. member seems to be concerned with are the regulations of the Treasury Board. In our opinion, that regulation was not applicable to a special situation such as Statistics Canada where one finds, as I have mentioned before, that most of the people we would normally turn to in Canada have an ongoing relation with Statistics Canada. I would not challenge the objectivity of the report, but it might be challenged by somebody down the road as not being as objective as one would like.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the President of the Treasury Board deals with the morale of the employees. It seems to me that the people within Statistics Canada have already suffered from the statements made by the minister, the opposition and other members in this House. 1 am concerned that the minister has not dealt with the concerns of the employees. I think that throughout the government service there is low morale at this time because of the reports of privatization and the proposed cutback of 60,000 employees. What is the cost of this study, not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of morale?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we will be indicating the dollar cost of the Price Waterhouse study, and the international authority, which will probably be revealed later. With regard to the cost to morale, I do not think there will be any cost, other than a general building up of morale with respect to the activities of Statistics Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I will conclude the questioning with the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre).


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has rejected one part of my argument. We could have different points of view with regard to the need to establish a separate inquiry commission concerning the technical activities of Statistics Canada. However, I do not believe that we dealt directly with what 1 was attempting to get at, and that is the potential conflict between Price Waterhouse and the commissioner, Mr. Newcombe. As the minister knows, the allegations that have

December 10, 1979
Statistics Canada
been made by Mr. Celovsky which have appeared in the press and of others relate not only to the question of the technical aspect of the work of Statistics Canada, but also to the personnel practices of Statistics Canada.
Given that there is this overlap between these two inquiries, the Price Waterhouse inquiry and the inquiry of Mr. New-combe, what guarantees have the employees of Statistics Canada that there will not be an unfair leapfrogging, if you like, going from one commission to another, in an attempt to achieve some kind of redress? What means do we have to guarantee that there will not be an unfair abuse of the inquiry process into Statistics Canada?
I think that this is a legitimate concern, that there should be one inquiry, that it be limited in time, and that the report be objective, rather than having a series of inquiries of an ongoing nature and a number of allegations which, 1 would suggest, have no end unless there is a clear summing up. I think it would be easier to have one commission.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, assuming that that was a question-


Bob Rae: There was a question mark in there at one point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -I will try to reply. I think we are dealing with two different perspectives. It sounds as though the concerns of the hon. member are exactly our concerns. That is the reason we felt that we should allow the Price Waterhouse study to go on in the normal way, that such management consultant studies would be expected to carry on regardless of the nature of the company, be it Statistics Canada or some other type of business organization.
With regard to Mr. Celovsky, we felt that it was very important that we get somebody from the legal profession to hear him out as to the nature of his allegations and what the commissioner's feelings are. We are saying, almost contrary to what the hon. member is worried about, that by separating the two we hope to get to the substance of it. Or as I say in the statement, we hope the commissioner will help us dispose of Mr. Celovsky's observations one way or the other. Once we have his report 1 think we will know where and how to act. In the meantime, that should not in any way clutter up the ongoing study of Price Waterhouse and their report, which should be in my hands in the early part of February.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. I was not able to follow all the debate after his statement but I understood that one of the reports referred to was available in only one of Canada's official languages. The minister promised to table one of the reports he referred to. I should like him to ask for unanimous consent of the House if he intends to table any document which is available in only one of Canada's official languages, and that he ask that it be made an appendix to today's Hansard so that tomorrow everyone can read it in either or both of Canada's official languages.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, he did not hear the whole debate. I had mentioned at one juncture that, much to my surprise, the document 1 intended to table had been delivered, for translation reasons, in one language. Rather than wait and table it tomorrow or to ask the unanimous consent of the House to table it in only one language, I chose to read it into the record. So it can be seen tomorrow in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The document that the hon. President of the Treasury Board referred to was, I believe, some report which I am sure would be in existence, because there was another reference. Perhaps that should be cleared up before we close the matter. The President of the Treasury Board undertook to table a report; was that another document?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I should like to clarify that. The initial document which I was unable to table today is called, "Terms of Reference of the Ministerial Inquiry into Statistics Canada".


Thomas Lefebvre: That is what i meant.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is what I read into the record. The second document or report that I referred to was in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which deals with the possibility of having a CPI come out in relation to the cost of living, more accurately expressed for older people in the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister have that?


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the third report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Madawaska-Vic-toria (Mr. Corbin) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 67(8), I ask that the text of the petition be now read by the Clerk of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The request made by the hon. member is in keeping with our practice under the Standing Order that he cited.
[Editor's Note: The Clerk Assistant read the petition to the House, which reads as follows:]
December 10, 1979

[ Translation]


PETITION TO THE HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED
[Stage Direction]
The petition of the undersigned residents of the municipality of Riviere-Verte in the Province of New Brunswick who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy,

[Stage Direction]
THAT the revisions to the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations make distinctions among the citizens of the Province of New Brunswick according to the economic area where they reside;
THAT these arbitrarily set distinctions do not grant the same rights and privileges to all Canadian workers;
THAT this practice can only lead to an erosion of the equal entitlement of workers to unemployment insurance benefits without distinction of economic areas;
THAT the erosion of rights on a discriminatory regional basis does not promote public good and social peace;

[Stage Direction]
THAT the Government of Canada take the necessary action to find them work;
THAT the Government of Canada make the necessary amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act so that benefits will be paid after a minimum of ten (10) weeks as was the practice in the past and also that it consider paying these benefits retroactively;
THAT the economic area where they reside be classified in the same category as Restigouche County and not Carleton County as is now the case.
The petition bears the signature of Mrs. Isabelle Therrien, Mrs. Monique Sirois and Mrs. Isabelle Lizotte.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Motions.
December 7, 1979-Mr. Murphy:
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on Friday, December 7, 1979, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has given notice of a motion which is shown on the notice paper in his name as follows:
That the First report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on Friday, December 7, 1979, be concurred in.
The hon. member may be aware that his motion appears to the Chair to run in conflict with the practices of the House. I do not know whether or not the hon. member is prepared to defend his motion today on procedural grounds. I would refer him, among other precedents, to page 420 of the Votes and Proceedings for June 18, 1973. He will find there that it is the practice of the House, which was interpreted at that time and on several other occasions, that when estimates are referred to
Order Paper Questions
the several standing committees, it is the business of those standing committees to deal with the estimates and with the estimates only, and to report back the estimates. If there are any aspects of the estimates reported back to the House that ought to be the subject of comment or vote, that takes place only on the allotted day on which all those estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House and taken into consideration. That is the practice of the House.
In this particular case the hon. member seeks concurrence in a report on estimates from the committee to which his motion refers, a report which I believe, on the face of it, is secondary or complementary to one which had in fact dealt with the estimates. This auxiliary report, as it were, makes other recommendations. The importance or nature of the report does not matter for the moment. The fact is that in making the other recommendations the committee is clearly going beyond the scope of its order of reference, which was to deal with the estimates.
If we were to take this motion into account at this time, we would be embarking upon a course which departs from previous practice, that is, of confining argument on the approval of the estimates as they come from the standing committees to the allotted day upon which they are all taken into account.
Again 1 say that the hon. member for Churchill may not be prepared to defend his motion at this time. If he wants some time to take the matter under consideration, we can set aside his motion for today and reserve it until he has had an opportunity to argue the point if he wishes.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 will let the motion stand at this time.
Order stands.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 99, 207, 246, 448, 473, 475, 476, 527 and 687.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: Are there any civilian members of the RCMP or civilians employed by the RCMP in senior positions and, if so, what are their names, job designations and annual salaries?

December 10, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of
Total for Both Sub-Groups as Shown Above
Consumer and Corporate Affairs):							Francophone	
Yes.	Total	Anglophone	No	. Per cent	Unknown*Name	Job Designation	Salary Range	1969	20	16	0	0.0	41970	91	81	4	4.7	6Mr. M. R. Dare	Director General,	$42,700-$58,500	1971	97	92	5	5.2	0Security Service	1972	105	98	7	6.7	0Mr. R. H. Jones	Security Service	$35,052-$39,430	1973	126	121	5	4.0	0Officer	1974	99	96	3	3.1	0Mr. P. M. McLellan	Assistant Director,	$33,600-$46,200	1975	98	94	4	4.1	0Canadian Police	1976	68	65	3	4.4	0Information Centre	1977	85	78	7	8.3	01978	106	100	6	5.7	0
This reply is based on the understanding that "Senior positions" are those in which the minimum of the incumbent's salary range is $33,600 or more.


[Stage Direction]
* Percentage is based only on the population whose preferred working language is known.
Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of Employment and Immigration's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a) 21,473, (b) 2,554.


Mr. Roy (Beauce): Did the government recruit employees for scientific research during the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1978-79 and, if so (a) how many in each year (b) what was the percentage of Francophones?


Mrs. Diane Stratas (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
Yes, the government has recruited employees for scientific research during the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1978-79. See
list below for the distribution by fiscal year.					
		Scientific Research Occupational Group			
		Recruitment to Research Manager			
		Sub-Group from Outside			
			Francophone		
Total	Anglophone	No. Per cent	Unknown*1969	0	0	0	0.0	01970	10	8	1	11.1	11971	6	6	0	0.0	01972	3	2	1	33.3	01973	4	3	1	25.0	01974	5	4	1	20.0	01975	5	4	1	20.0	01976	3	2	1	33.3	01977	2	1	1	50.0	01978	2	2	0	0.0	0Recruitment to Research Scientist	Sub-Group from Outside	Francophone	Total	Anglophone	No. Per cent	Unknown11969	20	16	0	0.0	41970	81	73	3	3.9	51971	91	86	5	5.5	01972	102	96	6	4.9	01973	122	118	4	3.3	01974	94	92	2	2.2	01975	93	90	3	3.2	01976	65	63	2	3.1	01977	83	77	6	7.3	01978	104	98	6	5.8	0
Defence Scientists Occupational Group
Total	Anglophone	Francophone	Per cent Francophone1975	13	11	2	15.41976	49	46	3	6.11978	47	35	12	25.21979	3	2	1	33.3
Data of defence scientist available from 1975 only. Group formerly employed under DRB for which Public Service Commission was not the appointing authority.
The main reasons why the Francophone community is so poorly represented in the scientific research area are:
(1)	Due to greatly diversified areas in which scientists are employed there are not enough Francophone graduates to cover all the scientific fields. The universities in Quebec, which are our main source of Francophone PHD's, although turning out highly qualified graduates cannot hope to cover every field of research.
(2)	On many occasions scientists whom we would have employed had no interest in working outside of the province of Quebec. The Public Service Commission has made special efforts to convince scientists that the National Capital Region area is a bicultural area but we have had little success.
(3)	Treasury Board secretariat has completed a study that indicates that the problem of imbalance also exists in the provincial public service of Quebec where a high percentage of positions are filled by Anglophones. The provincial government is attempting to rectify that situation. Under those circumstances the federal government will be in competition with the provincial government for scientists in the same field.


Mr. Herbert: How many Department of Veterans Affairs employees are presently in Prince Edward Island and what are their duties?

December 10, 1979


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Twenty-five head office positions have relocated or are in the process of relocating to Charlottetown as part of the advance party
Finance
1 Finance Officer 1 Finance Clerk
1	Insurance Accounts Supervisor
2	Insurance Accounts Clerks
Administrative Services
1 Chief of Administration 1 Head Material and Management 1 Head of Office Services
1	Central Registry Clerk
2	Word Processor Operators 1 Mail Room Clerk
1 Mail Sorting and Distribution Clerk 1 File Management Clerk
Veterans Services
1 Chief Veterans Insurance
1	Supervisor, Treatment Statistics
2	Death Claims Clerks
1 Policy Contract Clerk 1 Morbidity Classification Clerk 1 Statistics Edit Clerk 1 Stenographer
Personnel
1 Senior Staffing Officer 1 Staffing Assistant 1 Receptionist


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was transferred to the Canada Grain Commission for Working Capital pursuant to section 13 of the Canada Grain Act?


John Wise: None.


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the Agricultural Commodities Stabilization account?


John Wise: None.


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of advances to the Canada Grain Commission for Working Capital pursuant to section 13 of the Canada Grain Act?


John Wise: None.


FRANKING PRIVILEGES
Mr. de Jong: Has the Postmaster General considered allowing franking privileges to members of provincial legislatures?


John Allen Fraser: No.


POST OFFICE-ST-ZOTIQUE, QUEBEC
Mr. Herbert: Is a post office scheduled for construction in St-Zotique, Quebec and, if so, in what year?


John Allen Fraser: Yes, fiscal year 1982/83.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   ENERGY ADDITIONAL EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the announcement by the Government of Canada allowing the export of an additional 3.75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, an unacceptable sellout of our needed energy resources, coming at a time when Canadians face a winter threatened by even greater oil shortages.
It is imperative that an emergency debate take place today, Mr. Speaker, for reasons even more pressing than those which led to a similar debate in the Ontario legislature before the weekend. This House should be given an immediate opportunity to debate the serious continuing energy supply situation which has been exacerbated by the decision to export much additional natural gas which should be kept here in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) gave the Chair the appropriate notice, so 1 have had an opportunity to consider whether or not the subject of the hon. member's motion is in fact proper to be considered pursuant to Standing Order 26, and therefore whether it should precipitate a special debate.
There are two paragraphs of the rule upon which 1 rely in not finding the motion an acceptable one. The first is paragraph (16)(a) of the rule, which reads as follows:
The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purposes is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency,
calling for immediate and urgent consideration;
The phrase "genuine emergency" is not capable of precise definition necessarily, but 1 must take into account the fact that the word "genuine" is used for a specific reason by the drafters of the rule. While 1 can never say it rules out forever a

December 10, 1979
Time Allocation
situation in which the emergency itself is a matter of dispute, it seems that the word "genuine" implies that the rule should be used where at least the emergency itself is not a matter of argument.
The question of a genuine crisis, an emergency in the country, is not one which generally in and of itself is not subject to argument. Again I say 1 could never rule out forever because there could always be a situation which I cannot anticipate. Basically 1 am inclined to rule against the application of this rule where the very emergency itself is a matter of interpretation or a matter of argument.
Therefore in this situation where the government maintains it is appropriate to take a step, the opposition, and the hon. member for Oshawa in particular, maintain that it is not only not appropriate but that it precipitates an emergency or crisis. That seems to become a matter of argument. Therefore, the question whether the word "genuine" would be applicable seems to come into doubt.
The second paragraph to which I would refer is subparagraph (5) of the rule:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard ... to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
I cannot, of course, ignore the fact that tomorrow evening the House is scheduled to receive a budget. Even though the budget debate may be deferred a day or two until Friday, there is, 1 believe, an impending vote of confidence in our normal practices on the entire economic policy of the government in the most direct and forthright way. I do not know how the House could improve on that practice. Therefore, under that paragraph 1 would be disinclined to allow a debate of this sort.
For those two reasons 1 am not prepared to accept the hon. member's application at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):
That in relation to Bill C-20, an act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration in Committee of the Whole stage of the bill; and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I believe that 1 spoke for approximately three minutes on Friday. Therefore 1 have another six or seven minutes. I will operate on that premise, if it pleases you, Mr. Speaker.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that members were listening carefully to the point that Bill C-20 appears to have broad support across Canada, particularly in western Canada. I suggested that the measure appears to be popular everywhere in this country. Do the 17 Liberal members who opted to miss the vote on second reading disagree with this? Do the three Liberals who voted for the measure disagree with this statement? What about the five NDP members who missed the vote? Is it a coincidence-
[ Translation]


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who has the floor is commenting on the vote we had the other day in the House. 1 suggest that this is quite contrary to our practices and our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, and that pursuant to our Standing Orders, the hon. member should stop forthwith making these remarks on the vote, its quality, as well as on those who were present and those who were not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is perhaps getting into a hazardous area in casting reflections on the reasons or motives for members voting in the House. 1 do not think he did that in his remark, but it is a dangerous area. Incidentally, it is convenient now to formally advise the hon. member that his time expires at 4.22 p.m.


David Kilgour: 1 was going to point out that my information is that about 69.8 per cent of the constituents of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) live in houses; in the riding of the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), 65 per cent; in the riding of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), 77 per cent; in that of the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), 71 per cent; and in the riding of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), 69 per cent. I will not pursue that line of unfair accusations against members opposite.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) was quoted as saying that "the party is wrong", referring to the party opposite, "and I am right; I listened to all the arguments against the bill and they do not hold any water".

The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) made the following statement on December 4, as reported on page 2010 of the official report of our Debates for that day, and I quote:
We have been asking this for yeark from various governments and especially from the Liberals in the 17 years they have been in power. We have asked for the measure that was partially introduced today, that is, to give the same benefits to single family home owners as to owners of multiple rental units. The Liberals have always benefited big housebuilders by giving them every possible exemption, but never did they do anything for the small home owner.
December 10, 1979



Some members opposite have suggested that this bill favours only the wealthy. The fact is that the wealthy do not have mortgages; they pay them off as quickly as they can and then use their credit at the bank to borrow money for business purposes from which they make business loans and investments, the interest on which is deductible. I do not see any experts on these matters in the House, but if members opposite have any doubts there are a lot of members who can explain that to them.
This bill is aimed at helping middle-income Canadians, the unsung, unhelped millions of Canadians who have been the most hurt by the huge deficits of recent years and the inflation created by the previous government. One thing that inflation does is take away from those who work, save and plan for their retirement and give to the speculators, the bankers and those who buy land, pieces of gold and other things that do not benefit the economy in any way, shape or form. That is what inflation does to this country. That is why middle-income Canadians have been hurt by the government for approximately 16 years. This measure is a modest step to help middle-income Canadians with mortgage interest and property taxes this year.
We on this side are determined to have this legislation enacted before the end of this year. I wonder if the ten members opposite who stood up last Friday to prevent us from extending the hours will show up for the debate before and after Christmas.
I wish to reinforce a couple of points that were made regarding the use of Standing Order 75C to allocate time for debate. We have already spent seven days debating this measure. What has been added to the sum of human knowledge by any member opposite during those seven days? Last Wednesday members opposite had all day in which to propose amendments. Which of them had any amendments to propose? Which one of them stood up to propose amendments? Yet they complain now that they have no time in which to do so. When they had the chance they did not put any forward. This illustrates the hypocrisy of members opposite with respect to time available in this debate.
Members of the opposition say they need more time to debate this matter further. But why were so many of them absent while this measure was before the House? Again, if they want more time, why did so many of them raise spurious questions of privilege last Friday? In particular, why did four of them, including the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), get up to make exactly the same points although the Speaker had given a clear ruling on the matter under consideration?
1 would remind the House that Standing Order 75C was introduced by the former government in 1969 and has been used on 23 occasions since then-
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very glad to be able to say a few words on this motion of closure put forward by the government. It seems to me to be another case of a government flip-flop. They always talk about open government. To me, open government is not a government which imposes "le baillon", as we say in French, after a few hours of debate on clause 1 of a bill.
I should also like to remind hon. members on the other side that 12 days ago, on November 28, I was the one who proposed a vote on the second reading. It was fortunate for the government that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) rose to carry on the debate in order to bail out the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker), thus avoiding a vote which we would probably have won.

Mr. Speaker, during the initial debate, I described Bill C-20 as being extravagant, irresponsible and unfair, and I still maintain it is all those things. The fact that the government is trying to prevent us from debating the bill adequately gives us the distinct impression that the other side of the House has lost all sense of responsiblity and all sense of proportion over the problems confronting Canadians. It also gives us the impression, which might not be far from the truth, that the other side is governing for the rich of the country and thinks that the problems of the have-nots will solve themselves while others are reaping the benefits. We see in the media the enormous profits made by certain companies and certain sectors of the economy. Yet a great many Canadians are struggling to make both ends meet in the face of inflation and all the other economic hardships of this day and age. We are being blamed for delaying passage of this bill. Some say that we have forced the government to resort to muzzling.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this is somewhat of a joke being played on hon. members and even on their own party. What has this government done since May 22 last? They waited five months before deciding to call back the House, and finally once it was back, they waited two months before introducing such an important bill.
1 was reading a couple of days ago the speeches delivered on Friday during the debate on this motion. Naturally, I read carefully the remarks made by the hon. member who is perhaps the most experienced and the most respected of us all, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who was quoting a statement made by the President of the Privy Council, who now sits on the other side but was then a member of the opposition. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was quoting the following statement made by this hon. member:
[ English ]
This is a black day for Parliament and for this country.

December 10, 1979
Time Allocation
Taking into account everything this government has done so far, we might believe we are going back to the dark ages.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it seems scapegoats are constantly being sought out by that side of the House. Attempts also seem to be made to cover up the obvious lack of experience and lack of realism amongst the government members, by blaming their errors on everything around them including, naturally, the opposition parties.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time they took serious action with regard to inflation, unemployment, the budget deficit, and that they assumed their responsibilities. But no, they keep on doing the same thing. At the present time the government, in my opinion, is doing nothing more than spreading confusion. We never know what they are going to do next. They seem to be in a constant state of uncertainty. We are going to Jerusalem, but then we are not going. Oil will be rationed, but then it will not. Energy will be controlled, but then it will not. The better off, the oil companies, are being favoured with higher energy prices while rumours spread to the effect that there will be an excise tax that will add from 20 to 40 cents to the cost of gas and heating oil. The government takes care, of course, of private industry and corporations. That is all very well but with this increase in the cost of oil, they seem to forget completely about the workers who have to use that oil to go to work. They also forget those who are not as well off, who are trapped by inflation and by their heating bills and who have to find the money, whether they like it or not, to meet the cost of their daily needs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ritchie) also said, I believe, that if we are short of energy, controls may be applied.
The present government, Mr. Speaker, is in the process of spreading disarray, uncertainty and concern among the people. They do not seem to realize that an increasing number of Canadians, men and women, live on the threshold of poverty. You need only take a look at the latest statistics of the Senate committee or the commission on poverty to see that because of inflation and because the cost of energy and the cost of food are going up as they have been from last year to this day, the percentage of people living below the poverty line will certainly increase within the next few months.
Mr. Speaker, as 1 have been saying for some time, I think this government should focus its efforts on more serious problems instead of catering to a privileged group of home owners and spending $575 million this year and $3 billion in four years. It should certainly concentrate its efforts on some objectives like the reduction of inflation, job creation and Canadian unity rather than continuously trying to find some means to advantage a class of our society that does not really need it now. It should seek to help other people in several other fields.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) who is not in the House

now, if he really wants us to resume debate on Bill C-20 in Committee of the Whole and if the President of the Privy Council or the Minister of Finance really intends to study carefully the amendments that we are going to propose and those that might come from other opposition parties. It is very important for our democracy that the opposition, whose responsibility it is to improve bills proposed by the government, be taken seriously and contribute to bills that will help not just a privileged group of home owners but also many Canadians and Quebeckers who would find it much easier to make ends meet in the disastrous situation created by this government.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of fluff in this debate, but the fluffiest contributions came from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). The first myth-I would even say the first big lie-which has to be confronted head on and seen clearly for what it is by the Canadian people is the lie that we have to get this bill through before Christmas so that the Canadian taxpayers will be able to get a credit for 1979. That is simply untrue. It is recognized by everybody who has any understanding of the nature of our legal system that it is untrue, and it is recognized by anybody who has taken a look at the legislation, which makes it clear that it applies to 1979 regardless of when it is passed. So the theory put forward by the President of the Privy Council is that we are somehow under an obligation.
In his role as the executive assistant to the Queen's Printer, which he seems so determined to carry out in this House, he tells us that they had to get the forms out, there was no choice; that the agenda for this government is set by its printers, that the forms have already been sent and that therefore we have to pass this bill before Christmas. Not only does that put the cart before the horse, but it is also completely untrue, and it is time somebody called this government's bluff.
The second argument which has been made by the government is that we in this party have been holding up this legislation because we do not want to give the Canadian home owner anything.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Bob Rae: That is not true. That is a lie. That is another lie. I will tell the House why it is a lie. It is a lie because what we on this side of the House have been saying is that both home owners and renters should get the benefit of any change to our tax system. I hear the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) squawking. He squawks every time I get up. However, the Minister of Finance said that we in this party were holding up this legislation and we did not want to give home owners anything, and that is a lie. We are holding up this legislation, we are asking questions about this legislation and we are putting forward amendments to this legislation which are on the desk of the Minister of Finance, and which
December 10, 1979

have been on his desk for a week, because we are concerned about renters, pensioners and people with no income.
The hon. member from Edmonton who spoke for the Tory party said that we on this side of the House have put forward no amendments. That too was a lie. It is completely untrue to say we have put forward no amendments, and the Minister of Finance knows it.
So what are we left with? 1 am sorry the President of the Privy Council is not here to listen to what I have to say, but we are left with a government which. I suggest, has caused its own problems. Were it not for the inflammatory speech which was made on second reading of Bill C-20 by the President of the Privy Council, we would not be in the position we are in now. He told us that it did not matter which amendments we put forward because the forms had already been printed and the government had no intention of listening to us. Were it not for that speech it would have been quite possible for us to go through second reading, which was coming to an end-and the President of the Privy Council knows it was coming to an end-and go into committee, where we could have dealt with the amendments, as we should have dealt with them, on their merits.
The government could have told us its position. If the government did not want to accept our amendments, we could have been told. But that is not what the government did. I am sorry about what the President of the Privy Council did because it was a major mistake, and he should not be surprised that he has suddenly inflamed the opposition. 1 would have thought that a member of the government who was so recently and for so long a member of the opposition-and who will shortly again be in the opposition -would have recognized the position in which we find ourselves.
In the best of faith we have put forward a series of amendments for the simple reason that we want to see a tax credit going to all Canadians regardless whether they own property and regardless whether they have mortgages. That has been our policy all along. That will be our policy through the debate. We told that to the minister at second reading, and it has been no secret. Unlike the Liberal party, which cannot decide whether it wants to give nothing or everything, we have decided we want to give everything, and we have made that position clear for a long period of time.


An hon. Member:: How will you pay for it?


Bob Rae: We have made it quite clear how we would pay for it. If you go through those tax expenditures you fellows released yesterday and which the Tory party released last week, there is ample room in taxes which are not being collected, more than enough to cover the necessary expenditure for a tax credit which is universal, and the government knows it.
The President of the Privy Council made an inflammatory speech in which he waved a red flag at us, saying that the forms had gone off anyway, the printing had gone ahead and there was nothing the government could do. That is precisely what we came to expect from the Liberal Party of Canada, the
Time Allocation
tactic of closure, of shutting off debate, of having to get things through before Christmas and the creation of artificial schedules and artificial timetables which have nothing to do with the legal requirements and which have nothing to do with the law.
All of these things-


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I was not in the chamber at the time but I understand that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) indicated that a statement I had made was not correct. I do not know whether he used the word "lie", but everything but.


An hon. Member:: He did.


David Kilgour: Did he? He used the word "lie", and I ask him to withdraw-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member was not here.


David Kilgour: Despite the chatterings of the oldest member of the Privy Council, or not the oldest, the youngest-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: The most recent.


David Kilgour: -I ask that that statement be withdrawn.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to look at Hansard tomorrow and raise this matter as a question of privilege, 1 will be glad to answer. I personally do not think I breached any privilege. I simply said that what he said was an untruth. He said we had not presented any amendments. I said that was a lie, and 1 will say that again.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker. I think it is well known, even to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, that "lie" is an unparliamentary word. I would ask for a ruling from Your Honour with respect to that and that the hon. member be permitted now to withdraw it on the basis that it is clearly unparliamentary language, a fact which is known to every member in this House, even members in the corner.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the point of my submission today has been to suggest to the government-


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Chair should consider the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary. I know that in the heat of passion generated by a raging debate of this kind sometimes we let our emotions get away with us, and we say things we should not.
Some years ago I myself had occasion to say that some statements made by the then prime minister were a lie, and I was compelled to withdraw it. which I did. I know that the hon. member feels very strongly about this. I admire and respect him as a very bright member with a future. He has some problem mathematically with regard to some of the issues which face this House, but I want to say honestly that Your Honour should give some consideration to the statement

December 10, 1979
Time Allocation
made. 1 heard only part of it-1 was outside-but if he did say it was a lie, then 1 think he should withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will know from the interventions that have been made that the point at issue, as always, is not what the hon. member can say but how he can say it. The problem does not relate to the ability of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) to differ with the statements to which he has made reference in his intervention and to indicate that they are, in his opinion, wrong or that they are categorically different from his own view of the circumstances or of the facts. No member is deprived of the right to make those interventions, and in fact debate is the very place for them, to challenge statements made on the other side of the House and to disagree.
However, the practice in terms of the etiquette of the House is that interventions, no matter how vigorous or how strident, always be made in parliamentary form. It might have been possible and accepted on past occasions that the word "lie" be used in some context, and it is indeed possible to use it, as the hon. member did at the beginning of his speech this afternoon, as "the big lie" or things of that sort. The precedent books will turn up examples in which the Chair has examined the use of the phrase and said that in a particular context it was acceptable. However, in general terms, as soon as the hon. member referred to an individual member-that is to say, the statements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie)-and as soon as he indicated that in making those statements the Minister of Finance was lying, it seems to me that the hon. member has clearly departed from our practices and has clearly said what he is entitled perhaps to say but in a way in which he is not entitled to say it in the chamber. Therefore, 1 would ask him to withdraw the remark and perhaps put it in more parliamentary language.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that 1 did not want to attribute any motive, in so far as the word which I used could be ascribed as attributing a motive, and 1 would withdraw the word and replace it with the word "untruth", which I hope will be acceptable to Your Honour.
I can assure the House that 1 was not even particularly passionate when 1 was speaking. It was nothing compared to what I can be. But in so far as a motive could be ascribed to either the hon. member from Edmonton or the Minister of Finance, naturally, quite happily and generously I withdraw the word "lie" and replace it with the word "untruth". But I hope that the confusion that has been created-and it is my own fault-by the use of that word will not obscure the thrust of my intervention. The thrust of my intervention is that the government has been attempting to convince the people of Canada-


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The hon. member has said that he withdraws the word "lie" and replaces it with the synonym "untruth". I have Beauchesne's here and 1 see there are about 35 Speaker's rulings with respect to the word "lie". I assume, sir, that your direction to the hon. member would not simply be to allow him to with-

draw a word and replace it with a synonym which, to all intents and purposes, means the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are two points to be made. In the first place, no member has the right to replace language that he has withdrawn. It is a freedom that members seem to take unto themselves when they make what has now become a characteristically ungenerous withdrawal of unparliamentary remarks. When members do withdraw their remarks, their ingenuity in finding a way to withdraw the offending words and still keep the sword in, as it were, is quite remarkable, and this was no exception.
However, it is not open to a member to attempt to replace retroactively language which he previously used. He can withdraw the offending phrase, which the hon. member says he does completely. In addition, the problem is that no expression which has been found to be unparliamentary can be categorically and always described to be unparliamentary until the context is seen. Therefore, attempting to reverse now and decide on the context to be put on the language by the hon. member, even if he could rephrase his language in the way he wishes to do, would be most difficult for the Chair.
I think that the point which has to be made in all these circumstances is the one that has been accepted by the hon. member, and that is that there are some constraints, not upon the message he can deliver but only on the form in which he can do it. He has accepted that and he has withdrawn it. I think that every member must be permitted to do that and that must resolve the matter procedurally.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the point of my intervention has been to say that the government has been attempting to convince the Canadian people that the people who are obstructing this legislation are the opposition. 1 want to suggest to the government that that is completely untrue. The case is that we have a serious difference of opinion within the House of Commons as to the nature of the tax credit, which is a major reform of our income tax system and which some of us have been studying for some time. To suggest that members of the opposition should lie down and let a piece of legislation through because of some Gallup polls which have been put forward by the government and which are waved at us from time to time is, I suggest, an abuse of the democratic and parliamentary process.
The government does not seem to recognize that there is a legitimate difference of opinion in the House as to the merits of the proposal, that there are serious amendments which have been put forward. As 1 said before, we have played no games with the government. We have submitted our amendments, we have let them see our amendments, we have not concealed a thing. We have done it in a constructive spirit and we have indicated from the very first day on which I spoke in this debate on October 20 what our position was going to be with respect to amendments.
Now we are told that the government is not prepared to consider any of our amendments, that all our amendments will be considered, on a prima facie basis, unreasonable. That
December 10, 1979

attitude, coupled with the untruth 1 have suggested that unless this legislation is passed before December 31, somehow we are robbing the Canadian taxpayer of a benefit-and that is an untruth because, as hon. members will know, the legislation provides that it should apply in 1979 regardless of whether or not it is passed in 1979, so that it can be passed in 1980-


Mr. Jarvis:: Be practical. When are they going to file?


Bob Rae: Let me suggest to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis) that he has created the problem by mailing out the forms prior to passage in Parliament.


Mr. Kempling:: You haven't been around here long enough.


Bob Rae: The chief whip, in his usual style, suggests that I have not been around here long enough. Perhaps some people have been around for so long they have forgotten the most elementary basis of parliamentary government, a matter that goes back to the origin of Parliament in the seventeenth century, that the control of supply must remain with the House. I would point out that the control of supply does not remain with the government, the Queen's Printer or whoever has to publish the tax forms.
If it is a question of holding up the mailing of tax forms for an extra ten days, I suggest the government has its priorities all wrong. It would be far better if Canadians understood that debate took place in Parliament, and that as a result of the debate a delay took place in the submission of a piece of legislation to this House. It would be far better if Canadians understood that, as a result of that debate in the House of Commons, there was a delay of a number of days in the sending out of tax forms. I submit there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. To suggest otherwise is to mislead the Canadian people. It is to tell the Canadian people that the Queen's Printer and the government together are dictating not only the schedule but the measures and legislation which will be passed by the House before we have had a chance to consider them.


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


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, after having witnessed Friday last the show given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) allow me to give my opinion a little more soberly on the subject matter of Bill C-20, an act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax. In that area as in many others, the Progressive Conservative government has tried to improvise rather than develop a housing policy. It wanted to meet three objectives or promises; first, keep one of its election promises made on the basis of surveys; second, give the necessary impetus to construction to
Time Allocation
spur the economy; third, help the owners of single-family dwellings burdened by land taxes and now crushed by the mortgage interest rate which has now reached a record level.
Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal opposition recognizes that we have to assist owners, it deplores that the Progressive Conservative government has not made more original proposals. If we only take into account the mortgage interest rate set under this government, the benefits of such legislation are cancelled. I suggest that the government should tackle the cause of the problem instead of its effects. It should look for a scapegoat other than the previous administration since the Gallup poll showed clearly that the public is not satisfied with this excuse.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative government must understand that it will not buy the credibility it lacks with its tax credit program on mortgage interest. What is expected from it is much more a sense of responsibility and the capacity to govern the country in the best interests of all Canadians.
As to the second objective of this program, here is what Mr. Barry Gander, a construction expert, had to say about it in the December 1979 issue of Construction magazine, and I quote:
In fact, if the government is under the impression it has "taken care" of the construction sector problem with its tax credit program on mortgage interest, this impression will be shattered to pieces when it realizes that 75 per cent of the construction is non-housing construction.
And he added:
The lesson to be learned from the intentions announced by the government during the present parliamentary session is clear: aside from a few measures of regional impact, industry needs much more diversified policies than those which were announced up to now and we would like to be informed of those policies before rather than after some of our businesses go bankrupt.
You have only to refer to the government buildings construction programme, where most of the projects have been cancelled throughout the country. This programme would have met the needs of the construction industry. The government has not even given it the least thought as a means of putting the construction industry back on its feet. This is one of the numerous examples shown by the present government of its inability to take wise and non-partisan decisions which are not inspired by electoral considerations. Canadians have now realized they were fooled on May 22, and a measure such as Bill C-20 will not help them regain their confidence in a government which shows no leadership.
Economically, it relies on the private sector or on the provinces. The case of Alberta can probably be solved without too much difficulty. But as far as the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and the other provinces are concerned, we need more than pious wishes. To date, Mr. Speaker, what kind of agreement has this government concluded with the private sector to ensure the revival of our economy? How many Crown corporations were sold?
As to the third objective, namely, helping owners in difficulty, in its July 1979 report, the Toronto Real Estate Board
2198

December 10, 1979
Time Allocation
makes suggestions which seem interesting to us, and particularly which are less costly than the suggestions made in the bill. Under the heading "Tax Credits and Incentives", their report says on page 27, and 1 quote:

It is feasible to introduce a simple income-tests refundable tax credit which would provide benefits to lower income groups.

And the report reads further:

The deductibility of mortgage interest payments should be reviewed; such a review should give careful consideration to delivering the greatest benefits to the lowest income groups.

We realize, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-20 is very far from that recommendation. The lack of planning, the lack of concrete measures for renters in this bill, the lack of respect for the parliamentary system by the Minister of Finance who ridicules the business of the House, and sends the tax forms even before the discussions on the bill have been completed, as well as the lack of a-


Mr. Caouette:: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to know whether we are discussing Bill C-20, or a motion which has been put forward this afternoon?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It is on the motion on Standing Order 75C.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Perhaps the hon. member has not read the bill. 1 think I am dealing with the subject matter. That is quite clear. So in view of that, coupled with the lack of a budget setting out the government's priorities, no responsible member of this House could support this measure. The philosophy and the leadership of the government are clearly expressed in this statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) during his weekly press conference of November 30 last, when he said, and 1 quote:
(English]
Our judgment was that it was far preferable to try to move the bill quickly through Parliament and allow the people of Canada to take advantage of the tax credit early rather than have an extensive debate with wide discussion of amendments now, which would mean that no benefits would get to Canadians for another year.
[ Translation]
Quite simply, after six months, the government is proposing a bill which, when it is fully in force, will cost some $3 billion, yet the Prime Minister wants to limit the debate to its barest minimum. Not only that, but he wants to muzzle the opposition less than two weeks after the House has started discussing the bill. This is the same Prime Minister who emphatically spoke of deficits during the campaign and who refuses to tell Canadians how they are going to pay for this ostentatious and

discriminating piece of legislation. The population of Mercier cannot be fooled, no more than the rest of Canadians who, with tomorrow's budget, will learn much of the Progressive Conservative's inability to govern.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the floor. 1 shall try to speak on this motion instead of on Bill C-20 because I understand that the motion we are studying this afternoon has to do with time allocation on Bill C-20. 1 do not understand why we should extend ad infinitum the time allocation on that bill. I have never been in favour of motions under 75C, especially when introduced by the former government in relation to a so-called omnibus bill. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. May I remind the House that the time allotted for this debate under Standing Order 75C was two hours. One hour and 54 minutes has now elapsed. The debate will, therefore, be interrupted six minutes after resuming debate at 8 p.m.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: 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 Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Air Transport-Proposed sale of Nordair-Consideration of bid of Eastern Provincial Airways; the hon. member for Madawaska-Vic-toria (Mr. Corbin)-Unemployment-Alarming situation of the unemployed-Request for announcement of government policy; the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais)- Employment-Canada Works Program-Request for supplementary funds.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Levis
December 10, 1979

(Mr. Guay) is not here today, 1 think that all hon. members will agree that we should proceed now with motion No. 12. May we do so with the unanimous consent of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The House will now proceed to motion No. 12.

[ Translation]


INCOME TAX
Armand Caouette: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to exclude from taxable income all indemnities received by a volunteer fireman in the exercise of his duties, as well as to allow such firemen to deduct from their income $1,000 for all expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to deal for the third time with this motion which I moved for the first time some three years ago. Since then, 1 have received a great many letters from and made a great many contacts with firemen from various municipalities throughout Canada indicating that it is about time the government once and for all look into the situation of these people who are doing Canadians a first-rate service, so that income tax-wise they may get their fair share.
Mr. Speaker, the interest of several hundred Canadians who perform the duties of volunteer firemen is at stake here. As 1 said a while ago, this is the third time I have spoken on this motion in this House. Each time, the Liberal government, through its backbenchers, managed to defeat the motion. Of course, Mr. Speaker, all the parties represented in the House spoke of the need to pass the motion. However, they made sure beforehand of having enough speakers to use up the time allotted and so kill the motion. 1 therefore ask my colleagues today, both government members and members of the opposition, to overlook their parliamentary hesitations and realize the importance and necessity of passing this motion. 1 sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that the House, that all hon. members, would benefit from putting an end to this cynical comedy that recurs constantly when a motion of this type is introduced by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to quote a press release I received from the Quebec Federation of Professional Firefighters which strongly supports the resolution of the volunteer firemen of the province of Quebec asking that an income tax exemption be granted them on the money they earn in the exercise of those duties. That resolution was signed by Mr. Alfred Morin,
Volunteer Firemen
president of the Quebec Federation of Professional Firefighters. And I also received from the Canadian Fire Chiefs Association the report of the 60th annual conference which was held between August 24 and 28, 1975, in Mississauga. In the report, there was a resolution which reads as follows:
Introduced by the volunteer section of the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia regarding the increase in the income tax exemption for all volunteer firemen;
Whereas volunteer firemen must face an increase in their responsibilities and their functions as a consequence of the rapid growth in population and in construction;
Whereas it is ever more expensive to ensure those essential services to the collectivity;
Whereas the Income Tax Act which provides for a $300 exemption for expenses incurred as a consequence of the functions of volunteer firemen has not changed since its inception 29 years ago;
Be it resolved that the Canadian Fire Chiefs Association asks the minister concerned both in the federal and in provincial governments to bring up the exemption to $1,000, with the recommendation to the committee on resolutions to approve that resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we can see from that request by the Canadian Volunteer Firemen Federation that they are asking for a supplementary exemption not only to the federal government but also to all the provinces. Later, I shall be able to say specifically that some provinces decided to follow the Professional Fire Fighters Federation and to change their income tax act.
But before that, Mr. Speaker, I should like, for the benefit of the members of this government, to read from the speech the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made last year on the same motion. He said, and 1 quote:
Having heard the proposer of this motion and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications speak with such determination in the interests of this resolution I want to indicate on behalf of my party that we support the motion and are prepared to support the amendment in order to get it through private members' hour.
Let me put this in perspective. It is fine to have speeches in support of this very commendable motion, but I do not want to witness these speeches past six o'clock.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe in what was said by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he was in the opposition and 1 hope that the message has been conveyed to his government colleagues, so that they will refrain from talking out the motion past six o'clock.
We are in this House, Mr. Speaker, to speak on behalf of our voters and only a greater feeling of equity and justice should guide our proceedings. It is in that sense that I am humbly asking all my colleagues to consider my motion.
1 would like in the first place to point the reasons specifically warranting that request for an increase with tax exemption from $30 to $1,000. Firstly, Mr. Speaker, volunteer firemen are ordinary workers often with a low income. They must regularly use their car to get to the scene of the fire and they must face all the dangers involved in their duties as volunteer

December 10, 1979
Volunteer Firemen
firemen. Those people must also pay their cleaning costs and often the loss of clothes or personal items such as a watch, a ring and other things.
And as far as their family life is concerned, volunteer firemen are on call in rotation in order to provide this service to the people. In addition, under the present tax legislation, volunteer firemen are getting harder to recruit for many municipalities. Mr. Speaker, many municipalities have represented to us how extremely difficult it was now to recruit individuals who are willing to go and help couples and families who have the bad luck of having their home destroyed by fire.
Volunteer firemen render a valuable service to the Canadian community either on a voluntary basis or at a very low rate of pay, and often at the risk or their life. Let us imagine how much more it would cost Canadian taxpayers if they had to pay the regular price for such services. These firemen perform exceptional duties at any hour of the day or night. For instance, I remember that a few years ago, in my home town, in the riding 1 have the honour to represent, volunteer firemen were called upon to fight a fire in a house where 18 people lived. When they got there, they realized that 11 persons were already dead.
Nevertheless, all local volunteer firemen mustered enough courage to answer the call even though it was 40 below. They wanted to try and save as many human lives as possible. By dint of hard work, they managed to save the other seven persons who were also caught in that house.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I will be the first to do what I asked other hon. members, that is not to talk out the bill. Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to make another comment. Volunteer firemen work freely for the community, they serve it in all sorts of ways, for little or no pay. They provide an invaluable service to our sparsely populated cities. So the government should recognize this, tax-wise.
As 1 said earlier, 1 have here a bill proposed at the Quebec National Assembly asking the provincial government to raise the tax exemption for volunteer firemen from $300 to $1,000. That may have been too much for the government but there was at least some increase since the exemption in Quebec went from $300 to $600. That may not be very big but it is an improvement which could be significant if the federal government also did its share.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I find the motion interesting, and I congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette) for introducing it. 1 agree with half of the motion and 1 will discuss that in a moment.
This gives me an opportunity to say thank you to all volunteer firemen right across Canada. The two communities which 1 represent, Brampton and Georgetown, now have fulltime departments and some of the best equipped and finest fire fighting troops one can find anywhere. Both communities had

volunteer fire brigades at one time. Many of the volunteer firemen are still around, and I thank them for their protection.
Since volunteer firemen first received the right to deduct some of their expenses from their income tax, costs have risen drastically. I would support an investigation into the possibility of amending the Income Tax Act to increase their expense allowance. However, I am concerned about their exclusion from taxable income and the indemnities received for fighting fires, because it may set a precedent.	[DOT]
There are many volunteer organizations which could quite easily come under the same type of proposal. 1 am concerned that if we exclude certain portions of the taxable income from indemnities received for duties performed-whether they be on a voluntary basis or whatever-we would be setting a precedent and as a result many other community organizations would claim the same exclusions. However, 1 do support the hon. member for Abitibi in his request that the government look into increasing the deduction for expenses.
The types of problems which volunteer firemen face, such as having to go to a fire direct from their place of business, often results in ruined clothing, whether it be suit or whatever. The cost of clothing is going up, as is the cost of the fuel which firemen use in rushing to prevent and fight fires in their various communities. Once again, I congratulate the hon. member for introducing this motion and indicate my support for one half of it. The other half would cause some considerable grief to the government.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to add my support to this motion and commend the hon. member for bringing it before the House. Volunteer firemen are an example of volunteerism at its very best. These men are called upon at all hours of the day and night and must leave their families and/or their work. They do this work as a public service and as good citizens. It is asking too much of them to pay from their own pockets for the cleaning of their clothes, purchasing of extra clothes, gas to get to the fire and so on.
The very least we could do is to go as far as the province of Quebec has gone and bring in a tax exemption of $600. Personally, 1 feel that an exemption of $1,000 would be more reasonable. If there are differences in the motion which hon. members cannot go along with, these, of course, can be settled through amendments in second reading. There is no reason to defeat the motion because we do not agree with every item in it. In conclusion, if there has been an exemption in the past of $300, then an exemption of $600 or $1,000 for today is very practical.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powel! River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support and congratulations to those already received by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette). Without repeating too many of the comments and suggestions which have already been made, it is a very worthwhile motion because it recognizes the very worth-while services provided by firemen to small communities.
The one suggestion that I would like to make on this particular motion is that it should be broadened to include
December 10, 1979

many of the other groups which provide rescue service within the community. The volunteer firemen are one of the best examples of dedication to public service. On the west coast of Canada there are people who have acted in a number of capacities, such as coastguard rescue agents, for which they receive no pay whatsoever. Some have also provided a great deal of personal equipment. I should like to give a couple of examples of individuals who have provided equipment and incurred expenses on the west coast in order to provide the same kind of service as that provided by volunteer firemen.
On Pender Island there is a rescue agent who has provided approximately $80,000 of equipment over a number of years. There is a vessel and some specialized rescue equipment which has been used in over 300 marine incidents. He has not received a penny for this. Operating expenses are covered but his outlay for specialized rescue equipment has been substantial.
Another example is a rescue agent in Campbell River who also works closely with the volunteer fire department. He has spent something in the order of $12,000 to provide VHF and HF radios. He monitors emergencies frequently and responds to them. He has donated a $10,000 boat for rescue service. It was mentioned in this House not too long ago that this particular individual was involved in a rescue in which a seine vessel overturned in one of the most dangerous pieces of water in western Canada, Seymour Narrows. Two members of the armed forces rescued people from inside the vessel. These divers were presented with medals for bravery but the private citizen I mentioned had to replace his torn wet suit and wrecked scuba diving gear at his own expense.
I believe there is an element of justice in the proposed motion, Mr. Speaker. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for bringing it forward and would ask the government to take it under advisement. People who provide similar services at their own expense and quite willingly should be recognized. I should like to lend my voice to supporting the motion, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 would simply like to say that I, too, support this motion. This is an initiative that has been supported by everybody for a long time. 1 would just like to point out to the House that many hon. members on our side also support this motion. I thank and congratulate the sponsors of the motion and 1 hope it will be referred to committee.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 had not intended to speak on this motion but I was so moved by the eloquence of other members, particularly the mover of the motion, that I felt compelled to be identified with the sentiments expressed in their speeches and to lend what support I can, as a private member, to the motion.
Volunteer Firemen
My riding of Hillsborough essentially covers the greater Charlottetown area of Prince Edward Island. It is made up of several communities apart from Charlottetown-Sherwood, Parkdale and East and West Royalty. While it is a small community, it contains a number of very successful, well-developed, well-equipped and technologically sophisticated fire departments. More important than the technology, and even more important than the equipment and the endowment of those departments in terms of budgets, is the resourcefulness, the dedication and community spirit of the firemen.
I should like to congratulate the members who have spoken on the motion before me, Mr. Speaker. If I may be allowed, I should like to congratulate in particular the mover, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette), and the seconder, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). Their speeches were not only a credit to themselves and to their ridings but to the firemen across the country on whose behalf they were speaking. Their remarks also reflect an awareness of the special role of firemen in the country and an awareness of the role of volunteerism in Canada and elsewhere.
It is true that more and more Canadians expect government to do almost everything for them. As government becomes more expansive and encroaches more and more on the private sector, it is a threat to volunteerism. I am sure that that threat is one of the reasons this government has seen fit to appoint a special body to examine the role and opportunities of different kinds of voluntary organizations.
Nowhere is volunteerism more important than in the sphere of fire fighting, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned my riding of Hillsborough and referred to the fact that it consists mostly of the city of Charlottetown and includes Sherwood, Parkdale and East and West Royalty. I should like to cite a few facts regarding fire fighting in my riding which 1 am sure will be equally true of other communities across the dominion.
In Hillsborough there are three fire departments, Charlottetown, Sherwood and Parkdale. The Charlottetown fire department comprises 57 members, 52 of whom are volunteers and five of whom are full-time. The department depends very significantly upon the contribution, dedication and community service of the voluntary sector. The volunteers receive $2,300 per year. That is not a remuneration although it covers some, but not all, of the expenses they incur in the fulfilment of their role. I am told that the Charlottetown fire department answers something like 350 calls per year and that every fireman, without exception, is required to turn out for each and every call.
Some of the volunteers lose pay from their jobs for the time spent at fires. That is very significant, Mr. Speaker. In effect, they are paying for the right to fulfil their role as fire fighters. The fire chief in Charlottetown has informed me that, in his judgment and in the judgment of his colleagues across the country, the motion we are discussing today is welcome and that he supports it 100 per cent.
I have mentioned the city of Charlottetown, which is my own city and which lies within the riding of Hillsborough. Another community that I should like to mention, to illustrate

December 10, 1979
Volunteer Firemen
the importance of the motion's being implemented, is Sherwood, which is smaller than Charlottetown. In that village of less than 10,000 people there are 30 members of the fire department. Every single one is a volunteer. Today they receive something like $1,000. Again I stress that that is not salary, payment, recompense or remuneration. It is merely a part coverage of expenses incurred by firemen in the performance of their duties. For some that $1,000 will cover pretty well all their expenses. For many more there are other out of pocket expenses they will be called upon to meet themselves.
I want to elaborate on that point because I think it is important. It is especially significant in terms of the motion we are discussing this afternoon. Sometimes those of us who are laymen wonder how much is incurred by a fireman by way of expenses. One would perhaps assume that with fire trucks, hoses, water and everything else being looked after by the fire department, there would be very few out of pocket expenses for the individual member of the fire department. That is a misrepresentation; it does not accord with the facts. Everything from clothing to extra car insurance to, for example, time lost on the job as I mentioned earlier, is involved in the fulfilment of the duty of a fireman in every community, not just in my own.
The fire department in Sherwood, the smaller community I was referring to, had something like 92 responses last year. In addition, it had 44 training sessions. Therefore, we are not just talking about the time firemen lake out of their busy lives, their personal and family affairs, to put out fires, but also about the time they devote to training. That has to be calculated into any equation involving the estimation of the sacrifice made by our firefighters in every community in this great dominion.
In Sherwood, and again it is just an illustration, members are required to put in five complete weekends per year on duty at that particular station. That represents a tremendous sacrifice. It is one of the conditions that motivates me this afternoon to speak as vigorously as I can on behalf of the motion.
I wish to use one final illustration. I referred to Charlottetown, the capital city of Prince Edward Island, and the smaller community of Sherwood, which is in my riding as well. I might also cite the example of Parkdale. It, too, has a fire department. It is manned by dedicated and community-minded people who make the same kind of sacrifices as those made by volunteer firefighters in Charlottetown and Sherwood. The fire department of Parkdale consists of 28 members. Every single one is a volunteer. Not one is recompensed other than by way of looking after some of the expenses incurred in the fulfdment of the duty of being a fireman in that particular community. Each fireman is allotted or allocated $400 to cover his or her expenses. That does not go very far in this day and age, especially when one considers the very expensive commodities such as clothing that are involved in being a fireman, not to mention time lost from earning one's livelihood.
[Mr. McMillan.)
In the community of Parkdale, the firemen responded to something like 50 to 60 calls last year. I understand in other years the number of calls has been even higher. One can imagine how much sacrifice is made by the firemen in that community when he considers there are only 28 members to respond to as many as 60 calls. You can see how thinly their resources are spread and what sacrifices are made in that community by firemen who are so dedicated and community-minded.
I conclude by saying how much I support the motion. It is an excellent one. The motion would have the Income Tax Act amended so that firemen could deduct from their incomes $1,000 for all expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties. It would give them absolution from taxes on all indemnities paid to them in the fulfilment of their duties. The motion is one that I support vigorously, without qualification, with great pride and with enthusiasm. I urge members on all sides of the House to give it their endorsation as well.


Mr. Ron Ritchie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance);: Mr. Speaker, I too congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette). All of us know, and it has been reiterated a few times in the last several minutes, how important volunteer firemen, their activities and their commitment, are in a great many communities in this country, not only communities wholly reliant on voluntary efforts, but communities which cannot from their own funds support a sufficiently paid fire force and therefore must have it supplemented by volunteers.
The hon. member will be glad to know that he is not alone, apart from hon. members who voiced their support in the House this afternoon. The Department of Finance has been receiving a great many representations, perhaps over some years, but certainly recently, on this subject. 1 think it might be useful to put a certain perspective on the actions that are proposed.
Most of the representations that have been received in recent months have dealt with the second part of this resolution, the proposal that the allowable expense be increased for income tax purposes. Very few have dealt with the first part, that any indemnity received by volunteer firemen not be included in taxable income.
Certainly as far as the allowance goes, if that allowance was right in the first place, the allowance cannot be considered large enough today if it was large enough originally. I think that allowance goes back to the year 1953, if recollection serves me right, and it has been an unchanged allowance through that period. We all know how much inflation has occurred since that time and how much costs have gone up.
I am told there are some costs incurred, to which volunteer firemen are subject to, which have not been mentioned in the chamber this afternoon. I am told that volunteer firemen often, or perhaps always, cannot get insurance to cover the times when they are rushing to a fire in their own cars. Some people paid very dearly for that part of their volunteer effort.
December 10, 1979

On the other hand, not every one who has made representations to the Minister of Finance is wholly in favour of the principle of this resolution. It might be better to say they may be in favour of the principle, but have concerns of their own. We have also heard there are other volunteer people, some of whom are active in rather hazardous occupations, who have expenses somewhat analogous to those incurred by volunteer firemen. We have had representations from some volunteer groups that their volunteers should have a comparable allowance and they should have it before that of the firemen goes up. 1 mention this only as a matter of information.
I would like to comment on the first part of the hon. member's motion, the proposal that the indemnity of volunteer firemen not be included in taxable income. Here I share at least a question with the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid), that this is a part of the proposal that should win less instant acclaim than the second part of the proposal. It certainly does raise a principle which, if applied here, no matter how great the contribution of volunteer firemen is, and I agree it is very great, raises a principle that could be applied elsewhere and be extended perhaps indefinitely. Having said that, having raised the question, 1 would again congratulate the hon. member on his initiative and on his commitment in bringing forward this motion.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion, and first, to commend the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette) for bringing it forward. When we think of the constituency and the area represented by our colleague, I understand his reasons for doing so, aware as he is of the problems and difficulties faced by the majority of small municipalities and also by larger centres in absorbing the cost of a fire brigade. Such a proposal will allow municipalities to see that the government accept, and support, the voluntary work done at the local level, which is totally acceptable. Each and everyone of us should commend the hon. member and see to it that the government implements this as soon as possible.
As 1 said, Mr. Speaker, in smaller municipalities and particularly in eastern Quebec and the Gaspe Peninsula, where most communities average between 2,000 and 8,000 population, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide fire fighting at the ratepayers' costs.
The availability of volunteer firemen provides security for those people, the knowledge that in case of fire, at any hour of the day, they can count on people from their own area. This is why the motion put forward by my colleague from Abitibi deserves support. Some may be concerned with the $1,000 income tax deduction, but it must be realized that not all municipalities can count on people like company presidents or lawyers or doctors to serve as volunteer firemen in the normal course of life. Their duties preclude this and I feel it is to be
Volunteer Firemen
expected rather than that people with more leisure time should provide this kind of voluntary service. For this reason I do not believe that a $1,000 deduction would unsettle or contradict the famous principle referred to by my colleague from York East, the fact that such a deduction could apply in other fields of society.
I therefore am in total agreement with the motion put forward by my colleague from Abitibi, on both items involved, that of excluding from taxable income any allowance received by a volunteer fireman and of allowing for a $1,000 deduction from their revenues, which could encourage a greater number of individuals in our small municipalities to co-operate in these volunteer firemen groups. In this way, the Canadian government would recognize and encourage the people in our small municipalities to volunteer their services in order to provide security for all their fellow citizens.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take just a few moments to support my hon. colleague from Abitibi and commend him on the motion he has presented today. If there is somebody who is underestimated in our society, it is certainly the fireman and particularly the volunteer fireman. He is the first to be on the spot every time there is a fire or a problem threatening the community's security. Mr. Speaker, this motion is commendable and I repeat that I strongly support it. I suggest that the government proceed with it as soon as possible in order to give benefits to this group of individuals who do a great service to their fellow citizens every day.


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to support the hon. gentleman's motion on volunteer firemen. All our firemen in Nunatsiaq are volunteers. Last year in Frobisher Bay, alone, a town of 2,500 people, there were no fewer than seven fire-related deaths. A school in my home town of Rankin Inlet was destroyed by fire. In Eskimo Point a power station was destroyed by fire. Three further deaths in Rankin Inlet last year were related to fire, revealing a lack of adequate equipment and training. Volunteer firemen do their best and deserve all the help we can give them. 1 think my people in Nunatsiaq would fully endorse this motion put forward by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question!
Motion (Mr. Caouette) agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 10, 1979
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.48 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. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):
That in relation to Bill C-20, an act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration in Committee of the Whole stage of the bill; and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn every question then necessary in order to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I continue what I was saying before supper about the motion introduced by the minister to limit the time of debate on Bill C-20. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if all members of this House want to be serious, I believe the discussion on this bill has lasted long enough. This is a bill made up of two clauses, the first one giving the principle of the bill and the second one determining the tax cuts being proposed by the ministry.
We have to be serious; after seven days of debate and so many speakers during those seven days-just on the official opposition side more than 25 members spoke and I think they had the time, Mr. Speaker, to give the lines of thought of their party, as well as those of their colleagues, the Liberals, who voted with us on second reading of this bill. I believe they also agree with us on this bill. I think a lot of people are watching us tonight. A lot of heads of families are waiting for this bill to try to reduce somewhat interests in arrears because of the continuous rise in interest rates.
We have ourselves addressed this bill. Government members as well as members of the New Democratic Party have had the opportunity to suggest amendments to this bill. Again this afternoon I could hear members of the NDP or the official opposition say that they could not get their amendments

accepted. They knew beforehand that they could not do it, Mr. Speaker, because we had already been warned. The minister warned the House that he could not accept amendments which would increase the budget. Indeed, according to usual practice, an amendment which forces the ministry to increase its budget is not acceptable. It constitutes a finance bill and cannot be accepted. This is why the minister said simply that he would review these amendments and that it would always be possible to come back to this bill after the holidays.
If everyone were sincere and would stop playing politics, we would all agree that it is time this evening to take a serious stand before the Canadian people and to take the action that people are expecting from serious politicians who were elected to help them, at least partially, to solve their problems. It has been said during the debate that this bill provides no extension and is too restrictive. Others have said that it is too costly. It is a great thing to sit here and listen to speeches.
Mr. Speaker, since I only have three minutes left, I would like to appeal to all serious-minded members in this House. As your leader would say, let us stop this nonsense and try to be serious. We, of the Social Credit party, believe, first that this has gone on long enough, and second, that this bill is a priority. We have made our speeches. We have been asking for such a bill for many years, Mr. Speaker, and we now urge the minister to act as soon as possible before he gets discouraged. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this House, we are witnessing approval of the basic principle of the Social Credit party in the area of housing.
Members are right to applaud because it is true. No one has ever listened to, or wanted to listen to, the housing reforms proposed by the Social Credit party. The opposition members believe that Social Credit is only a matter of dollars and cents. It is not. They should read the reforms proposed by the Social Credit party. It is a complete social reform, the monetary reform represents only one-thousandth of it, a social reform that puts the wealth of our country at the service of human beings instead of giving it to millionaires as you are doing. It is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that a bill will give some help.
In the last 20 years we have been asking that single family unit owners be given the same benefits as the big owners of multiple dwelling buildings. We have been asking for that for a long time. Never before has a government dared to do it. This evening, the party in power proposes a small amendment, I repeat, but at least it is a first step. This is why tonight we urge the minister to make sure by all means that this bill is passed before Christmas to give at least a big gift to family heads for the New Year. People are waiting for it. Millions of family heads, of young couples, are waiting for this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 8.10 p.m., the two hours allotted under Standing Order 75(C) for the consideration of the motion before us have now expired. In accordance with
December 10, 1979

that Standing Order it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all questions necessary to dispose of this motion.
The question is on the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Roy
(Beauce)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Speyer
Stevens
Stewart
Time Allocation
Messrs.
Stratas (Mrs.)
Taylor
(Cowichan-Malahat-The
Islands)
Taylor (Bow River)
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnet
Wakim
Wenman
Whittaker
Wightman
Wilson
Wise
Woolliams Yewchuk Yurko-120.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote because I had agreed last week to be paired with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKinnon).


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre).


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I understand that, under the rule, the House order would now mean one full day's debate. As the budget will begin at eight o'clock tomorrow night, should there not now be some arrangement about what exactly comprises a full day's debate? Will it be part of tonight, part of tomorrow, and part of Wednesday? That does not seem to be very clear at the moment. Perhaps the government House leader, with the leaders of the other parties-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Lefebvre: Would you mind if I have a couple of minutes? I speak to these experts on the back benches opposite
2206

December 10, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
who have only been here a couple of weeks. I should like to get an answer from the government House leader, if possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps 1 can indicate that the precedents are clear, that the day upon which the House embarks upon the business which is the subject matter of an order pursuant to Standing Order 75C does not count as the first sitting day. Therefore, one sitting day remains to be allotted at the close of the business of today. If an entire day is not used tomorrow for that subject, because of the budget tomorrow night, then some further hours would have to be spent. The number is not certain. Perhaps in the interval between now and the start of business tomorrow, the House leaders could decide whether they could come to some agreement on that account.
Pursuant to Standing Order 54 I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 5, consideration in committee of Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax-Mr. Crosbie-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. When the committee rose on December 5, 1979, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration. Hon. members might be interested in what 1 am going to say. Because the order that has been adopted tonight provides, "that, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day"-meaning the day on which we will complete consideration of committee stage of Bill C-20-"all questions will have to be put." The danger is that the committee might be placed in some difficulty unless hon. members plan the work of the committee ahead of time.
During the day 1 heard some hon. members say to others that no amendments had been moved in committee, while others affirmed that some amendments had been moved in committee. 1 must say officially that the Chair has no amendment in front of it and no amendment can be in front of the Chair unless it is moved. Because we can only have one amendment in front of us at a time, and vote on only one amendment at a time, all those amendments of which the Table might have received notice are not officially in front of us until we reach them and make a decision on them.
If, by any chance, hon. members debate the bill on clause 1 up to 15 minutes before the end of the time allowed, the Chairman will have no alternative but to put the question on clauses 1, 2, 3, the title, and the bill, and will in no way be able to receive amendments at that time.
I just make that suggestion and 1 hope hon. members will take it into account when planning the work of the committee.

On clause 1 -


Lloyd Axworthy: Just to put your mind at ease, Mr. Chairman, 1 hasten to assure you that we intend to move several amendments to this bill. Any anticipation you might have of being able to go home early could be quickly discarded. We will be very glad to satisfy your request that changes be made to this piece of legislation.
Let me begin by observing that the Minister of Finance is unable to be with us this evening. I extend my sympathies to him, as I know what a difficult position he is in. He does not have an oil agreement, he does not have an agreement on pricing, and he does not have an agreement on most things that pertain to this government. We certainly understand that, in a moment of panic, he would flee the House very early, in the hope that he can arrive at some last minute negotiations.
By contrast, Mr. Chairman, I note the high rage and indignation he expressed previously about the fact that members of the opposition had not given him an opportunity to consider amendments. I am sorry he is not here to listen to and participate in this debate, which he has called one of the more important initiatives of his government. I suppose this is an indication of the priority the Minister of Finance gives to this bill. After he and his colleagues have flexed their muscles to deny totally the democratic rights and privileges of members of this House, he now feels sufficient disdain that he can leave even though, in his own words, this matter is of such great importance that he has reason to be elsewhere.
I welcome the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, knowing him to be a person of great reason and rationality-probably more so than the minister himself. However, we want to express our own concern that the Minister of Finance is not here because we believe that the amendments that will be brought forward are ones which will have serious consequences for this bill. It is unfortunate that the senior minister responsible for the legislation is not in his seat and therefore able to exercise his judgment as to whether the government is prepared to accept them or not.
One of the questions we certainly want to raise at the outset is whether we are going to be treated to the same sham performance we received previously, where the government is really not prepared to accept the amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: It would help if members opposite were able to restrain their own particular form of verbal pollution for a while so that we shall be able to get these amendments out and make our arguments. We are obviously debating the wrong bill. We should be debating certain game laws to keep those people in their seats, in their own particular wilderness experience, to be restrained so that those of us in this House who treat these amendments with a degree of seriousness are allowed to do our job. I would only ask some co-operation from members because what I say is important to them. I only hope
December 10, 1979

that through their behaviour in this House they might demonstrate how serious they are prepared to be.
In again examining the basic details of this bill, as has been expressed several times by members of our caucus, we have found a lot to disagree with, both in principle and practice. What gives us particular concern at this point in time is the statements made by the Minister of Finance.
What clearly is being demonstrated by the minister is that he does not know what his own legislation means. He has been so busy holding up his own gag routine he has failed to read the kinds of documents and papers prepared for him by his officials. He has made the most serious error any minister of finance can make, that is, the error of the sin of inaccuracy and misrepresentation about the intent of the bill. That may be all right if the minister is simply engaging in rhetorical flourish. However, when he is talking about the expenditure of $3 billion, a major change to the tax structure of our country, every Canadian has the right to expect the Minister of Finance at least to be precise and accurate in his statements, and not become so carried away with his verbal buffoonery that he ceases to tell this House exactly what the intent and purpose of this bill are.
1 would like to comment in part on some verbal excesses of which the minister was guilty over the course of this debate. For example, he has accused members on this side of not caring about the middle-class home owner. He made some fairly violent accusations that members on this side are bleeding hearts and that only he, the Minister of Finance, is engaged in the crusade to defend the rights of the middle-class home owner. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
By the statement made in the document produced by the Department of Finance, which the minister obviously has not had the opportunity to read, called "Government of Canada Tax Expenditure Account", it points out that in the area of housing and urban renewal there are tax allowances presently amounting to $7 billion that are available to middle-class home owners. The non-taxation of capital gains on principal residences amounts to $2.5 billion of tax expenditure deduction. That is an issue that was introduced as part of the tax program of previous governments. For the moment, the nontaxation of imputed income on rental value of home ownership adds up to $3.7 billion of tax expenditures. The tax deductions allowed on the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan amount to $115 million.
In other words, in total contrast to the accusations made by the Minister of Finance, the opposite happens to be true. Middle-class home owners are treated with a high degree of preference in our present tax act. The argument of members on this side has always been that when providing for further relief of pressures due to the high cost of housing, those pressures should be assessed according to who is most seriously affected.
We have made the case time and time again, drawn from the government's own documents, this time from documents produced by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that by far the most significant need is being felt by renters,
Mortgage Tax Credit
particularly senior citizens and single parent families, with close to 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the people in that category paying over 30 per cent of their income for rent, which is a much higher proportion than the home-owning public.
Those are not figures manufactured in some sort of Fiberal think tank. Those are documents produced by the government itself, documents that obviously the Minister of Finance has either been unwilling or unprepared to read and to use as part of his own tax documents. When he says to us, "Why should we not be giving tax credits to a specialized group, we give them for children, and for family allowance," we say there is nothing wrong with that in principle, but surely it should be measured according to those who must experience the most severe need.
We also want to point out that, totally contrary to the statements of the Minister of Finance that somehow all those people, even those with the lowest income, will be eligible for some form of benefit under this tax act, again the contrary happens to be true. When I use figures that only 6 per cent of the elderly own their own homes and therefore are not eligible for any benefits, the minister scoffs. The fact is that 70 per cent of the elderly do not pay taxes and therefore are not eligible for any kind of either property or mortgage tax credit.
The Minister of Finance committed the cardinal sin for a minister with that kind of portfolio by not dealing with the facts, not exactly dealing with factual data that can be corroborated by proper analysis and assessment. He was so excited by his own flourishes that he was not prepared to do what a minister of finance should do, that is, at least be prepared to document his statements.
If there is any indictment that we must make of the Minister of Finance, and one that seriously threatens his credibility in terms of the budget tomorrow, it is that he is not prepared to talk about the honest facts. The minister is simply not prepared to talk about what is; instead, he relies upon the perambulations of his own fertile and colourful imagination rather than on the kind of facts and data that should be produced.
Perhaps the most serious challenge and criticism that we would like to introduce under clause 1 is the fact that the Government of Canada is now committing itself to an expenditure of $3 billion four years down the road, without any proposal or proposition to this House as to what the economic repercussions of that $3 billion of expenditure will be. These are the economic managers! These are the people who tell us that they are going to be the tough guys, the ones who are going to approach economic management with a high degree of competence and a high degree of reality. However, they are the ones who are committing the Government of Canada, and therefore the taxpayers of Canada, to an expenditure which will amount to one-third of the present deficit, without knowing where the money is coming from or whether the economic conditions will justify it. In fact, that proposal for spending $3 billion and adding substantially to the cost commitment of this government is being introduced at a time when we are being

December 10, 1979
,	Mortgage Tax Credit
lectured daily by members opposite about the deficit problems, and when all kinds of forecasters are saying that four years down the road additional stimulus to the economy will not be needed.
While we are in a serious position now in terms of recession, we will be coming out of that recession two or three years down the road, and that added expenditure will simply add to the inflationary pressures. It will be far more serious when all the pressures as a consequence of these heavy expenditures are going to result in a heavier demand on housing. It will add 7 per cent to 8 per cent to the cost of housing. It will not stimulate construction of additional units, as might be the case if there were more selective targeting.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the $3 billion we are talking about represents almost three times the size of last year's CMHC budget under which close to 270,000 units of housing were produced, and of that number well over
150.000	were produced as a result of direct government stimulus. So we are spending $3 billion to get, on the average, some
20.000	units per year. Mr. Chairman, there are some people over there on the other side who pride themselves on their knowledge of economics. Do they think it is a "good bang for the buck" to be spending $3 billion to get 20,000 units, whereas we spent a billion dollars and got 270,000 units out of it? Do they consider that to be proper expenditure?
So, the first proposition we introduce is that it is essential the government should not commit itself automatically to a four-year expenditure. This is a point of view which has been supported by the hon. member for Peace River in the motion under Standing Order 43 he introduced last week. So it should be subject to review. The Secretary of State is also in agreement with the idea that there should be a sunset law applied to the mortgage credit program. We are in full agreement. We believe that a sunset law should be applied to this act so that, on an annual basis, Parliament would have an opportunity to review the expenditure and determine, in its wisdom, whether a commitment of money should be made. Each year a certain floor of expenditure would be established and under that floor we would have an opportunity to determine whether additional costs should be incurred by the government, whether economic conditions at that time permit additional expenditures to be made.
In these circumstances I should like to move the following amendment:
That Bill C-20, an act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, be amended
(a)	by striking out line 16 on page 1 and substituting the following therefor: "taxation year"
(b)	by inserting the following:
Expiration and extension
1. (3) This section expires on December 31, 1980 unless, before that day an order in council is made to the effect that this section shall continue in force for another year.
Periodic extension
(4)	Where an order in council is made under subsection (3), this section expires on December 31, 1981 unless, before that day another order in council is made to the effect that this section shall continue in force for another year, and the governor in council may in like manner extend the application of this act from year to year.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. We are faced with a difficulty. The hon. member seems about to read further details of his amendment. But the committee is still on clause 1 and I can only receive amendments to clause 1. When we get to clause 2, members can move all kinds of amendments to clause 2. The amendment as to the effective date, or the proposal to reconsider the act some time after it is in force, relates to clause 3. We have to proceed in an orderly way.


Lloyd Axworthy: I think you must have misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment to clause 1-to subclause (3) of clause 1. If you will look at the bill, you will see on page I there are clauses 1 and 2. We are amending subclause (2) of clause 1 and are adding a subclause (3).


Gérald Laniel: Very well. I have sorted out the amendment in reference to the clause.
The question is on the amendment.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, because of the interruption I had no opportunity to read the whole of the amendment. There are further subclauses I wish to move as part of the general amendment, as follows:
Consideration of motion
(5)	A motion for consideration of an order in council referred to in this section shall be laid before Parliament not later than three days after the order is made or, if Parliament is not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, and each House shall, in accordance with the rules of that House, take up and consider the motion, and all questions in connection with the motion taken up and considered by that House shall be debated without interruption and decided not later than the end of the third sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered.
Effect of failure to approve of order in council
(6)	If, at the conclusion of the consideration of an order in council pursuant to subsection (5), both Houses of Parliament do not resolve that the order in council be approved, it shall thereupon cease to have effect. Effect of failure to resolve
(7)	Failure of either House or both Houses of Parliament to resolve that an order in council referred to in this section be approved does not affect the validity of any action taken or not taken in reliance on the order in council prior to the conclusion of consideration thereof pursuant to subsection (5)."


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Davenport.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking in support of this amendment I can think of more than one reason why the party supporting the government, the Progressive Conservative party, ought to support this amendment. The first reason which comes to mind is that the idea of sunset laws was actually propounded in this chamber at length by the President of the Treasury Board. It was he who actually encouraged the government of that time to consider this concept. If I am not mistaken, the former leader of the opposition supported the President of the Treasury Board very strongly on the idea of
[Mr. Axworthy.J
December 10, 1979

sunset laws when they were sitting on this side of the House and thinking perhaps this would be a good measure for any type of legislation which would have a long-range effect.
Having had this first great opportunity as the party in power to apply their own preaching and introduce this concept into this major piece of legislation, we on this side of the House are actually surprised that hon. members opposite would miss this opportunity. Were they asleep at the switch? Did the President of the Treasury Board forget all his preachings? Did hon. members opposite discover the realities of government, or did they just dump another of their highly held ideas once they crossed the floor to the other side?
In our view the proposal in this amendment should certainly be difficult for hon. members supporting the government to refute and reject, if they have any confidence and faith in the preachings of their leaders.
The second reason which comes to mind why this amendment ought to be supported is that Bill C-20, for the first time-at least in my memory-links municipal taxes to the federal taxation and fiscal system. It does it in a devious way, but nevertheless it establishes a link. It means, indirectly, that municipal taxes which can be deducted according to the principle of this bill would become in a way less of a concern for municipal politicians. They can turn to their constituents who are very much alarmed these days about high municipal taxes and say; "Why worry so much when you can deduct a portion of your municipal taxes, and if you are paying on a house you can eventually deduct it from your bill from Ottawa?"
Maybe a year from now, or later on, the Minister of Finance will begin to become worried about this link. He may notice that municipal politicians may be less concerned about keeping municipal taxes within certain bounds, since for the first time they can be partially deducted. A trend of this nature would be rather alarming, would it not? It would be alarming to see municipal politicians less on their toes in maintaining municipal taxes within the limits they have been able to keep them with some limited success so far.
This kind of link may have implications for the total fiscal picture in Canada. It may be a matter of concern for the Minister of Finance, and he may want, a year from now, to have the power, as so readily suggested by the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, to review the matter in the light of developments in the first year, in the second year or, for that purpose, in the third or fourth.
There are also other reasons why this bill should be reviewed at regular intervals. Some of them have already been given by speakers at second reading, and 1 will therefore review them very briefly.
It may well be that a year, two years, three years or four years from now, the government might re-think its position and come to the conclusion that perhaps it would be a greater stimulus to the housing industry to have a national rental assistance program or, for that matter, if this government is still in power-and God forbid-it may want to look at
Mortgage Tax Credit
alternatives such as a mortgage interest subsidy on renegotiated mortgages. It may see perhaps greater merits to the alternative of having a residential operating cost rebate, a mortgage interest rate write-down for purposes of new homes, or mortgage interest subsidies to the apartment construction sector. You name it, Mr. Chairman; there may be a number of reasons, and the measures I just mentioned placed together would, in our opinion, provide a greater stimulus to the housing industry than the one which is before us here today.
One could bring the thought even one step further. One could think for a moment about the losses of revenue which will take place as a result of this measure and the limited stimulus this measure would have. One could think for a moment about what the Government of Canada, through the federal system and with its powers, could do if it had this revenue coming in, as it has until now, and think of measures in the social field which it could implement instead. This is an aspect which really worries me very profoundly and prompts me to support, as I am doing now, this proposed amendment.
For instance, with the revenue we are going to miss-which the state is not going to receive when this measure comes into effect-we could introduce programs which are badly needed in this country and for which, according to the Minister of Finance, there are not enough funds. We could introduce a program to subsidize mothers who stay at home to raise children, or people who look after ill or elderly relatives. Surely this is a costly program, but if we can afford this, why can we not look at alternatives which we could also implement? We should look at other options and choices before proceeding with this measure or going blindly ahead, as Bill C-20 does, without any sunset provision.
Another example of how this money could be better spent might be in providing grants to improve day care facilities or to improve maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide working women with benefits over a longer period of time. Perhaps we could better spend money by bringing old age pension eligibility down to the 60 years of age level gradually over the years, but fairly soon. This would result in job openings for the unemployed.
There is a long list of what could be done as alternatives which the government might be able to finance if we were not to forgo this revenue. This amendment would at least give us a chance to re-think the whole approach a year from now.
I would like to add to the list an increment price policy for the protection of unorganized working people and those on fixed incomes. If one is not organized these days, does not have a union for protection and works in one of the industrial centres across this nation without the benefit of a strong union, it is very difficult to make ends meet. An income policy for people who are gainfully employed and who are active and productive, but who are in the lower economic scale in society, would certainly be highly desirable, or the implementation of what in 1973 in that most excellent orange working paper on social security was called an income supplementation plan for the working poor.

December 10, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
We could also reinforce Canada Works and create jobs in areas where they are needed, and bring Canada Works back into those areas where it has been completely cancelled and create jobs in the centres in Ontario and in other parts of the country where Canada Works no longer exists. Complementary to that, money could be better spent on producing incentives for employers to hire the unemployed, the handicapped, and all those looking for a job but who, for some reason or other, cannot find it at present. We could expand that list ad infinitum. However, the concept remains the same. It is important that Parliament have such an opportunity, having evidently failed to convince the government this time around to reconsider its measure, having failed to make it realize that this is an expenditure that is way above the possibilities that members opposite would accept under normal circumstances. But having made a promise during the campaign, without realizing that because of 36 per cent of the voters they would come to power, they see the necessity of keeping at least one of the many promises they cannot keep. They have to go ahead this year, but at least a year from now let there be here an opportunity to have this amendment adopted by the very people who were once proposing sunset laws. 1 can see here the President of the Treasury Board who looks the other way and smiles sheepishly because he does not know what to say now that he is on that side. This would give the House an opportunity for a second thought approach to such a policy.
As we all know, and as has been so eloquently described by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and others who have preceded me, this is a measure that disregards social priorities in this country. Also, in terms of the industrial stimulus, in terms of economic advantages for the future, it gives a very limited return, as was explained in an earlier intervention.
Mr. Chairman, we all know who will gain from this kind of measure. We all know that the people who have already paid for their homes will not gain from this measure, nor will the people who rent apartments or houses, and people who have to pay rent or who have to pay for a house will pay one way or the other for higher taxes or for reduced services to make up for this lost government revenue.
Who will gain if we do not have a regular screening of this measure through the House, as a minimum rational concession that the government can make? Obviously the mortgage companies will gain, and so will the banks and the money lenders. We all know in advance that the effects of this measure will, in essence, boil down mainly to the following: the cost of mortgages will go up in all likelihood and so will the cost of houses, so that in order to save a dime on the income tax, those who will benefit from this measure will have to spend $1 more on mortgage interest. That is really not good economics and it does not make sense.
As many others have said, we would rather have selective policies and social policies which aim at target groups in particular need, rather than this kind of giveaway. Evidently we do not have a majority in this House and we have to

recognize the power of the governing party. Therefore we urge the government at least to accept this very reasonable amendment. There is nothing that the government need fear from having to come back here at regular intervals to scrutinize this measure again and to assess its pros and cons and its effect on the economy, to see whether or not it should be proceeded with for a second year, a third, and a fourth. That would seem to be a logical and non-partisan proposal which we submit to the government.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have some sympathy with the principle advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Given the right circumstances, it might be a measure worth adopting. However, I want to point out to him its fatal defect. This is a tax measure, and as such I think it is quite improper to have a situation arise where a tax measure could be set aside by the other place.
The result of what the hon. member proposes might be the following. It is what is known as a positive resolution, and as such the bill would not continue in existence beyond the time stated unless the order in council was approved by both Houses. 1 point out to the hon. member that a situation might occur where this House, representing the people, might vote for the continuation of the measure, while the other place, not representing the public, and representing also-let us face the political fact-a considerable majority of the official opposition party, could vote against the measure and we would find that the other place would then be setting tax policy. I think even my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has a deep measure of affection for the other place which he manages to conceal quite effectively from time to time, would probably agree with me on this.
If this were in the form of a negative resolution so that the measure continued unless it was set aside by a motion of both Houses, then the hon. member would, I think, be in a much more reasonable position. No doubt the Department of Finance will find ways and means by which this would cause all sorts of problems for the department and the administration. I have always found that department to be most ingenious in performing the right degree of mental and financial acrobatics-at least it did so under the previous government. I think it is much more sensible now. So 1 am not concerned with that. I believe it is not a bad idea to review the situation once in a while, but 1 cannot support this amendment which might put the Senate in a position of setting aside a motion of this kind, which would be quite against the constitutional practices of this Parliament.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member who has just spoken would entertain a very short and simple question?
December 10, 1979


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member for Victoria-Madawaska (Mr. Corbin) on a point of order.


Eymard G. Corbin: The hon. member who just spoke made the statement that the other place does not represent the public. Is it then his opinion that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Justice, both of whom are in the other place, do not represent the public and therefore should run for election?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That is a matter of high policy which I leave to my friend, the right hon. Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: He's been muzzled already.


Gerald William Baldwin: I deal with the nuts and bolts of the tax situation-the nuts over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blenkarn:: 1 listened with interest to the proposal of the hon. member who is worthy of this tax and who made some proposals in connection with the sunset laws. But he must realize that sunset laws do not normally apply to tax measures. After all, we have a sunset law on every tax measure every year when the Minister of Finance produces his budget and his budget bills. All these tax allowances and measures are reviewed by the Minister of Finance once a year and are part of his budget performance. Surely the Income Tax Act is not wedged in stone or carved out for time immemorial. It can surely be changed. This is not a place for a sunset law.
I thought I would hear something interesting in support of a sunset law with respect to the tax policy, until I heard the hon. member for Davenport. He got into unemployment insurance, day care centres, the working poor, Canada Works and all the rest of a myriad of things governments do. These are expense items, not tax items. This is a tax item. This is an amendment to the Income Tax Act allowing for specific deductions to specific taxpayers who have to pay interest to own property. They have to be positive taxpayers and therefore can take advantage of a reduction in their personal income tax.
With his budget resolutions and his numerous tax changes every year, the Minister of Finance alters in a profound way the allowance individuals can take from their taxable incomes, and the rules under which their taxable incomes are determined. Undoubtedly tomorrow night we will get alterations to the Income Tax Act. Probably these alterations will make changes to what is deductible and allowable as an expense of whatever.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It happens every year. The hon. member asks how I know. I am assuming it will happen.
Mortgage Tax Credit


An hon. Member:: Oh, you are assuming!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There has hardly been a year in the history of this country where there has not been some change in the Income Tax Act with reference to persons or corporations. So,
1 assume that tomorrow night we will have evidence again of a suggestion and a total review, perhaps a sunset on the old system, and a new system coming forward with respect to how the taxes are to be levied on us as individuals and on the corporations of this country. Really, this is not a place for a sunset law at all. A sunset law should apply to items of expense and to items of government programs. This is not a matter for a government program. It is a matter of a tax allowance to individuals who happen to own their own homes.
I was most interested in terms of a housing policy, particularly with the hon. member who suggested that it seems to be the policy of the Fiberal party to have capital gains taxes on single family houses, an imputed rate charge or something of that nature. If that is their policy, I would like to hear about it. Their last policy was AHOP. Their other policy was MURB. That looked after all their wealthy friends, but we have not had a concrete proposal from them other than a proposed sunset provision. Clearly they can do better than that.
They complained that this statute visualizes a change in the Income Tax Act for a four-year period. All right, that is what it visualizes. But there is nothing to prevent them from going to the people of Canada, after the act is passed, after they have amassed their friends in the New Democratic Party, and perhaps defeated us, because we are a minority government, and making it their policy in an election that this will be abolished.
In the last election this party laid out a plan of income tax allowance to home owners and a plan of tax allowance to home owners in respect of municipal taxes. We set it out in fair detail to all the people who voted in the country. We are now producing this plan. The other day they said that we have been in government for six months and have not done anything. Well, here is a thing we are doing; here is what we promised. If they do not want it that way, they can come out with a party policy in the next contest we may have, perhaps in three or four years after the act is fully in place. They can say that they do not want anything for the home owner. They can say that they do not want anything in terms of a tax allowance.
The hon. member for Davenport said that this provision does nothing for people who own their own homes absolutely. First 1 should like to tell him that if they are positive taxpayers they get an allowance against municipal taxes.


An hon. Member:: It is $67.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It will be $67.50 this year, and in four years from now it will be $250. That is 25 per cent of a $1,000 tax bill. That is a pretty good allowance, and it covers most of the houses in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 10, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit


Donald Alex Blenkarn: When a person owns his own home, one of the things he wants to do is to be able to sell that home when he can no longer look after it, must sell it and perhaps rent an apartment. This tax measure increases the saleability of houses for people who have paid for their homes. Let us not forget that factor. The saleability of their homes is increased because the buyer can go out and borrow on a mortgage to pay them off, to buy the property and to deduct from his income tax payable part of the cost of carrying his mortgage. There will be a 2 per cent or 3 per cent, or in some cases, a 4 per cent allowance off his 12 per cent interest factor which he will pay on his first mortgage. It is an important allowance. It makes the homes of senior citizens or people who have paid off their homes, more saleable on the market, and increases the mobility of property. That allowance to many people will be equivalent to $125 per month. It makes it possible for them not to have to be renters, but they can be owners. Surely our social policy is to make it possible for people to own a piece of Canada and be a part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Chairman, Bill C-20 will permit the government's mortgage interest and property tax credit plan to begin in the current taxation year. It will provide a maximum tax credit of $312 for mortgage interest payments, and a flat credit of $62.50 for property taxes in the first year. These credits will rise to $1,250 per year on mortgage interest, and $250 on property taxes when finally phased-in in the fourth year. The tax credits are deducted directly from federal taxes payable.
The tax credit for mortgage interest will be 25 per cent of the first $5,000 of interest paid, to a maximum tax credit of $1,250. Unfortunately the property tax will be a maximum flat rate of $250. It is set at that level because, while the government recognizes a significant interprovincial variation in provincial property taxes and tax relief measures, it does not seem to recognize fairness would require that there be a variation in the property tax credit as well.
Thanks to the criticism by the Liberal party, particularly directed to the original plan contained in the Conservative election platform, at least Bill C-20 is fairer than the original one proposed. The plan no longer contains a straight deductibility of interest from mortgage payments but has substituted tax credits.
The Americans have had a mortgage interest deductibility system in place for 66 years. But a large majority of American Congressman and Senators, both Renublican and Democratic, feel that their system is inequitable, benefits above all the wealthy, yet is almost impossible to change, let alone eliminate, because of the large numbers of taxpayers who perceive that they benefit from the system.
Why did I vote against this bill at second reading? It was primarily because Bill C-20 is unfair to so many Canadians. There are 7.5 million households in Canada, but 4.4 million homes in Canada are occupant-owned. The remaining are rented and are not eligible for the benefits of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Watson: But unfairness to renters is only part of the inequities contained in this bill. Forty per cent of Canadian home owners do not have mortgages. There are more than 1.8 million Canadian home owners, many of them senior citizens, who do not have mortgages and will be ineligible for the mortgage interest tax credit. It is true that they will be eligible for the $250 municipal tax credit, but if they live in Quebec or in certain other areas of Canada where financing of municipal services is not included in house mortgages but is handled through the municipal tax system, the municipal taxes are consequently much higher and those people in those areas are doubly adversely affected.
The mortgage tax credit represents a rather large percentage of total property tax in certain parts of Canada. However, in Quebec the system for financing municipal services is quite different. Up until recently the price of land in Quebec did not include the cost of municipal services. The cost of services was covered by municipal tax bylaws which means that, in general, in Quebec the cost of municipal services is not included in the mortgage and is paid with the annual municipal property tax. Municipal services in other provinces are usually included in the price of the land and consequently are part of the mortgage.
Bill C-20 gives a proportionately much higher write-off in respect of mortgage interest than in respect of municipal taxes so home owners in Quebec are seriously disadvantaged by the provisions of Bill C-20. I ask the minister to consider an amendment whereby people in those areas of Canada where municipal services are financed by local lax by-laws and taxes rather than mortgages would have their property tax credit increased to $500. That I think could be done while at the same time keeping the maximum tax credit at $1,250, and that would ensure a much more equitable distribution of the benefits of this bill among the taxpayers in all areas across Canada.

I note that the Prime Minister is in the House and, if I may attract his attention for a minute, I would propose an amendment which 1 think should come from the government as it would involve an expenditure of money in a slightly different way from that contained in the bill, but not very much different. It flows from the difference in municipal tax financing arrangements which exist in Quebec as compared with those of other provinces.
To make it very clear, what happens when a new development is built in Quebec, is that instead of having the municipal services included in the cost of a lot, these services are financed by municipal bylaws which apply to a street that is being developed, and the buyer of a home, instead of having the lot cost more with the mortgage subsequently higher, pays a lower cost for the lot and a lower cost for the home, but pays
December 10, 1979

the cost of the services through municipal taxes. In Quebec the situation is that in almost every instance municipal taxes are double, or more, what they are elsewhere, but mortgages are less.
If the government really wants to be fair about this, 1 suggest a method that would be fair would be to allow, without specifying one province but simply specifying those areas in Canada where that type of municipal financing exists, the mortgage tax credit for municipal taxes up to $500 instead of $250, maintaining at the same time the present maximum of $1,500.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member is actually putting forward a proposal which is not related in any way to the amendment before us. The hon. member made a speech on second reading. I have been very lenient, but the hon. member has not said a word about the amendment now before us, which proposes to limit the effect in time of the bill before us. The hon. member must understand that if 1 let him continue in this way it would be impossible for the committee to progress, and that would be quite unfair to other members. We have an amendment before us and I would hope that the hon. member will relate his remarks, at least to some extent, to that amendment.


Ian Watson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was taking advantage of the fact that the Prime Minister was present. I wanted to put that message across to him. 1 hope the government will have an opportunity to reflect on it in the next few hours, as I feel it would make the bill more equitable.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you spend the money on sewers?


Ian Watson: Let me return to clause 1 of the bill, Mr. Chairman, and I will refer to it in a general way. Many of our senior citizens are being forced from their homes by skyrocketing municipal taxes and do not have sufficient income to be paying income taxes and, therefore, are ineligible for the benefits offered by Bill C-20.
What does the present government want to do? Does it want to force older people out of their homes into senior citizens' homes built at public expense? Is this an adequate conception of social consciousness and fiscal responsibility? Does this make sense?
I voted against the bill on second reading because I believe it to be fiscally irresponsible, particularly when we compare the eventual $3 billion cost of this program in the fourth year with the total cost of CMHC programs in 1978, I believe some $600 million. Many of those programs covered with that $600 million were unfortunately phased out at the beginning of this year by the previous government in the name of fiscal responsibility and, in my view, in a mistaken concession to provincial requests to vacate the urban affairs field.
I would ask the government to think for a moment of the wide variety of programs that were providing benefits through the use of this reasonable amount of money, as compared with
Adjournment Debate
what is being proposed under this bill. Those programs ranged from 25 per cent of the cost of sewage disposal and storm sewers, to the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and many subsidy and grant programs. Somebody over on that side was making fun of this idea of assisting in the cost of sewage disposal plants, but if he were to ask the municipal manager of any town, the town council, or the mayor, about what they thought about this program, I think he would get a different kind of reaction than that expressed by members opposite.
This $600 million included programs such as the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, rental subsidies, subsidies for low and medium-income families and senior citizens. All of these subsidies, grants and initiatives, including CMHC direct loan and loan guarantee programs, cost the taxpayers a total of $600 million a year.

With that amount, we were able to fund a series of programs, for example, the New Communities program, the Land Assembly program, the Assisted Home Ownership program, the Non-Profit Housing Corporations Assistance program, the Co-operative Housing Assistance program, the Neighbourhood Improvement program, the Residential Rehabilitation program, including restoration assistance, buyer protection. There was a whole series of programs available to municipalities, benefits-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill at the next sitting of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 1979, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) in this House whether the proposal of Eastern Provincial Airways to take over Nordair was under consideration and when a decision would be made. In response the minister confirmed that the disposal of Nordair was being

December 10, 1979
Adjournment Debate
considered by the cabinet. This fact was subsequently confirmed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) in the House.
My motive in asking the question and raising the matter of the Nordair takeover is clear. Many hon. members from Atlantic Canada, including myself, have a real interest in the continued growth, development, and expansion of EPA. We think that it is important that Canadians are made aware of the relevant facts.
It is appropriate to note that a few years ago during a major expansion, EPA relocated its main operational centre in Nova Scotia at the Halifax international airport. Today EPA has more than 300 employees in the area and spends more than $10 million locally. I am proud to say that many of those EPA employees-pilots, cabin crews, air mechanics and others- reside in the constituency of Halifax West.
Let me review very briefly the history of the Nordair matter. In the fall of 1977, or thereabouts, Air Canada acquired 84.6 per cent of the shares of Nordair, more than sufficient shares for effective control. The cost was said to be $12.50 per share, or more than $23 million in total. It was clear that continued ownership by Air Canada was not consistent with the policy for regional air carriers. Thus, Air Canada was directed to sell, although Nordair continued to operate as an air carrier.
Meanwhile, EPA continued to develop as an effective and responsible air carrier, but it suffered from the constraints of its operation-short, unprofitable routes, and lack of access to the more lucrative markets. Only recently has Eastern Provincial Airways been granted a direct route between Halifax and Montreal, but it has no access to Toronto and western Canada. EPA's future depends on an opportunity to expand its operation and gain access to these important air markets. The takeover of Nordair would provide that opportunity.
Nordair operates in Quebec and Ontario and has extended routes to Winnipeg and to Frobisher Bay in the north. It has a fleet of Boeing 737's which are compatible with EPA's similar fleet. Both are active in charter flights. The combined operation would provide economies of scale that would allow first class service on major routes and provide the possibility of improved services on the local routes for both passengers and freight. The end result of such a takeover is a strengthened regional carrier for eastern Canada, and improved public service with better route facilities and equipment.
For once an east coast firm would expand westward, and we would have a financially sound major air carrier in Atlantic Canada that would foster further development in the region. Unfortunately, little public attention has been focused on the situation, and the support that exists for EPA has not surfaced. That is not so in Quebec. The hon. member for Matape-dia-Matane (Mr. De Bane) has been publicly reported as advocating a takeover of Nordair by Quebec interests. According to reports, he says that Nordair should be turned over to Francophone interests so that French Canadians will control at least one major airline.

I ask the government to reject that view. I ask the cabinet to give full consideration to the EPA proposal and decide in favour of Atlantic Canada by providing us with a major air carrier.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) for being able to document his position regarding Eastern Provincial Airways and also to congratulate him on being able to squeeze three questions into the one he put to the minister on Wednesday, December 5.
The three questions concerned the proposed sale of shares in Nordair. They were, first, whether the proposal by Eastern Provincial Airways was under active consideration; second, what other proposals were under consideration; and, third, when a final decision on this matter could be expected. According to the hon. member, these questions were prompted by an article he read in the Canadian Aviation magazine wherein the minister is said to have indicated, and here I quote the article, "That he (the minister) was ready to make a decision on the sale of Nordair to one of the bidders, which includes Eastern Provincial Airways". In fact, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) stated last Wednesday in response to the member's question that the matter of the disposal of Nordair was under cabinet consideration and that a decision was expected soon. I am advised that as of this evening, this is still the case.
With respect to whether or not EPA is under active consideration, I should like to say that all the proposals made have been carefully examined, including EPA. Of course, it is not possible for me to speculate tonight on what the outcome of cabinet's deliberations might be, but as far as the minister is concerned the course of action finally taken will have been based on full consideration of all the relevant factors, including all the proposals.
On the question of who the other proponents are, they and their proposals are treated as matters of a commercially confidential nature, unless the parties themselves have made this information public. Some have done so and some have not. Those reported in the press, and I confirm here, as interested buyers are: jointly A. F. Lizotte Inc., Makivik Corporation, La Federation des Caisses d'entraide economique TIW Industries; jointly EPA, Algoma Central Railway and Quebec interests represented by Mr. J. C. Hebert; jointly Quebecair, Societe d'investissement Desjardins and other interests.
The cabinet, of course, will decide on what course of action the government will follow in the disposition of Nordair shares. This could conceivably involve a course of action other than simply a choice from among the proposals received to date, as a variety of options are open to the government.
I want to add, in closing, that as I mentioned in this House a couple of weeks ago the sale of Nordair will also be subject to the regulatory process.
December 10, 1979


UNEMPLOYMENT-ALARMING SITUATION OF THE UNEMPLOYED-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr, Speaker, this evening, 1 should like to deal once again with the problems of the unemployed in my riding of Madawaska-Victoria and northwestern New Brunswick generally. The problem I bring up also affects many other areas of Canada. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time 1 have brought up this matter on the motion for adjournment. The first time, neither the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) nor his parliamentary secretary deigned to grace this House with their presence and deal with the matter. Tonight, I notice their absence once again, with considerable regret and bitterness.
The first time I brought up this question on a motion for adjournment, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Reid) had been delegated to read the text prepared by the civil servants or someone else, probably the political advisers, in the office of the minister. In any event, the general tone of the answer to the questions I brought up at that time indicated that the government and its spokesmen are merely, as I have said repeatedly before, making politics on the backs of the poor seasonal workers now unemployed in northeast New Brunswick and elsewhere. The problem is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Last year, Parliament passed Bill C-14 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The main purpose of that bill was to tighten up the unemployment insurance system with a view to putting a stop to the abuses from which it suffered. Members were well aware of such abuses.
This afternoon, I was speaking in private with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. McCrossan) and he told me that we were right in proposing this kind of amendment to the unemployment insurance scheme, and that it was not so much in the Atlantic region, in the maritimes, in the have-not provinces but in the rich, industrial regions that abuses took place. It was in those regions that there were abuses. And it is generally from there that we hear complaints about abuses to the system, not from the poorer Atlantic region.
But what puzzles me is that the minister, playing the political game, tries to blame the former government, the members on this side who voted for that legislation. What he forgets to say, however, is that it is he and his government who were elected last May 22 and who deliberately proclaimed (he coming into force of sections 17 and 35, I believe, of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Originally, those sections were to come into force in June. The minister delayed the proclamation so that those sections, which specify economic regions under the act, would come into force on July 1, 1979. So I cannot understand how the minister can try to blame members
Adjournment Debate
on this side of the House for all the wrongdoing which may exist under the present application of the act, since it is he and no one else, he and his government who proclaimed the regulation and the other sections of the act. He must, therefore, assume full responsibility for it. It is about time for the minister to wake up and lend a sensitive ear to the plight of these seasonal workers.
Tonight also, Mr. Speaker-it is probably the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General and Minister of Environment who will again reply to me, as he is also the hon. member for the Niagara area-I should like to remind him that these seasonal workers who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance benefits must leave their homes, cover sometimes a distance of over 700 miles and travel to his region in the Niagara peninsula and elsewhere in southern Ontario to help in the harvesting of vegetables, and I think it is quite unacceptable that a parliamentary secretary who is not really involved in the situation should be called upon to reply to me.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is evading his responsibilities and 1 accuse him of not assuming the duties he agreed to carry out under his oath of office. And 1 regret that his parliamentary secretary who has been appointed by the minister to look into the shortcomings of the legislation and propose amendments to this act would not condescend either to come to the House to reply to an hon. member, preferring instead to send a third-rate "master-of-all-trades" to deal with something he does not know anything about. That is an insult to Parliament, an insult to the member for Madawaska-Victoria and an insult to the constituents I represent in this House. Never mind what the parliamentary secretary will tell us tonight, Mr. Speaker, I dismiss it because I feel it does not constitute at all a serious effort on the part of the government concerning the situation that prevails in my area. And if it is not the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Postmaster General and Minister of Environment who answers but another one I will address to him the same remarks.
I blame the government for its lack of consistency in that situation. It is a government which does not want to govern, it is a government of students, an extremely boring government which does not have the courage, the guts and the inclination to care about the problems facing Canadians. It is a government simply interested in achieving strictly partisan objectives and which are agreeable to its political supporters. He did not show any interest in the workers of New Brunswick, the Atlantic provinces and Madawaska in particular. That is quite regrettable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. The hon. Parliamentary

December 10, 1979
Adjournment Debate
Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Kilgour) has the floor.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the time allotted to me is short so I will speak English to express myself more rapidly.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister in question is sick tonight. He left to go home to his bed and I am replying for him. The minister, also, is sick. I heard the cheap jibe from across the way that he was here this afternoon. Well, maybe he was here but he was sick.


Eymard G. Corbin: The government is sick.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the minister promised to respond further with respect to the difficult situation in Edmundston, New Brunswick. I understand there have been no further demonstrations in Edmundston and I am informed the situation there is now stable. As was said, the situation in Edmund-ston is a difficult one and one of the reasons is legislation which was passed by the previous government. I refer specifically to the repeater provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Members on this side of the House, when in opposition, fought against this provision, which was imposed by the previous government under Standing Order 75C. I am informed that the minister and deputy minister recognized the difficulty but that the cabinet decided no changes were to be made. In these circumstances it is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) to pretend that this repeater provision was not enacted by the government of which he was a supporter.
Tomorrow, a federal-provincial meeting will take place at which changes will be discussed, and 1 trust agreement will be reached so that the repeater provision which is causing harm in Edmundston may be altered. In this, we hope to receive support from all provinces.
The hon. member, in his question, himself admitted, as can be seen if one looks at the record, that this question has gone on for over a year. In other words, he admits that the factors giving rise to the difficulties in Edmundston arose prior to the change of government. Of course, the lack of job opportunities is also causing problems, but we cannot resolve the problems of the past 11 years overnight. A review process has been initiated by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) to look at the provisions of the legislation and to bring forward amendments.
With regard to the Canada Works program, 400 jobs have been approved for the constituency of Madawaska-Victoria. Attempts are being made to work with the provincial department of labour and use additional funds in that area. I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker.]
[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT-CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor. I am very nearly embarrassed to speak before such a large assembly.
My question this evening is very important and concerns phase IV of the Canada Works program. The question that I want to ask this evening of the spokesman for the minister is this: will the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) really inject additional funds in the province of Quebec to counter the rising unemployment rate, which will certainly go up even more this winter?
I raised this question for the first time on November 13, and absolutely nothing has been done since then, even though these existing difficulties have been compounded by major ones in my riding in early fall.
An important development has occurred recently in my area, namely, the closing of ITT Rayonier, Quebec. Over 1,500 people have lost their jobs and we have not yet been able to find any answer to create direct short-term employment.
Mr. Speaker, is it normal that to this date there has been no new development in the case of ITT Rayonier, Quebec, concerning job creation through Canada Works since I advised the minister of the serious difficulty this specific case was causing to the people of my riding more than one month ago? When 1,500 people lose their jobs, it means that 6,000 people will be affected. This is therefore an extremely serious problem and even a real tragedy for the people of Port-Cartier.
I recall quite well that on November 13 I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) whether he had a solution to suggest in the specific case of Port-Cartier. He replied that he was himself looking for short-term answers to solve the problems caused by the closing of ITT Rayonier, Quebec. Phase IV of the Canada Works program provided opportunities for short-term solutions for these workers, but we have never received any reply, either in the negative or in the affirmative, from the Prime Minister.
I would therefore simply like to register that the people in our area have been discriminated against with regard to phase IV of the Canada Works program this fall. Amounts of approximately $2.6 million were allocated because of unemployment levels exceeding 16 per cent. This unemployment rate prevailed in the middle and lower North Shore and most projects were supposed to be aimed at this area.
Because the ITT plant closed down in Port-Cartier, a number of projects evidently had to be directed to that city, although the minister should have attempted to find extra funds to cope with that special problem. This is becoming unfair, Mr. Speaker, taking away moneys provided for a
December 10, 1979

certain observed rate of unemployment when there is an extra problem, trying to solve a superimposed specific problem with regular funds.
I therefore ask the minister's representative this evening whether it is possible, yes or no, to have an extra $400,000 for the people in Port-Cartier under the Canada Works program with a view to directly and concretely helping the people in that municipality. 1 feel it is unjustifiable and shameful to use the money provided for a given population without finding extra solutions to help people with extra needs. To be fair, the minister should use that $2.6 million for the people on the lower and middle North Shore, and add $400,000 for direct help to the people in the municipality of Port-Cartier.
In view of the late hour, I simply ask the minister to give a clear answer to those two questions: what concrete means will the minister use to create direct employment under the Canada Works program in Port-Cartier because of the ITT closedown? And when will the minister have his answer available? If clear thinking leads to clear speech, I ask the parliamentary secretary to give us the clearest possible answer.


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Mal-tais) that there is injustice in unemployment and that there is a great deal of injustice in his particular riding, an injustice created by five years of chronic unemployment, five years of excessive government spending, and five years without any programs that would come anywhere near to grips with the problems which exist in my friend's riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jarvis: I would advise the hon. member that, first of all, with respect to his original question, there may have been an incorrect impression. The current budget on Canada Works for this fiscal year, exclusive of administration, is $134 million, to which must be added $18 million specifically earmarked for the Local Employment Assistance Program. I would further advise the hon. member that the proposal for
Adjournment Debate
the next fiscal year is to increase the Local Employment Assistance Program to $30 million, and it is our government's opinion that more emphasis on that program would be in order rather than on the Canada Works program.
I would remind the hon. member of the answer given by the minister when this issue was debated previously and the response to a particular question on the same issue in which he said no additional moneys would be provided for the Canada Works program. The object of the government's policy is to increase the capacity of the private sector to stimulate employment, particularly in the youth areas, as a long-term solution to this problem.
The program for 1980-1981 will reflect the government's particular concern for youth and our intention to strengthen the private sector's capacity to create permanent jobs. We are establishing a youth employment secretariat which will have the task of developing a coherent federal youth employment policy by co-ordinating the mixture of youth employment programs now in place, thus ensuring the most effective use of our resources. Consistent with the government's campaign promises, we will also be developing additional ways in which private sector employment opportunities can be provided for youth, and we will be providing training programs for at least 120,000 young men and women.
In addition, our government intends to establish a national youth service program. The government will also ensure that attention continues to be given to meeting the particular needs of groups and individuals who have special problems in securing and keeping jobs. New initiatives have all been the topic of consultation with the governments of the provinces of Canada and subsequently will be presented in more detail in the debate on the budget. If my friend would wait for the budget speech which is scheduled for tomorrow, I am sure he will have more specific answers to a chronic problem that has been with us a great deal of time and has not been given attention before this budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Tuesday, December 11, 1979