1979-03-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of some urgency to Canadians.
Given the presence of two actual and one potential environmentally dangerous hazards arising out of the Kurdistan incident, and in view of accessible, dedicated, knowledgeable and highly competent professional advice, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House call on the Minister of Transport, the Minister of the Environment, and the Deputy Prime Minister to explain on motions later today why it took up to six days to decide on a course of action with respect to the stern section, and on the Prime Minister of the country to explain why the Nova Scotia government was not fully consulted in the decision-making process.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON &quot;KURDISTAN&quot; INCIDENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 refers to the same subject matter. It relates to the shipping and environmental policies and methods of this government in the matter of the Kurdistan which, as the House knows, is an oil tanker in distress off Chedabucto Bay.
Since this vessel, with her engine-room sound and intact and steam in her boilers, could, as so many crippled vessels in the past, have proceeded under her own power or with minimal assistance to a suitable port; and since the Minister of Transport, who had ultimate authority, delayed and dithered for several days while drift ice closed in and complicated matters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the minister or his acting minister, today on motions, make a statement setting out the reasons for the indecisiveness and confusion which has paralysed this government, years after the Arrow disaster in the same area underscored the necessity for coherent plans, legislative authority and automatic decision-making powers to act expeditiously in matters such as this, and to assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that under the guidance of the Minister of Transport, the Kurdistan is not making due progress toward Cerebus Rock for a repeat performance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is admittedly a very local issue, but judging from the number of telephone calls to my constituency office from residents of my area, as well as from the adjoining area of Winnipeg South Centre, it is one of urgent and pressing concern. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I move:
That this House urges the Postmaster General to review the decision to close Postal Station D in Winnipeg, it being the view of this House that the service provided to the residents of that part of Winnipeg should be continued.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be introduced for debate in the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is now nine years since the Arrow disaster in the Strait of Canso

March 23, 1979
Oral Questions
off the Nova Scotia coast. I have two or three questions I would like to direct to the minister. Precisely when in time were the minister's advisers able to determine the integrity of the hull and the engine-room of the oil tanker Kurdistan and decide that it could be salvaged in a reasonably safe operation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as it was possible to investigate the stern section, that fact was ascertained. I cannot tell the hon. member when they reached the conclusion that it was indeed safe. I was first given a preliminary indication of that in a briefing three mornings ago. At that stage, further examination was still going to take place. I am interested in finding out why the hon. member is interested in exactly what happened at what stage of the process.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, six days is too long to gamble on an environmental hazard created by the wiles of the ice-packs in the Cabot Strait and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the weather, particularly at this time of year.
Why did the government have to wait? Why could it not deal with the legal problems with more dispatch? Is it because neither the minister's department nor the Department of the Environment have adequate statutory authority to deal with matters of this nature with much greater dispatch? Was it a technical, or a legal problem that caused the undue delay?


Otto Emil Lang: It was a combination of things, Mr. Speaker; but I do not grant for a moment that there was undue delay. It was a very serious decision to take, to allow a vessel which had suffered any kind of mishap to come alongside the Canadian coastline with a cargo of oil on board.
We wanted to be sure on the technical basis that the risk was small. We also wanted to have complete protection from a legal point of view in relation to any possible costs and damage even though it was small. Experts in relation to this kind of contract came together from quite a few different places in the world, experts who had been associated with a similar event in Rotterdam and the like.
The question of negotiation and the extent of liability which we would insist upon were important questions on which I wanted to be satisfied. In the meantime, however, it was not as though the time was being lost. The vessel was put under tow. At first, while there was a question about the adequacy of the stern to survive the seas, it was being moved in an outward direction toward deeper water. When it became apparent that salvage was distinctly possible, and having regard to winds in any case, the direction of the tow was changed: it moved toward the Port Hawkesbury destination. When the critical point was reached where it would have been necessary to turn either out to the sea or in toward the bay, the decision had already been made.
Therefore, while the legal matters did take some time, it was not as though time was lost. I hope the hon. member will agree with us that in making a most serious decision involving an

element of risk it was necessary to be sure as to the size of that risk and be completely protected from the legal and financial points of view.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister's response is totally inadequate, of course. Six days is far too long to gamble on ice and weather conditions in the Guif of St. Lawrence, and the minister knows it.
May I direct a final question to the Acting Prime Minister, whoever he may be today, and ask whether in his view it would be worth while, once the formal investigation into this matter has been completed, to refer this whole question to an appropriate standing committee of the House in order to determine whether the existing statutory authority available to the Minister of Transport and to the Minister of State for the Eviron-ment is adequate to enable them to cope with disasters of this nature with much more dispatch than we have seen in the last week?


Otto Emil Lang: Obviously, in the course of examining the alternatives available to us we have begun to draw some conclusions about our powers and the exact legal situation in a variety of very difficult circumstances. I would think that, as a result, we would be coming forward in due course with some changes.
I do not think we needed a different set of powers in the situation which actually faced us, but as we reviewed alternative circumstances, when we were not sure what those circumstances would be, I was concerned about the extent of our powers and I will want to propose some legislative changes.


ICE SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITY IN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct some supplementary questions to the born-again Minister of Transport. The same ice conditions that are compounding the threat to the tanker Kurdistan have caused the entire CN ferry fleet to be stuck in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, with 317 passengers stranded on three ships. A fourth, the Frederick Carter, left port this morning only to be caught in the ice a short time later.
Where is our ice surveillance capability? Why would these ships leave port, knowing that the wind has not changed, knowing full well they will be stuck in the ice, knowing full well we do not have the ice-breaking capacity to free them? Why would the coastguard allow this to happen?


Otto Emil Lang: Essentially, I think, because of the hope in each case that the trip might be completed. A good deal of our ice-breaker strength is, of course, in the vicinity. These vessels are helping in every way they can. Obviously, there are people waiting to board the ferries, and if there is any chance at all I am sure they move out.
I have not inquired into the exact circumstances of the departure of each vessel, which is probably what the hon. member has in mind. After all, this involves a judgment by
March 23, 1979

local management and those who operate the vessels, no doubt in response to the needs of people who want to make the crossing.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am astounded at the minister's reply. One of these ships, the Robert Bond, with 60 passengers aboard, has been stuck in the ice since 2 o'clock last Monday. Surely the Canadian coastguard has some jurisdiction. Surely it must have weather data at its disposal; it must have knowledge of ice conditions. After all, ice is not unknown in the Cabot Strait at this time of year: perhaps the minister does not know that.
Why has this situation been allowed to arise? Why has it been allowed to get worse, with people stranded at Port aux Basques and Sydney, with another ferry leaving this morning? Surely the coastguard must have some jurisdiction here and, if not, why not?


Otto Emil Lang: The coastguard is certainly in operation in connection with this exercise. The Labrador and the St. Laurent are there, hard at work in an effort to free these vessels. 1 cannot understand the hon. member's logic. He is critical of the fact that passengers are stranded at Sydney and Port aux Basques. At the same time he is critical of the fact that vessels move out when we should know that at this time of year there is ice in the strait. Is he suggesting that we cancel service cross the strait at certain times of the year because there may be ice? I think that is a rather ridiculous suggestion.
I suggest that the right thing is to rely on the judgment of the people who are operating the vessels and who expect that, with coastguard help, they may be able to get through. When, suddenly, very difficult winds trap vessels which are ordinarily capable of managing the ice, obviously there is a difficulty. But I do not think the hon. member has any solution, unless he wants to build airports at each end as well.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with a hypothetical situation; we are dealing with ice which has been there since last Monday. One ferry has been stuck since last Monday, yet CN continues to accept passengers, knowing the weather has not changed and knowing ice conditions are still the same. Ships are still allowed to leave the port, knowing full well that a short while after leaving either Port aux Basques or Sydney they will be caught in the ice.
What does the minister intend to do about it? Does he intend to put in place some kind of ice surveillance capability which would say to CN, "Sorry, you cannot leave today because the ice has packed in, the wind is not changing and you are going to be stuck"? Why does the Canadian coastguard not provide that kind of service?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one thing I can be sure of is that if passengers were not allowed to board a vessel to make the crossing because somebody said there was ice out there, and then because of a sudden change of winds, vessels were able to move across that strait, the hon. member for St. John's East would be criticizing the failure to move those passengers.
Oral Questions
The fact is that, at least as informed as I am, wind and ice conditions can change very quickly in terms of whether vessels can move through, and that can happen between the time of departure and the time of arrival. As I say, I am not an expert on whether these vessels should move out to sea.


Miss MacDonald:: You sure are not.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. lady for Kingston and the Islands says I am not. I said I am not; therefore I have some trust and faith in the captains of the vessels and the operators of the system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Environment) and it relates to the Kurdistan incident.
In view of the concern expressed by fishermen in the Canso Strait area that the federal government has allowed the stern section of the oil tanker Kurdistan to be towed towards Chedabucto Bay, and given the discovery of a new oil slick in the area, can the minister explain why the towing commenced, given the dangerous ice conditions in the bay and the real threat of pollution on the beaches and in the fishing grounds? Many of us fear that the value of the cargo is taking precedence over safety of the environment.


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, environmentally, all factors were evaluated. A number of other ports were evaluated as well. In the view of my officials who are on the scene, as well as in the view of Environment Nova Scotia, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Transport, the route to Port Hawkesbury, with all of the conditions which the salvor would have to agree to, was the safest one to take.
It was the view of our officials that with the appropriate icebreaking equipment on hand, there really was no environmental risk or, at least, that the risk if any was really very minimal.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in light of that answer, I wonder if the minister can explain reports in the media this morning that the plans to tow the tanker to Port Hawkesbury have been abandoned because officials of the oil industry say it is too dangerous to move it through the dangerous ice conditions in the bay for unloading at Hawkesbury. I would like the minister to inform the House whether this is true or not.
In addition, given the past experience of the Arrow oil spill disaster, can the minister explain why it has taken so long- over six days-to determine what course of action to take? It seems to me that this is an indication that the government is not well prepared.

March 23, 1979
Oral Questions


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am checking on the validity of those press reports. It is my understanding that all appropriate arrangements have been made for the stern once it arrives at Port Hawkesbury. I think my colleague, the Minister of Transport, explained very clearly, in an answer he gave earlier to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, why it took six days. Those six days were not all lost by doing nothing. It took some time for both the stern and the bow sections to be in a position which would allow a decision to be made.
If the hon. member will recall, the weather conditions were absolutely awful in the whole area and a lot of danger was involved. If the decision had been taken to tow the vessel into deep water, they would have been bucking severe weather conditions. There is a possibility it could not have been done, two lines could have broken, and so on. So the decision was made that the best possible solution was to attach tugs to both the stern and the bow sections and try to nurse them along in the best way possible until a decision was made. Now a decision has been made and we are just waiting for the fog to clear at Chedabucto Bay so that the stern can be brought safely into Port Hawkesbury.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, again I worry about the safety aspects, since the reports say that a new oil slick has been sighted. If the government intends to proceed to tow the stern into the bay, then indeed the fishery may be in danger.
My final supplementary is this: The minister says that all the legal ramifications and the insurance problems explain the six-day delay in coming to a decision as to which way to tow the stern. Surely the minister would agree that, in light of the Arrow incident, his department should have had regulations in place so there would not be this delay in terms of determining liability and what the insurance results would be.


Len Marchand: I do not think there was really any serious delay. As far as the advice being given by my officials is concerned, it had nothing to do with the legalities: these were being negotiated by Transport Canada. The advice that my officials gave was based on environmental grounds and we agreed finally with the decision, which was agreed to by all parties concerned, that the safest thing to do environmentally was to go into Port Hawkesbury.
I would say to the hon. member that there has been some oil-stained ice observed in the vicinity, or north of the entrance to Chedabucto Bay. It is oil-stained floe ice which we feel came into that area from the original site where the tanker Kurdistan broke up. We do not have a complete evaluation of it yet, but since we found it yesterday there have been a number of surveillance flights over it. To the best of our knowledge, there is really no danger at this point. This is not a slick; the officials are calling it oil-stained ice. There is no environmental danger observed. But we hope we will be able to get people on site and not just rely on aerial observations. We will be able to bring people on site today to observe exactly the condition of these oil stains, and if any clean-up action has to

be taken, we have plans and equipment and it will be taken once we have made the evaluation.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that a few years ago the federal and provincial governments set up an organization to study the possibility of establishing a guaranteed annual income plan in Canada and considering that it has become a question of current interest at the Quebec legislature, would the minister tell the House whether there has been some kind of agreement with the Quebec government and, as a result of such agreement or negotiation would the federal government be expected to make a financial contribution under that new policy?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, of course no member of the federal government nor any official has been consulted or advised of that plan about which I only know what I heard by mere chance on television late last night and what I read in the newspapers this morning. I am therefore waiting to see what suggestions will be made to us.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
If his remarks have been correctly reported by the media, Quebec minister Marois intends to apply to the federal government in general and the Department of National Health and Welfare in particular for a contribution to the implementation of this program. Could the minister advise the House whether, together with her officials, she will look carefully into these proposals and report to the House before any agreement is finalized?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I have with me the papers which the hon. member is referring to. There is a picture of Mr. Marois with several mikes in front of him. The caption reads: "Minister Marois will soon write Miss Begin". I am therefore waiting to hear from him. The minister makes statements on TV, but he does not speak to me. If and when I receive a document, I shall look into it. I must say, however, to the hon. member-who is certainly already aware of it-that we are not paying supplements to workers who are being paid wages.
Poverty is such in Canada even today that we are trying to pay a supplement to those Canadians who are the most
March 23, 1979

vulnerable. The Quebec government has just cancelled the increase which social welfare mothers were supposed to get. It is somewhat ironic that it now seeks supplements for people who already hold good jobs. But we shall certainly look into these proposals. We have just reviewed our estimates, and under the Canada Assistance Plan, $575 million are earmarked again this year for Quebec. We intend to wait and examine the situation.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another supplementary.
In view of the study conducted by the health and welfare department on the establishment of a national guaranteed minimum income scheme, reports of which were distributed to members, does the minister intend to pursue this line in order to achieve these objectives which would, in my view, help fight poverty? I am thinking only of the national level, disregarding the position of the provinces in this matter.


Monique Bégin: It is very difficult in the present climate of economic restraint in Canada and in each of the provinces to speak of a universal guaranteed annual income scheme- which would be the ideal-unilaterally funded by the federal government, for the simple reason that it would cost $7 billion. I have just received estimates in this regard. However, it is possible to implement selective programs aimed at the most vulnerable and needy groups, such as children living in poverty, and that is why we will continue to adopt such measures as the child tax credit.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Environment and it concerns the Kurdistan incident. I hope the minister will agree that having a spotted oil slick of some 35 kilometres in length, the proposal to take one part of the vessel containing tons of oil and sink it in deep water, and the proposal to tow the other section into port constitutes creating a potentially serious environmental hazard.
Setting aside weather, ice and fog conditions-none of which are unexpected in that particular location at this time of year-may I ask the Minister of State for the Environment what his legislative authority is to take action? What act of parliament gives him the authority to act? What action has the minister taken under that authority?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: -the reason for my rising after discussion at this moment with the Minister of State for the Environment is that, by and large, much of the authority in relation to the incident is in the hands of the Minister of Transport. There is a variety of pieces of legislation, including those in relation to shipping and those in relation to pollution. I would need to ask the member more specifically what action he would have liked to see us take; then I could recite whether we had authority to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. My question is directed to the Minister of State for the Environment. With respect to Canadian coastal waters, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the west coast and the Beaufort Sea, is it not a fact the Minister of State for the Environment, despite the potential for serious environmental threat, has absolutely no legislative authority to take any action, except the Ocean Dumping Control Act which the minister knows full well was never designed to handle a situation like this?
Is it not true that the sole authority in this situation rests with either the Minister of Transport or, I presume, in the Beaufort Sea the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? Despite the environmental hazard, is it not a fact that this minister has no authority to act whatsoever by way of legislation of this parliament?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member is getting indignant about the thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: What is a little oil here and there?


Len Marchand: I do not know why the hon. member is waxing indignant about whether I have legislation under my authority or whether the legislative authority is in the hands of another department.


An hon. Member:: Who speaks for the environment?


Len Marchand: He knows full well that the Department of the Environment does not have regulatory authority over every department of government. The hon. member knows that. He is a lawyer; I am not. I do not see any reason why the Department of the Environment should have all kinds of regulatory powers. We have a lot of advisory powers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: As long as I am satisfied-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: Some members laugh, but I am sure they would not want me, in the Department of the Environment, to be the pollution czar and run every environmental aspect of every government department, including provincial governments.
4450

March 23, 1979
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: Provincial governments have some authority, too. That is why we work together with them. We work together with other departments and with the provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: To answer the minister's question, I would feel a lot better knowing that this potential environmental threat was not in the hands of the Minister of Transport. That is one reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: If the Minister of State for the Environment is content to play that advisory role, then is his position that the responsibility for the Ocean Dumping Control Act should rest with a ministry other than the Department of the Environment?


Len Marchand: No, I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. There are certain acts of government that we administer directly, one of which, as the hon. member knows, is the Ocean Dumping Control Act. The Environmental Contaminants Act and the Canada Water Act are others. We have some of them; but in certain situations I am sure the hon. member does not want me to have all the authority relating to pollution under the Transport Act.


William Herbert Jarvis: In this situation, I do.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if it will make the hon. member feel any better, now that the reorganization legislation is going through we in my department are examining all the legislative authority we have. At some point we will bring forward an omnibus bill which will address some of the deficiencies located in some of the legislation we have at our disposal.
I repeat that I do not want to put myself into the position of being a pollution czar, having all regulatory authority in this country to handle every situation. Certainly there must be regulatory authority left with the Department of Transport, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other governments. We will have in my department the capacity to make sure that the environmental legislation brought forward through the various departments is adequate and meets the requirements we have as an environment department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for

DREE. Over the years, complaints have been lodged by some very responsible people, in and out of the House, respecting the accomplishments and the method of administration of DREE and other developmental programs designed for depressed areas of Canada. I think the remarks this morning of Mr. Daigle, the leader of the Liberal party in New Brunswick, make these objections gilt-edged and the source of criticism now has become impeccable.
Will the minister responsible for DREE advise this House whether he has any intention of changing some of the directions in which DREE has been going ineffectually, and will he now consider the objectives promoted by those who have suggested criticism to him by representation both by way of governmental and independent sources of advice?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing of the criticisms or suggestions Mr. Daigle may have made this morning. Of course, I shall look into them with interest, as I always do into whatever suggestions come to me from both sides of the House, as well as outside groups and the provincial governments with whom I have always co-operated closely.
With regard to the possibility of changing the present policy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to reflect those proposals, suggestions and criticisms, I can assure the House that I am always willing to do so; I always consider that possibility and indeed the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has shown through the years that it can adapt to constantly evolving circumstances. I can assure the House that we shall continue to do so in coming years. We will continue to adapt to changing situations because that department must in fact take advantage of opportunities as they come along.


Fred Alward McCain: The press report this morning says that Mr. Daigle also said that if present federal policies continue for a few years, New Brunswick will be in the forefront of the national unity debate looking for a way out or a much better deal, in the same manner as Quebec. I think this emphasizes the seriousness with which those who need this deparment and its effectual administration treat it and its present non-political approach.
Will the minister agree to meet with the responsible authorities and interested parties in that area of Canada where DREE may be applied, and particularly in New Brunswick, to set down new guidelines for more productive and effective expenditures of money for the purposes for which it was developed and which are so badly needed?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I hope one is not going to read the comments of the hon. member as being critical of the provincial government of New Brunswick because, in effect, what DREE has been doing in the last few years is responding to requests, suggestions and proposals by the provincial Con-
March 23, 1979

servative government of New Brunswick. If this gentleman feels this is not proper and what we have done for New Brunswick should not have been done, I think the first one to be blamed would be the provincial government of New Brunswick itself.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the recent recall in the United States of a large amount of a common child vaccine, D.P.T., after the death of four babies to whom it had been administered shortly before. These deaths are not necessarily related to the vaccine.
I would ask whether the minister has been in touch with her officials and the United States administration in respect of this matter, and is any action indicated?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire and report to the House as soon as possible.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that on March 17 the minister's department published in the Canada Gazette proposed regulations under the Weights and Measures Act providing for mandatory changes from the Imperial to the metric system after June 30 in the retail trade in respect of piece goods, and after December 31 of this year in the retail trade in respect of floor coverings, household textiles and wallpaper, and in view of the fact that there is considerable disagreement in the trade regarding conversion to metric, can the minister advise whether he has had consultations with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to discuss the use of mandatory regulations, or is it the minister's own decision that the government should proceed by regulation rather than legislation, and thus deprive parliament of the opportunity of a free and open debate?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have these consultations personally. They were held among officials of my department and other concerned departments. In view of the representations by the hon. member, I will take a second look at this matter, to see whether his complaints are well founded.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I
Oral Questions
hope he was not leaving because he anticipated a question on this subject.
In the March 3 issue of the Ottawa Journal, the minister is quoted by a distinguished member of the parliamentary press bureau as having said that Canada will have to slow down in its conversion to the metric system to get more in line with the U.S. Would the minister advise this House whether he has agreed to the mandatory imposition of the metric system by regulations drafted by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or has he perhaps abandoned his love for the democratic process through which parliament debates and decides questions of importance to the general public?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the last part of that question first. I certainly have not abandoned the democratic process. I have always been prepared to participate fully on the subject of metrification and on any other subject, but in the past I was prohibited by the party I formerly belonged to from participating in debates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not prohibited in any way now, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With regard to a comparison of conversion to the metric system as between Canada and the United States, in some instances we are ahead and in some instances we are equal. But in every instance in moving toward modernization of our industry, I would rather lead than follow, because if you follow you are naturally behind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to think that Canadian industry would be world leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In light of the fact that his department is contesting in the courts the right of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to question or review the activities within his department, I would ask the minister if he can assure this House that refugees, whether resident or non-resident, who apply to be allowed to stay in Canada shall first of all be told the nature of the objections to their staying in or coming to Canada and, secondly, will they be given a clearly open and personal hearing so they can present their answers to such objections?

March 23, 1979
Oral Questions


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was at the committee last night when I made a rather comprehensive response to the church group which came before us with a splendid brief. I indicated that the giving of reasons was something I would pursue. I am having that checked into to determine the best way of doing it.
In so far as personal hearings are concerned, of course, a refugee has the opportunity to make a presentation, to answer questions, to look at the transcript that is prepared and to make any corrections and, for that matter, to make any additions. He has the opportunity to do that in the presence of counsel before the matter ever gets to the refugee status advisory committee; and then, if turned down there, a special review within the department is carried out. Also, subsequent to that there are Immigration Appeal Board proceedings.


An hon. Member:: Another hearing.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: What is being sought by the New Democratic Party now is another hearing. I am indicating that it then goes back to the Immigration Appeal Board, which makes a determination on whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that a full and open hearing should be held.
I have written to the chairman of the Immigration Appeal Board asking her to look at the representation made by the church group to determine if more cases could be heard. We are all interested in cutting out frivolous cases, because they work to the disadvantage of legitimate applicants. I have asked Miss Scott to look into that aspect.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To move from the general to the particular, will the minister state whether Mrs. Luchsinger will be given such an opportunity to appear before the Security Advisory Board and present her side of the case, as suggested by Mr. John Carson who is a member of the advisory committee and who recommends such action?


Mr. Alexander:: That is my position.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there is always someone around to take credit. The Security Advisory Board was established so that I could refer to it evidence that is presented to me and ask what weight should be given to that evidence. I think they have handled about five cases. At the present time, they are trying to determine a proper and a regular procedure which may very well involve calling in the individual.
I am not saying this is so in the Luchsinger case because I think there is some confusion here. Mrs. Luchsinger is not applying for refugee status. She is here on a ministerial permit and wants landed immigrant status. She is not a refugee. She travels on a German passport, so she is not a refugee from Chile. She can go back to Germany any time she likes. She is here under a ministerial permit and is seeking landed immigrant status: I think that should be made clear.

As far as a personal appearance is concerned, I will be discussing that question with the Security Advisory Board. I think it is a little early to do so now. I have asked Mr. Carson, Mr. Cadieux and Mr. Justice Noel to look at the procedures to determine what would be best.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Metric Commission and concerns the assistance program for tool conversion. Some time ago I raised a question regarding assistance of this type for farmers and other individuals.
In light of the fact that the program is now in place to aid employees requiring metric tools, will the department give consideration to broadening the program to assist farmers, carpenters and small owner-operators of local garages and businesses who will also have to convert to the metric system?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that they already enjoy some benrTH. I should like to take the question as a representation and take it up with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is very close to this question of metrification and is very interested in all its aspects.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
McIntyre report-alleged harassment by members of FORCE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, having received no response to questions placed on the order paper on February 19, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question respecting a report of Judge Leo McIntyre to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia in relation to his commission's report of alleged harassment of a doctor by the RCMP.
Could the Solicitor General tell me what action, if any, he intends to take as a result of this commission inquiry. If he does not intend to take any action himself, is he going to refer the matter to the Minister of Justice, to the McDonald commission, to the attorney general of Nova Scotia, or what will be the final result as far as action is concerned?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. gentleman's question on the order paper, unfortunately that has not been drawn to my attention. I would have preferred that the question be answered in that particular context.
March 23, 1979

The report of Mr. Justice McIntyre was made some time ago. Its details are not fresh in my memory, and I hope the hon. member will permit me to refresh my memory and provide him with an answer in the very near future.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the Solicitor General is doing that, would he also indicate in his response, in due course, whether any members of the force who were involved in this harassment with the knowledge of their superior officers of the circumstances which later came to light in the commission's report, were promoted?


Mr. Blais:: Of course, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the importance of the increase in compensation for brucellosis, can the minister state whether he has an announcement to make today.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I am in a
difficult position, Mr. Speaker. I should like to be able to announce it, but by government regulation it will have to wait for a couple more days.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. A few days ago, President Carter's Secretary of Transport, appearing before the relevant subcommittee of the House of Representatives, said, in relation to the slaughter on the highways, environmental problems and fuel consumption, that it was his position the automobile should be reinvented. In light of this very serious proposition, I should like to know if the minister shares his views.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been very concerned about safety problems related to automobile travel, and also pollution and energy conservation. As a result of some vigorous initiatives by the federal government, working with the provinces, we have introduced many safety features which have produced a far better record in terms of accidents, injuries and fatalities than we had before or that anyone had predicted.
In addition, working with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, we have introduced guidelines for automobile manufacturers so that they will have to make significant
Oral Questions
changes over the next few years, producing lighter weight cars and more efficient engines in order to lower gas consumption on a per mile basis. This is bound to have an important impact on the manufacturing industry.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Some years ago, the federal government held talks with officials in the state of New York and with federal authorities in the United States on the possibility of Canada-U.S. co-operation in a publicly-built car in order to set standards for safety and the environment in particular.
Is it possible that now, in view of the declaration of the U.S. Secretary of Transport before the subcommittee a few days ago, that these negotiations could be reopened in relation to a publicly-built car in order to set performance standards?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to enter into discussions which might promote safety or energy conservation. We take certain initiatives ourselves, of course, and no doubt the United States benefits from them. Just recently we agreed to the investment of significant funds in the development of prototype electric vehicles and the solving of some problems in relation to that type of power for vehicles. I think this is the kind of initiative which is important. Of course, I am always delighted to share this with the United States, as I am sure they are to share their initiatives with us.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of the continuing controversy surrounding Canada's magnificent medicare plan.
Has the minister received any representations on this controversy from the government of New Brunswick and, if so, what was their purpose?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram from Premier Hatfield this morning, asking me to convene a meeting of all health ministers and all finance ministers, and putting the blame on doctors for the eventual erosion of medicare. He wants a federal-provincial meeting right away, which surprises me enormously since two years ago the federal government, to be flexible-as we were asked to be by the provinces-gave them bloc funding with fantastically generous payments. These cost-sharing payments will be close to $6 billion this coming fiscal year.
If they cannot put their house in order when they are given the administration of medicare, I do not know how we can do it for them.

March 23, 1979
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the very nimble Minister of Finance and the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the extraordinarily complacement remarks made yesterday that the rate of inflation is a little high. With, now, five years since the last election and with the rate of inflation running at about 9 per cent annually, I ask the minister what has happened to the fiery desire of his leader to wrestle inflation to the ground?
What has happened to the assurances given by the government some four years ago that by now we would have a rate of inflation of 4 per cent? Why is the Minister of Finance now almost accepting the current rate of inflation and saying that it is a little high?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we do not accept the fact that inflation is at a normal level. We are trying to reduce it as quickly and as effectively as possible. Despite the decline of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar, our rate of inflation is lower than that of the United States. However, I do find that it is too high. I would like to reduce it, and I have made predictions that the rate of inflation will be declining to the end of the year.
Most economic spokesmen say that inflation will go down during the year but not as low as everyone would like to see it. Everyone would like to have a zero rate of inflation. It seems to me that because of world conditions at this time, and with increases in the price of oil and other pressures coming not only from internal sources but from external sources, it will be very difficult to reach the goal we have in mind and achieve a very low rate or even a zero rate of inflation. I am quite sure that by the end of the year inflation in Canada will be lower than it is today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we have had a succession of assurances and predictions from successive ministers of finance, yet what we have is a state of affairs where the rate of inflation is around 9 per cent and Canadians are now borrowing money to maintain their standard of living.
Does the Minister of Finance and his colleagues say nothing more than "Zap; you are frozen at a rate of inflation of 8 to 9 per cent"?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we said that we are having a problem with inflation. We decided to go back to the marketplace. It is a problem that is afflicting not only Canada but everybody else. It would be unrealistic for anyone to say that we can cure inflation just by wishing that inflation would go away.
I have said many times that Canadians over the last year have shown a lot of responsibility; that we have regained our competitive position in world markets and that the competitive level in Canada is such that the increase in unit costs is lower

than that in the United States. We have extended our external markets and we put 400,000 Canadians back to work in the last year. Despite the fact that the Canadian dollar is weaker than it was a year ago, the inflation rate is lower in Canada than it is in the United States. That is not a bad performance.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.-Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), to table, in both official languages, an order in council providing for access by the McDonald Commission of Inquiry to cabinet and cabinet committee minutes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 225, 723 and 1,236.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Were environmental studies commissioned by Eldorado Nuclear Limited on the Warman area as a possible site for a uranium refinery published in the form of an environmental impact statement in the Spring of 1978 as originally announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and, if not, on what date (a) will they be published (b) will there be public hearings on the findings?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows:
No.
March 23, 1979

Excise Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
(a)	mid-1979;
(b)	ENL anticipates there will be public hearings on the findings.

Mr. Howie: Will the Post Office Department be extending postal services in the Fredericton, New Brunswick area such as mailing counters or sub-post offices?


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Canada Post is reviewing an application for a new sub-post office in the Fredericton mall. Other than this, there are not any firm plans to extend postal counters or sub-post offices in the Fredericton area.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES PURCHASING POLICIES
Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the information about the purchasing policies of the Department of Supply and Services maintained on a constituency basis?
2.	In 1978, by constituency, what was the total amount spent by the Department for the purchase of supplies?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	Information about the purchasing data of DSS is not maintained by constituency.
2.	Data by constituency can be provided, however, by using special postal code cross reference information supplied by the Post Office. Purchasing information requested is targeted for April 1, 1979, using this method.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary was doing so well; he answered six questions just yesterday, which was incredible. Now all of a sudden the number is reduced to three. At this speed we would be here for another two years before all the questions on the order paper are answered.



EXCISE TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-38, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in being able to participate in this debate on Bill C-38, to amend Canada's excise taxes. I might say that it does seem a little late in coming. The Liberal government has always prided itself on being good administrators of the economy and of matters in the House. Nevertheless the budget speech from which this bill emanates was made November 16. It is now March 23 and we have just started debate on the bill. That is a period of four months between introduction of the bill and debate and is a sad commentary on the way the government has managed House business. It is the power of positive failure. I think the people of Canada are catching on to this attitude.
Bill C-38 does three main things. It revises the airline tax, the gas tax and the sales tax in some complicated jargon. I will comment on some of the amendments which the government has made.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has been quite vocal in the House, in fact laudatory, of his policy of making users pay. The bill before us increases the airline travel tax from $8 to $15. This is almost a 100 per cent increase. It seems to me that the government has again been guilty of some bad management. Not only has it over-built some airports, but it has faced some very high cost overruns in the contruction of those airports. Other hon. members and myself have mentioned the cost of overruns associated with the Calgary airport and Mirabel airport. The construction costs for Calgary International Airport escalated from $57 million to $127 million, more than double the amount of the original estimates.
The Auditor General said at page 506 of his report:
The air carriers expressed strong reservations as to the immediate need for, and concern about the cost of, new terminal facilities.
It is one thing to have a user-pay policy, but it is another thing to make the users prisoners of government policy. It would be all right if users had a choice between that method of transportation and another method. I could then see the rationale for the Minister of Transport's policy of user-pay. However, in a country like ours where air transport is becoming increasingly important and perhaps even mandatory if Canadian citizens wish to see the country and carry on business, for the government to construct facilities which the airlines did not want in the first place and for which users of airlines must pay-because of the Minister of Transport's policy-is making people prisoners of a taxation system from which they cannot get out. If people had an alternative it

March 23, 1979
Excise Tax Act
would be another matter, but many of us do not have that opportunity.
Again I mention the construction costs of the Mirabel airport which escalated to the fine tune of S600 million. It strikes me as somewhat ludicrous that the government continually wants to justify the construction of that airport. I now find that when you fly Air Canada from Ottawa to Europe, instead of going to Mirabel which is 100 miles away, you go to Toronto which is 300 miles away. Obviously Air Canada is not crazy about the idea of using Mirabel even though we have this $600 million bill before us plus $1 million a week operating costs.
The government was not able to explain that not only was it costly to over-build the airport, but there would be the additional cost of operating that airport. Now the Minister of Transport through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) wants to apply the user-pay philosophy so that the public who are now obligated to use those facilities have to pay twice.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) made some very useful observations in his speech yesterday. I simply want to repeat some of them. I quote from page 4431 of Hansard:
I have a breakdown of the cost of landing a Boeing 747 in Toronto. These figures are based on October 1, 1978, data. I put these figures on the record so hon. members can be apprised of what it costs to land a jumbo jet. The particular example I will give is of a transoceanic flight with a full passenger load. The costs include the en route North Atlantic fee in the amount of $130; the landing fee amounting to $1,596; the general terminal fee assessed at $267; security charge for 429 passengers at 20 cents per passenger amounting to $86; and the fuel throughput charge for 22,000 gallons at 1.5 cents per gallon, amounting to $330. Then we have a provincial fuel tax on 22,000 gallons at three cents per gallon, which amounts to $660, and a transportation tax, 429 passengers at $8, which amounts to $3,432. When you total all those together, and it does not take into consideration the rental of the airline space for counters and so on, it works out to $6,501 to land a 747 with 429 passengers aboard. Those are the rates effective October 1, 1978.
The impact of the transportation tax at $15 per person will change that $3,432 figure to $6,435. The immediate 30 per cent increase which is going to be imposed on an annual basis over an eight year period when these new landing fees are going to be implemented, will increase that $6,500 figure to $9,604. Those are the kinds of increases about which we are talking.
It costs the airline passenger more to travel. He not only has to pay the extra $7 for the privilege of using the airport facilities, but the extra landing fees. The figures presented to us yesterday by the hon. member for Vegreville do not include the cost of purchasing and maintaining the aircraft and paying the cabin crew and ground crew. Because the minister has over-built the air terminals and because those overbuilt air terminals cost more to maintain-


Mr. Mazankowski:: And the aborted ones like Pickering.


Benno Friesen: As the hon. member for Vegreville says, and the aborted ones like Pickering. All those costs are written into the extravagances of this government. Now the minister wants user-pay. Frankly, the passengers have been used. It is no longer user-pay; it is the used who have to pay.

The bill also deals with gasoline tax. I remember the time about four years ago when we increased the tax on gasoline to be paid to the federal government to ten cents a gallon. The then ministers of finance, two ministers ago, said that much of that tax would ensure conservation of our oil reserves. The excise tax on light aircraft and outboard engines was being imposed in order to help conservation.
Now we have an entirely new tack. Parenthetically, we worried at that time about the government policy that the ten cent tax would be refundable to businesses, fishermen, logging companies, farmers and so forth. We wondered how much of a bureaucracy that would involve, how many people would be hired to count the receipts submitted by those people, how many people would be required in national revenue to tally the receipts and make sure the deductions are legitimate.
Members receive a lot of representations asking why the tax is ten cents a gallon. Rather than increase the tax ten cents a gallon for a few, why not make it five cents a gallon for everyone and cut out a lot of the bureaucracy? Again the government does not pay attention. The argument is conservation; we are going to save energy.
Clause 14 includes a schedule which indicates a special imposition for those with cars that use non-leaded gas. I thought the additional gadgets on these cars were to be pollution control devices. Canadians were encouraged to purchase cars which use that kind of gas. In clause 14 there is a new category, and I quote:
1. Petroleum products, namely,
(a)	gasoline, premium, no lead	1.3 cents per litre;(b)	gasoline, grade 1	1.2 cents per litre;(c)	gasoline, grade 2	1.1 cents per litre;(d)	gasoline, no lead	1.1 cents per litre;(e) diesel fuel	1.0 cents per litre;-
The government says it wants to encourage economy. It wants to encourage the use of anti-pollution devices on automobiles and then taxes those who co-operate with the government. I wish to quote from a letter I received from a constituent dated February 14, before this tax was added:
Why is it that the person who operates a pollution controlled vehicle has to pay more for his gas? Don't you think the users of regular grade gas should pay the shot for polluting the atmosphere? I see no great problem for the government to reverse the tax to encourage the use of pollution controlled vehicles. If this is not done soon I will remove the controls from my vehicle so that I too can enjoy cheaper driving. I know that the gas companies claim that the higher price is to pay for new equipment, so it is up to the government to make the ones who are doing the polluting pay for this lopsided public nuisance. I would like some kind of an answer on this subject.
Although I have written to the minister, I do not expect an answer that will satisfy my constituent or myself. Last week I spoke to another constituent who had just come from the garage after having the anti-pollution devices dismantled on her car in order to be able to use regular gas.
People who purchase cars that use unleaded gas which is required for the anti-pollution devices are being punished three times. First, they have to pay more for the car. They have to pay more when they buy a new car. I suppose they have to pay more for servicing, too, because of all the extra gadgets on it;
March 23, 1979

and now they have to pay more for the gas they use. The minister of the environment is calling for a reduction in pollution. Mr. Speaker, the minister of the environment has an office in those new buildings in Hull and his department is pumping raw sewage every day into the Ottawa River.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Benno Friesen: That is the kind of leadership we get from this government. Here, in the bill before us, unleaded gas costs more, by reason of a tax, than other gas.


An hon. Member:: Read subsection (d).


Benno Friesen: I did. That applies to unleaded, unregular gas, but if you use a premium gas you pay more tax on it than on any of the other classes. I believe the government needs to readjust its vision with regard to these matters although I have little hope of that happening.
When the Minister of Finance made his speech last November, he said, among other things:
In my view, the special 10 per cent excise tax on marine engines and private aircraft and the 5 per cent tax on motorcycles are having adverse economic effects. The contribution of these taxes to energy conservation has been minimal.
I guess that jargon is the minister's way of saying the tax did not work. I wish he had put it as plainly as that. He probably could not police the application of the tax-he had no way of collecting it properly. He could not handle the administration.
I have one final comment and it relates to the reduction of the sales tax from 12 per cent to 9 per cent. Again, this was a good idea badly handled. As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) told us last night, one automobile dealer in his riding said he was able to handle it because he had two sets of cars on his lot: one part of the inventory he had bought before the tax reduction was introduced and the other part consisted of cars he had bought afterwards. So there were different prices on what were virtually the same cars. He bailed out of it at the cost of SI2,000 to the business and I suppose his loss will be deductible as a business expense.
But what about the customers who suffered? What about the loss of sales? Since the government took so long to bring down a budget in the first place, and since it has taken so long to bring down the resulting legislation, surely administrative changes could have been made so that the car dealers, the furniture dealers and businessmen across Canada could derive a decent advantage from the decision made by the minister and not be punished for the government's bad management.
I do not expect many answers to these questions from the government side. After all, they have not been forthcoming in months past and I do not look for any help from them this time. At a time when they are trying to bail themselves out before an election, I look for more band-aids; I do not expect any solutions.
Excise Tax Act


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to state my views on that famous Bill C-38, and Act to amend the Excise Tax Act. This bill would implement the excise tax ways and means motions tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on November 16 and on January 25 last. This bill would implement the terms of the budget affecting in one way or another the Excise Tax Act. However the bill does not particularly affect Quebeckers and Canadians. For that reason, I do not wish to spend too much time analysing that legislation. I will therefore criticize the bill while explaining the legislation at the same time.
In the first place, the provisions deal with the transportation of an individual by air. The government wishes to increase the tax it collects on the price of tickets from passengers travelling in the taxation area, that is in the North American zone, including the United States, except Hawaii, Canada and the Miquelon Islands. The tax would be raised from 8 to 15 per cent, the ceiling being $15 instead of the current limit of $8.
The tax levied on international trips was to go up from $8 to $12 during an undetermined period of time before reaching the ceiling of $15. However, the government has elected to combine both phases in one single operation. The purpose of that tax is to make users of those services pay for maintenance costs of national airports. The government thus hopes to increase its revenue by more that $72 million for the 1979-80 taxation year. Such a step is surely advisable, but before triumphing we should make sure what is the percentage of the cost effectively paid by users.
In addition, the government is amending clause 21 in Part III of the legislation dealing with the excise tax on cosmetics, jewellery, radio sets, etc. Thus, it is proposed to increase the tax on gasoline for cars as it is delivered at the service station, whether it is operated by the producer or somebody else. The gasoline is normally taxed when delivered by the producer to the independent retailer. However, when the producer also operates the service station, the legislation now provides that the payment can be deferred until the gasoline is sold to consumers.
The new legislation will therefore streamline the procedure. The government also proposes that persons seeking repayment of the special excise tax on gasoline or the federal sales tax on taxable items are entitled to the same scheme as taxpayers who are permit holders under the act. Because of this change, any person making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining repayment or failing to reimburse any overpayment, would be liable to the same penalty as any taxpayer who holds a permit as a retailer in similar circumstances.
The purpose of the third subclause is to provide for an excise tax exemption in the case of gasoline or aviation gasoline
4458

March 23, 1979
Excise Tax Act
which is sold to a person to whom a bulk permit has been issued for use by this person. When the holder of such a permit uses these privileges for purposes other than those described in this subclause, the permit holder must pay the special tax as any other taxpayer. Bill C-38 deals with the general reduction of the sales tax imposed on all manufacturers by the Canadian government. As hon. members doubtless know, this tax imposed on November 16, 1978, was lowered from 12 to 9 per cent on all goods sold by manufacturers and wholesalers who are permit holders and on all imported goods.
Clause 4 confirms these policies. Elowever, the government maintains the 12 per cent sales tax on imported and domestic wines. The purpose of subclauses 2 and 3 is to provide that the consumption or sales tax in the case of goods produced or manufactured in Canada for use by the producer or manufacturer be payable at the time the goods are used or appropriated for use.
We could state again here the opposition our party made to the reduction of the federal sales tax during the debate on the budget in November of last year. As a matter of fact, the reduction which the government proposed was only 3 per cent, while our own party proposed the complete elimination of the federal tax. What is more, since foodstuffs are goods of primary necessity, the consumer should benefit from a full exemption of the sales tax, so that have-nots may eat better for less money.
In Bill C-38, there is a tax of only 5 per cent imposed on food. It states that the governor in council. . . and I quote:
-may make regulations exemption any class of small manufacturer or producer from payment of consumption or sales tax on goods manufactured or produced-
The purpose of this amendment is to exclude from these benefits all firms which are not provided for under this clause, including larger corporations which publish printed matters for their own use, so that they may not be eligible for the exemption on their printed matters, unless the value of such printed matters is great enough to warrant an application for a licence.
Once again I see in that bill an invitation to favoritism since the department staff will determine what groups can benefit from the tax exemption on gasoline and aviation gasoline. How easy, what a splendid opportunity for bribes, Mr. Speaker! In addition, tax reimbursements resulting from the Tariff Board decisions cannot be made until the year after the taxes were paid. At the present time taxes are simply carried over to the following year. The new act would extend the reimbursement period to a four-year period. In fact, clause 9 would change clause 8 mentioned above and apply to any reimbursement of the special excise tax on gasoline or the federal sales tax on all taxable goods. Clause 10, Mr. Speaker, stipulates what penalties are incurred by whoever does not respect the provisions of the act. Finally, the Excise Tax Act is amended by cancelling the special tax of 5 per cent on big motorcycles and the special

tax of 10 per cent on marine motors of over 20HPs and aircraft belonging to individuals or companies.
Repeal of sections 10 and 12 of schedule I cancels the excise tax on those items. That tax had been justified by invoking the energy crisis. Today, when the government passes Bill C-42 to conserve energy, to allot oil supplies, it cancels the special tax on luxury cars that burn a lot of fuel. That attitude proves again the lack of planning this government has shown ever since it came to power. The other clause amends section 12.1 of schedule I of the present act, to take metric measures into account. In addition, clause 13 proposes that some consumer goods be completely exempt from the consumption or sales tax, such as solar water heaters and devices designed to convert sound to light signals for use by the deaf in telephones, door bells, timers for stoves and other similar goods. This last measure will give the deaf greater access to the technologies that can allow them to lead more normal lives despite their handicap. It also exempts from this federal tax all thermal insulation. Thermal material and rolls will continue to benefit from the exemption provided they meet the requirement of a thermal coefficient that is superior to 2.4 per inch.
The exemption on thermal insulation materials would be allowed only if the sheets or boards had a total thermal resistance of not less than 3. This clause abolishes the special provision for hard-sided trailers which were taxed on only 75 per cent of their selling price, which meant that the rate of the federal sales tax was actually 9 per cent. Therefore, the government acted dishonestly in leading Canadians to think that the general reduction of the federal or consumer sales tax to 9 per cent would allow this exemption to continue. However, we cannot take it for granted that the manufacturer will pass on to consumers this 3 per cent reduction. It has indeed been shown on several occasions that the federal sales tax reduction is only partially passed on to consumers wishing to buy a hard-side trailer. The government is thereby increasing the housing costs of people who often purchase these types of homes because they cannot afford a single family dwelling. This policy could be detrimental to some Canadians. Through this clause, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is putting an end to the federal sales tax exemption on double windows, double doors and other such items. The government says: "Since glass is not as efficient for energy conservation as walls, the exemption has not achieved the aim initially envisaged."
Is the minister encouraging Canadians to build homes without doors or windows, because such things increase the loss of energy from dwellings? Schedule IV of the bill contains a chart on metric equivalents which must be respected to convert Imperial measures into European measures. It gives the excise tax on Imperial and metric measures of gas.
Finally, a clause gives the governor in council the right to simply repeal by order part II of the bill if he deems it
March 23, 1979

obsolete. No matter what kind of legislation is passed and accepted by parliament, it is always the minister who has the final word. It is called the governor in council, but in fact it is the minister who decides. If he decides in his great wisdom to simply repeal the legislation passed by parliament, that is up to him, and there is a clause protecting him. That is indeed provided for in all bills. That is why I often say that there is no use debating a bill for a week, two weeks, a month, two months, when we know in advance that two or three weeks after the minister can stop or restrict the application of the legislation. Clause 17 explains the procedures the members must go through in order to review the order made under the preceeding clause.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) explained during his speech last Monday that the practice adopted by the government whereby it introduces regulations greatly restricts the debates following the tabling of the order abrogating this amendment to the Excise Tax Act. Since we do not know now when the government will withdraw the legislation that it hopes to pass today, why does it want to restrict uselessly and illogically the length of a future debate? The hon. member for Edmonton West concluded his speech in the House by saying:
Here is another closure motion. Are we going to get this as a regular practice in every bill, that it will be provided that there shall be a motion for some consideration by parliament, that parliament will be able to debate that motion for three, five, ten or 20 hours, and then it will be brought to an end? What an easy way out for a government to take. We will be told ahead of time, by statute, how long parliament shall debate any question.
In view of this statement made by the hon. member, I would simply like to say that when we pass legislation according to the procedure followed by this parliament, we always wonder how long this legislation will last before senior officials decide that it is no longer useful. Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the government wants to make important changes, it should simply have to come before parliament and ask that clauses giving the government authority over parliament be withdrawn. This is something that I have never been able to accept.
Once again, we are considering a bill which will give supreme authority to senior officials since we all know that they are the ones who control all the actions of parliament. This is understandable since a minister who has just been appointed to a department certainly does not have the knowledge required if he does not have the help of his officials to compare all the legislation affecting his department. Moreover, I believe that it would be difficult to ask a minister to tell his officials what to do. Most often, it is the officials who tell the minister what to do. This is why I say that, finally, when we abrogate legislation passed by the government, it is the senior officials who have decided in all their wisdom that it was time to abrogate this legislation or to amend it according to their wishes.
When we see departmental officials acting like this, we always say: It is for the good of the citizens! It will create jobs!
Excise Tax Act
However, since these decisions are made by senior officials, their interest lies in creating jobs in the public service to increase their army. This is why in the last several years we have seen government expenditures soaring to 41 per cent of the gross national product when we know that for many years the GNP has increased on the average by 4 per cent a year.
In addition to that increase, we still have to pay for more civil servants, 41 per cent of that same increased product. Then, Mr. Speaker, you no longer wonder why it costs so much to administer this country. Why does it cost so much? Because we have too many unproductive jobs, and I have always said in this House and I maintain that productive jobs are in manufactures, industries, in other words industrial jobs. Let us have those, but office jobs are unproductive jobs that eat away the revenues of this country. And today the emphasis is on office jobs and industrial jobs are entirely forgotten. As long as the government fails to take its responsibilities, as long as it leaves the country's administration to a bunch of senior officials against whom it can do nothing because it needs their work and their help, I believe we will continue to pay for the administration, and that is what is happening right now with airports, Mr. Speaker.
Just think that on top of the taxes people were already paying for airports the government is going to charge another 15 per cent to the people who already paid a lot for a ticket, not to improve transportation but to pay for the airport deficit. I do not know if the minister even thought about making a little investigation to find out whether it might be possible to reduce administrative costs before continuing to empty the pockets of Canadians.
With a small population of 22 million or 23 million and budgets running to $57 billion with a deficit of $12 billion, we are spending $69 billion to administer 22 million people, Mr. Speaker. That is not normal. So they simply say that they have to raise general taxes. They are going to make the user pay. But he already does, Mr. Speaker, and he is paying a lot more than he should. Let us take Air Canada, it is understood that deficits are paid by the government, but private airlines serve an entire area. We have already asked the government in the House to assist such small private airlines, but we have to pay.
I live in a region where private airlines operate and if such airlines at least received small subsidies to help them a little. However, the large state airlines are heavily subsidized and we have to pay to make up the deficits incurred by Air Canada. We are people who pay for the chief who travels in a Cadillac while we go on foot. It is the same thing. I think that if the government instead of taking such a step today had tried to help smaller lines, it would not take much to get those lines to improve their service. Air Canada gives excellent service. Small wonder! With all its millions and its deficits we have to pay, and especially with the type of airports like Mirabel we build for it! Now we say we may have made an error! There were no good enough bureaucrats to knew beforehand that
March 23, 1979

Excise Tax Act
such a white elephant would not have enough customers. If they could have built that airport in marble they would have done so. Now we ask passengers to pay for all that, to pay for the government's stupidity.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 gives us an example of maladministration by this government. Once again they want to take money where there is none, namely the users' pockets, but in the same breath they also supply the big monopolies with terrible exemptions. Of that there will be plenty, because big monopolies are protected. Anyway, we will see legislation come forward to show us how monopolies operate, to show us the two major parties competing to save the monopolies. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying simply that we do not agree with all the clauses, especially when it comes to imposing an extra 15 per cent users' tax.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise two matters. One involves the changes the government has been making over the years in terms of insulation and energy saving devices, whether they be solar or otherwise. The government has not done anything to encourage the entire energy industry. Whether it be solar, wind or any other type of alternative energy, the government has not done anything at all. I think such help would have been a great advantage in developing the energy industry, and we would have been farther along the road in terms of the development of the forms of energy currently used, such as thermal, nuclear and hydro.
Now the sales tax on solar equipment is being removed. We have known for a long time that we would have to look at solar energy. We are only now part way along the road to removing some of the tax on the energy industry. As I understand it, it will be applied only to a limited number of companies under exceptional circumstances. Thus there will be no easing of manufacturing costs in developing new types of solar energy.
One thing the minister has done indicates the bureaucratic mind of his department better than any other example. I am referring to the matter raised last night by my colleague regarding windows. Suddenly the officials have decided, after a long period of time when we said people should instal bigger windows in their houses, that big windows are a heat loss factor and perhaps a tax should be placed on them. If the officials were only a little smarter, they would realize that if another pane of glass is added the "R" factor would be increased. Instead of using double seal glass, one could use triple seal glass, with three panes, which would result in the same "R" factor as one would from the best insulation.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.

[DOT]	(1400)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I had mentioned the fact that the government never seems to be well informed about changes that are taking place in manufacturing. We are continually plagued with the application of taxes for purposes other than that of raising money. With this change we find a tax on windows in the hope that people will curtail the size of windows in their houses as an energy saving measure. I suggest that if we were to adopt the newly designed thermal panes with triple glass we would find they would save more energy in that they are rated with an insulating factor of between R-9 and R-12.
In this field of solar energy and energy saving devices we have been plagued by a lack of knowledge on the part of the department regarding the use of much of this equipment in an experimental way. We are continuing to tax those who want to experiment with various types of energy saving devices such as solar equipment. We write into the bill a provision to reduce the tax on some solar equipment but we keep it on other equipment that may have been used in the past for air conditioning and is therefore more of an energy using device than energy saving. As the industry changes, heat pumps and things of that nature may turn out to be energy saving devices when used in some installations rather than energy wasting.
[DOT]	(1410)
It is probably safe to say that since the last war we have been receiving letters from the jewellery industry which has been plagued with exceptionally high taxes. There was a luxury tax on jewellery during the war as well as other taxes and in many ways that has continued. The 10 per cent tax added to the 12 per cent tax makes it a very heavily taxed industry. For those manufacturers who make money, there is an additional 40 per cent income tax.
The industry has pointed out to the minister that there is a demand for jewellery in Canada. This government is often accused of being opposed to matrimony; they have been opposed to the marriage structure per se. My colleague would point out very readily that a spouse in this country is an attachment that costs money, not one that provides money. An old age pensioner with a spouse obviously does not receive as much pension and allowances as two people just living together.
The jewellery industry is interested in the matrimonial business but few people are buying jewellery. The industry is subject to a sizeable tax which realizes only a small amount of money. Few young people in this country have not thought of buying jewellery, mostly in connection with a wife to be or a wife already acquired, so much of the industry is involved with matrimony.
About 250 jewellery companies employ 5,600 production workers and 1,500 salaried workers. It is 90 to 95 per cent
March 23, 1979

Canadian-owned and most of the small, private companies operate in both the wholesale and retail markets. The distribution arm of the industry employs about 11,000 people.
This small industry is subject to an excise tax of 10 per cent on top of the 12 per cent federal sales tax. As well, there is the manufacturing tax and all the other taxes. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) has pointed out that between $2 million and $4 million worth of jeweOery is smuggled into this country. That is almost equal to the drug industry. The industry is opposed to smuggling because, first of all, it gives it a bad name and, second, it does not allow it the total business which would be available without smuggled gold and silver.
I am interested in seeing the consumption of gold, whether in gold bullion coins or jewellery, climb to the point that it will ensure the operation of gold mines in Kirkland Lake. For that reason I should like to see smuggling stopped and our own jewellery industry enjoy the increased business. For every job in gold mining, 14 secondary jobs are created.
I do not know whether the minister will do anything about this in the future, indeed, I do not know if he is going to be the minister in the future, but I should like whoever is minister to give consideration to this industry. It is a long time since the last war and the luxury tax on jewellery should be eliminated by now.
When people travel to other countries, they sometimes receive gifts they do not know the value of and get into trouble with the law when they try to bring them home. They are often law abiding people who just do not understand all these taxes.
We would like to finish this bill today, Mr. Speaker, and clear the platter of all those things that have been hanging around for some time.
I would be remiss if I did not join with those people who have been diligent in examining the changes made in this bill which, in effect, rewrite the rules of the House. Quite often our rules are modified in light of changes that take place, with the object of attaining more efficiency and assuring the protection of members. For the past 20 years each parliament has lasted about two and a half years and it is quite possible the changes will be more frequent. Since most members cannot participate in this type of debate, it therefore seems to me it is an abuse for the government to write a change in the rules of the House into legislation. We have seen four or five such bills.
I have some advice that I can give to the next minister of justice. I say to him fire whoever it is in the department that is writing these bills. Otherwise our Standing Orders will be rewritten but there will be no need for them; instead our Standing Orders will be coming from legislation and every time we look at the legislation we will find a different set of Standing Orders under which we must operate.
The rules of parliament, the precedents of Beauchesne, Knowles, May and others who have established them in years gone by have been written after conditions have developed that
Excise Tax Act
have made it advantageous for people to make the changes. These changes are always made with someone saying: "Do not go too far; we still want some rights". Perhaps they should be curtailed but people still want to know what their rights are. Surely even the majority should sympathize with that position. In a democracy no one can say before an election which party will be the government or which party will be the opposition. The rules are written in fairness to both sides.
I would like to see the minister remove everything from clause 16 on. There is absolutely no reason why clause 16 or anything after that should be there. If you want to table the report in parliament, that is fine, but I do not think even that is an absolute necessity. What will we be appealing, Mr. Speaker? We will be appealing the landing tax, the tax on solar energy and tax structures, I suppose even to the extent of whether we like them. If we do not like them, we can change government and the new government will put in different ones.
If it is stated in the bill that 50 members must agree it should be done, it is not a change in the constitution. It is not a major change in the democratic process of the nation. It is not a matter of whether Quebec can secede from the country or of getting rid of the Senate. This is a tax matter. We are saying that 50 members must sign for an appeal. Sometimes it would be impossible to find 50 members in opposition. I can remember when the Liberal party did not have 50 members. Even if they all signed the document, nothing would happen. But they figured they were an important bloc of the day. They considered that they were so important, even with only 50 of them, that they should be the government.
There is absolutely no need for a motion of this kind to be written into a bill. If we want any legislation in parliament to be subject to appeal, we should write a section into the Standing Orders, and we would be able to appeal in an orderly way. That has not been done because members of parliament would not agree. Maybe there are 20, 30, 40 or 50 members here today, and perhaps there were 50 members here yesterday, but it is not likely that 50 members will look at the clause or give any consideration to it. A vote will be taken at the end and the members will be called in, they will not have the faintest notion about this section, but they will pass it.
I suggest that when we write into bills limits for debate, limits for appeals, and limitation on the time in which appeals can be made in allowing parliament to consider any piece of legislation, that is changing the law. That is making a new rule book, Mr. Speaker. We do not have an umpire to make a decision. We do not ask the Speaker of the day to be the umpire. We make the rules and the Standing Orders and establish how they are to be enforced.
Under this piece of legislation and under the last two or three pieces of legislation that we have passed there has been a structure allowing for closure, closure long before a debate is held and closure long before anyone thinks about whether there is any reason closure should apply. It is possible that one day there will be a government with such a small minority there will be a question about closure. On the other hand, it is possible that a government will be elected with so large a

March 23, 1979
Excise Tax Act
majority that they would not consider dignifying closure with making the motion.
There are many things that may happen within the competence of the Standing Orders, the procedures and the precedents that have been established by the British parliament over the last five hundred years and by the Canadian parliament in its one hundredth year. All these precedents have a purpose. They were designed to maintain democracy, allowing a government to govern and the opposition to make their position known and to be prepared to form the government if that is necessary.	'
I firmly believe that this minister is democratic. Some of the ministers who have introduced legislation are not-for instance, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and several other ministers. But I am sure this minister is willing to use the democratic process. He is well aware that there are disadvantages to a democracy. It means you have to hear the other fellow and also that you must listen to him for longer than you want to. But he is also well aware that maybe he will be the other fellow next year or in the future. Therefore he does not want to hamstring the system so that it is inflexible.
It is a disgrace that civil servants who think that they have reached the stage of being untouchable can write this kind of closure legislation and that we are stupid enough to pass it. No member of parliament should support this bill with this kind of a clause in it. In my opinion it would be in the interests of the minister to withdraw clause 16 of the bill when we reach it.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in connection with this particular legislation will be very brief. However, I wish to make a few remarks in the presence of the minister after hearing the excellent speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
I wish to lend support to the proposition put forward by members of the opposition generally with respect to the growing tendency on the part of this government to introduce in various pieces of legislation provisions by which parliament is being downgraded, the rights of individual parliamentarians are being diminished, and there is the process we find creeping into more and more legislation whereby, with respect to legislation before the House, the rights of parliamentarians are determined in advance by way of closure.
I want to remind the minister that we have had this provision brought to our attention in legislation before the House now on three consecutive bills. It is not because of a unique or unusual provision in the bill that is required by the nature of this legislation. A similar provision was included in the referendum bill, a bill dealing with the constitution of this country. The rights of parliamentarians are being stomped upon by this government, ostensibly because it is a matter that will be dealt with only in times of emergency. The bill in fact covers a very wide ambit of constitutional change. The rights of parliamentarians are being curtailed. We are limited in the amount of debate we can have. That goes to the very root of our constitution, the very basis of our country.

The next piece of legislation the government came forward with was the bill dealing with petroleum allocation, the so-called energy bill. What do we find in that legislation? In the event the government determines that we have a perceived or apprehended energy shortage, not a shortage de facto, there is a provision in that bill to limit debate in this House on such emergency to three days.
The next piece of legislation the government brought forward dealt with the Excise Tax Act. As members on this side quite rightly point out, the tendency of this government is to downplay parliament, to diminish the rights of each and every member, including those on the government side. Here we have a similar kind of provision. It has the effect of limiting debate with regard to particular orders filed under clause 15.
I hope and trust the minister will address himself to this provision during the course of committee of the whole. There is a growing concern not only in this House but by editorial writers and indeed the people of Canada that this government has come to the conclusion that the rights of parliament should be curtailed on each and every occasion where it may be inconvenient for the government to explain or to bring a matter before parliament.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is a debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am glad the minister acknowledges the fact that in parliament we will have an opportunity of debating this bill. Do hon. members know what kind of debate the minister is talking about? He is talking about five hours. After redistribution we will have more members in this House, 282. If we take off 24 or 25 for cabinet positions, there will still be a substantial number of backbenchers, approximately the number of independent members we now have, those who are not members of the cabinet. Let us assume there is a matter of some interest to the majority of the members of the House. Divide the number by half and you get how many may possibly participate in the debate.


Mr. Kempling:: Three minutes each.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague says three minutes each. The way this place operates, by the time we went through the various procedures we may possibly get a quick word or possibly only one word from each member. On a matter of substantial importance, debate can be curtailed by this government which has a ridiculous tendency to impose closure on legislation in advance of the debate commencing.
This is not the first time I have spoken on this point. I spoke on the other bills as well. If the government ever finds the time to bring forward the referendum bill, which is of great importance to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) and others, I will speak on that as well.
I spoke on the energy bill with regard to this matter and I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), as I now ask the Minister of Finance, just what criteria-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let's go to the clause.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know the minister is nervous, embarrassed and ashamed of this bill.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to debate it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to debate it too, but I want to make reference to part of the bill which 1 consider to be regressive in terms of parliament. I cannot understand the mentality of the government and the Minister of Finance in bringing forward legislation of this sort and defending it. I bring this to the attention of the minister now so that the minister can think about this and cogitate before we reach the provision in question. I want him to think about what position he will take with regard to this provision. I consider it to be a regressive principle within this bill.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let's go there.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If the minister will acknowledge now that he is prepared to withdraw this provision from the bill, I will be glad to sit down. Is that what the minister is saying? What does he want to do? I want to know whether the minister is prepared to withdraw this provision. If not, maybe he can keep quiet and leave the heckling to his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).
If the minister is the parliamentarian that he holds himself out to be, if he likes, understands and appreciates parliament, he will not have anything to do with this kind of provision in this kind of legislation. I am going to sit down now because I am anxious to see where the minister stands in relation to parliament.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If the minister insists on applauding, I will carry on. I am always encouraged when I get a little applause. This is a serious matter and I want the minister to take it seriously. This kind of provision is creeping into more and more legislation brought forward by this government. It is time for the minister to reverse this tendency and move an amendment in committee of the whole to withdraw this very unfortunate provision in the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
On clause 1-
Excise Tax Act
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could elaborate on this clause. Perhaps he can give us some background as to who is responsible for initiating this clause.
Perhaps at the same time he could attempt to justify his position. How can he agree that the air transportation tax should be almost doubled, particularly during a difficult period of restraint? He is asking Canadians generally to exercise restraint. He is asking labour and industry to exercise restraint. Yet here is a service being provided by the federal government in respect to which the fee is virtually being doubled. The increase certainly far exceeds the rate of inflation in this country, notwithstanding the fact that the rate of inflation is very high.
I am sure the minister heard my remarks yesterday when I read into the record some of the innumerable deficiencies which the Auditor General had noted in his last report in connection with mismanagement, failure to control and cost over-runs for which the Minister of Transport is responsible. The increase in tax represents an attempt to recover those losses, to pay for the waste, the extravagance and the mismanagement which has gone on.
I would also draw attention to the adverse impact this measure would probably have on our tourism account. Yesterday I quoted the government's own report, the recommendations of which run directly counter to government policy. I pointed out that air transportation is a necessity in many of the remote areas in this country, not a luxury. In many cases it is the only mode of travel available and the doubling of the tax will have its greatest impact upon those who rely solely on air transport.
I am sure the minister has been caught in a squeeze. I do not think this is his idea. If it is, I should like him to say so. I think he has been painted into a corner by the Minister of Transport, who has lost control of his department and cannot exercise the kind of management which it needs so badly. It is all very well to talk about user-pay, but the minister tells us that the true principle of user-pay is not being applied. I should like him to elaborate. Is it the intention to attempt to ensure full cost recovery in all cases where government services are provided? The situation now is that the cost of providing man-made facilities and other services relating to the travelling public is the highest in the western world. It is certainly higher here than it is in the United States.
There is at present a dispute going on between Canada and the United States about air fares. Surely in a period of deregulation, Canadians and people generally in North America associate deregulation with cheaper fares. In this case American airlines have been prevented from bringing in cheaper air travel between our two countries. This whole scenario is wrapped up with the cost recovery scheme of the Minister of Transport.
I should like the Minister of Finance to tell us who was the originator of this proposal. Was it he, or was it the Minister of Transport? I believe the hon. gentleman is carrying the can for

March 23, 1979
Excise Tax Act
the Minister of Transport. Does he agree with the statement of the deputy minister of transport who roundly criticized the Auditor General for calling attention to cases of inadequate cost control and poor financial management within the department?
The deputy minister of finance criticized the Auditor General and suggested that he should mind his own business. Yet the Auditor General is the custodian of the public purse; he is the financial caretaker, the watchdog on behalf of Canadians generally. We in this House have lost control over the public purse by reason of the present committee structure and the closure rule. The Auditor General is now the only one equipped to carry out this task, and he has pointed out that the Minister of Transport has mismanaged the affairs of the department-that there has been waste, mismanagement and failure to consult effectively with the users of the services provided.
I should like the Minister of Finance to make his position clear because we are placing ourselves in a strange situation: on one hand we are attempting to redress the imbalance of our tourist account, while on the other we are imposing heavy penalties on the air travelling public.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, the airports are running up operational deficits which the Minister of Transport wants to reduce by increasing the tax which is specifically allocated for the administration of those airports. I am in a difficult position because the hon. member is arguing about the management of the Department of Transport, its philosophy in terms of air operations and so on. I am not the Minister of Transport; I am the Minister of Finance. The hon. member asked me a question and I answer, yes, the Minister of Transport wanted me to increase the tax in order to cope with the problem of the deficit in airport operations.
I will concede that what is proposed represents a high increase. But there will still remain a huge deficit of $123 million in the operation of the airports so the amount which would be raised would certainly not be sufficient to operate the expensive and elaborate system we have established. Of course, when you travel in Canada you have the advantage of the best airports anywhere. We have fine airports in Vancouver, in Winnipeg, in Montreal, at Mirabel, in Halifax and so on. We have a very good system but it is extremely expensive, and in order to pay for part of this operation the Minister of Transport has asked me to increase the tax. The hon. member asked me who was the promoter. It was the Minister of Transport.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Has the minister satisfied himself that cuts could not have been made within the operations of the ministry which would have produced the same amount of money, $72 million, as this tax is expected to generate in the first year of its operation? Further, the Minister of Transport has served notice that landing fees and fees for associated service related to the movement of aircraft are going to increase by six times over the next eight years, at a rate of approximately 30 per cent a year. Is the minister not concerned about the impact this will have on the travelling public

and the impact it could conceivably have of further aggravating our tourist trade deficit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I think at all times the government has to be preoccupied with increases in the cost of many services. I am not aware of any admission by the Minister of Transport that those costs will increase six times in the next ten years.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They will.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If that is the situation, I have the impression that that is too much, and I think we have to make sure that we live within our means. That is one topic I have been talking about since I was president of the treasury board. We have to reduce the level of increase in the expenditures of the federal government. The hon. member cannot deny that the year before I was president of the treasury board the increase in the level of expenditures of government from year to year, 197475, was 25 per cent and that during my tenure I reduced it to around 10 per cent. That was less than the gross national product. However, this is a constant battle we have to keep fighting, and I am pleased that the hon. member subscribes to the principle that we have to control our expenditures.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, the minister obviously is not advised. The officials who are with him at the table apparently are not in a position to advise him. The fact is that with these increased revenues there will be upwards of $90 million in surplus operational revenue for the operation of our 23 major airports. What may or may not be intended is to use the enormous operational surplus to pay off debts for white elephants like Mirabel and Pickering and to make up for the mismanagement and bungling at Calgary. That may very well be. Indeed, it seems quite obvious that that is what is happening. Because of the movement of these funds into a single revolving fund, the minister's colleague, the Minister of Transport, is effectively removing from us in this chamber any real ability to scrutinize the fund and what is being done with it.
Leaving that to one side, the surplus in operational revenue will approach $90 million within the next three to four years. The question of my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville, is whether the minister is satisfied with this type of rip-off of the Canadian traveller, not to mention our capacity to continue to attract tourists to our country to try to offset our account deficit on that side of the ledger. Does the minister not think that this is in fact a rip-off, and is he not prepared to direct himself to the question of whether the generation of operational surpluses of this magnitude is unjustified and uncalled for?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I have explained that the total operation of airports is in a deficit position. The hon. member referred to major airports, but we have to provide some services in isolated areas. Even with this tax increase there will still be a deficit of $123 million.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is a deficit on capital and everything else, not the operational surplus.
March 23, 1979


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is for the total operation. The Minister of Transport appears in other fora. He appears in committes of the House and defends the policies of the Department of Transport. This measure is a move by us to increase a tax. I am not the minister who should be called upon to respond regarding the administration of airports. I have to take full responsibility for this tax increase, but I am not in a position to debate airport operations. I am not the Minister of Transport, nor do I want to be.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking the Minister of Finance to assume responsibility for transport in this country, although God knows he probaby would do a better job than the job being done by his colleague. That is not my point. Surely the Minister of Finance has some responsibility to scrutinize the formal requests which come to him from his colleague to increase their departmental capacity to garner revenues. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about running airports at all. We are talking about whether the generation of a potential surplus from operational revenues at the expense of the travelling Canadian public and tourists is in keeping with practices which are acceptable to the Minister of Finance.
Will we have full user-pay? Will the Minister of Finance direct himself to that simple question? Is he prepared to direct the Minister of Transport to direct VIA Rail to operate cost effectively? Is that what the minister is talking about? Is that what he is trying to tell Canadians? Let him justify with one single reason, if he can, the right of the Minister of Transport on the backs of Canadian air travellers to have an operational surplus upwards of $90 million. As the minister knows, we do not pay the capital cost of operational profits. We never have. This will be an artificial profit to offset, behind the back of parliament, the whims and fancies of an already well demonstrated inadequate Minister of Transport.
There are 101 reasons why the Minister of Transport should resign and go to the Senate along with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There are 101 reasons, and I am citing one $90 million reason. Please! Surely we are entitled to some explanation.
Mr. .Chretien: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has heard that we have a surplus, but we do not have a surplus. After this increase in taxes there will still be a deficit of $123 million in the operation of the airports of Canada. If I accepted the theory of full recovery, the tax increase would have to be threefold. We had to balance that. We decided to reduce the deficit. This tax increase will reduce the tax deficit by $72 million. There will still be $123 million which will have to be paid by the treasury directly from the consolidated revenues of Canada. The hon. member assumes that there will be a slush fund that the Minister of Finance can use, but that is not the case. This will make up just part of the deficit. Canada has a small population, and distances are long. Transportation is quite expensive, and there is no miracle. The money we spend is the money we collect. If we do not collect it one way we have to collect it another way, unless we cut services.
Excise Tax Act
The opposition transport critic argues that the Department of Transport has too many officers and provides too much service and that the minister could have cut even deeper than he did. He can argue that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No. The Auditor General says that, not me.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Nobody has denied the fact that there is a deficit in the operation of our airports. We are not meeting that deficit. We do not want to hurt travellers too much. We do not want to hurt tourists who come here. This is a question of judgment. It is one of the pleasures and responsibilities of the Minister of Finance not to be in agreement at all times with all people. This afternoon I have to increase one tax, but this is the first time in a year and a half that I have increased taxes. I have reduced taxes since I have been Minister of Finance. In the last budget I reduced personal income tax to the tune of $1.5 billion. I reduced sales taxes to the tune of $1.2 billion. It is true that I am now raising $72 million, but I cannot be accused of being a minister who has increased many taxes. The hon. member would like to blame the Minister of Transport for this increase, but by the nature of my job I am responsible for tax increases and I take full responsibility. I never try to wash my hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the increase in the transportation tax for air passengers, the revenues produced will go into a revolving fund to be used for the airport deficit and perhaps to build airports. Clause 1 would allow the conversion of this tax to a user charge, and therefore the House of Commons would not have the authority we have today to discuss such a charge in the committee or in this chamber. The minister will then have the power-as it says here that the cost will go up six times and the Minister of Finance himself said that this is too much, with which I agree-to use this charge to increase the moneys he will get to offset the deficit. My concern here is that as I look at airports across the country, I see overbuilding at a number of airports and underbuilding at some others. I can quote examples of overbuilding, such as at Mirabel which cost $700 million and now has a deficit of $50 million a year, and at Calgary airport which cost $138 million and will probably have large deficits for a number of years. Then we can look at airports like the airport at Fort McMurray, and the Edmonton airport, both of which have the same number of landings as Calgary or Mirabel but are not large enough for the number of people going through them. The people there are hoarded through the airports.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Which airport in Edmonton are you referring to?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The international airport, the only one under federal control. People there are hoarded through in long lines in the basement. The area for people arriving from

March 23, 1979
Excise Tax Act
abroad was built in the times of the old Vanguards with 70 passengers. Now sometimes two 747s land at the same time and people getting off these planes have to line up in rows almost city blocks long, waiting for their turn to get to the customs area. This is not fair to these people.
We are now asking parliament to give the minister authority to change this tax to a user-charge, and therefore parliament will no longer have the authority to question it. I am concerned about this change to the user-charge. What is the reason for it, and what guarantees will parliament have that there will not be overbuilding in some areas and underbuilding in other areas, such as I have outlined?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to the comments of the hon. member. We are discussing of course clauses 14 and 15 dealing with the system as introduced in that legislation to allow the automatic transfer following a debate in the House, because the whole matter could have been done under an order in council, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) suggested that the House should have an opportunity to discuss it under a negative resolution. The whole matter could have been dealt with through an order in council, but the Minister of Transport, being a fine democrat, wanted to give hon. members an opportunity to hold a debate. Apparently, they would rather have left the whole matter in the hands of the Minister of Transport. If the House unanimously agrees that it be done through an order in council, we could discuss the matter at length when we reach clauses 14 and 15.1 was very pleased to see-

-that we were ready to let parliament discuss that for five hours. Apparently now they would prefer not to debate it at all. We are very pleased and consider ourselves fortunate to be debating it on a negative resolution which was not in existence before. I am surprised that both the Conservatives and members of the NDP are so traditionalist in these matters. It is annoying, or perhaps surprising, that I always find myself defending the British system.
In the British House of Commons there are all sorts of regulations permitting bills to be passed in one or two days, allowing time allocation and closure with no problem, but when I want to implement the British tradition, being the good French peasouper that I am, I find those Anglophones opposite opposing me. It is unbelievable. I do not know what is wrong here. I am proud of being the product of bicultural Canada. But let us wait and see what happens when we are on clause 14.


An hon. Member:: Triculture.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Or tricultural Canada, if you prefer. I will be able to debate that provision when we come to that clause.
When the hon. member talks about big airports and overbuilding, I am reminded of the time when I was a backbench member of parliament and was travelling to Edmonton in 1967

because, as the hon. member knows, the hon. member for Vegreville is almost my member of parliament because my family on my mother's side is from there. So we were going to Edmonton in 1967.


An hon. Member:: And they vote Conservative.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think they vote Liberal, but sometimes they find themselves lonesome, just like the Tories in my riding, who feel terrible. So in 1967 I visited the Edmonton airport for the first time and I noticed that nobody used that airport which was some way away from the city; everyone wanted to use the downtown airport. Everyone referred to the international airport at Edmonton as a white elephant. Now we find that it is used a lot. The same thing will happen probably at Mirabel.
When I visited the international airport at Edmonton in 1967, the airport had been empty for the previous ten years and it was the topic of conversation. The bureaucrat who had recommended its creation had some wisdom, but no one at that time realized it. It is probably the same thing with Mirabel. It is probably one of the most efficient airports. In fact it is so efficient that it looks empty because passengers just go through it and are out within minutes.


An hon. Member:: There is nobody there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Russians came to see it. They would like to have the same thing.
With regard to this negative resolution, my friend, who has a funny name for his riding anyway-


An hon. Member:: Wetaskiwin.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will debate the resolution when we reach clause 15, and I hope we will reach it soon.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, the minister, in his usual effervescent manner, has attempted, quite successfully, to diffuse some of the very important issues we are trying to raise.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He gave me the hiccups.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He spoke about his maternal foundations in the constituency of Vegreville.


Mrs. Holt:: I am from Vegreville too.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And now we hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the great distinction of coming from Vegreville also. The only problem is that she was led astray and became involved with the Liberal pack. That is really unfortunate.
The minister, as my colleague from Wetaskiwin pointed out, has referred to the proposal to increase landing fees and other related services six times-that is a fact and the minister can take my word for it because this is common knowledge in air transportation circles and in the Ministry of Transport.
I am surprised when he says that we have the services. They have to be paid for and, if we do not get them here, we get
March 23, 1979

them elsewhere. I am surprised at him taking such a stand. He is an enterprising person and he knows that competition is keen. He is a competitive person, and the fact of the matter is that if charges of this magnitude are going to be imposed, we will clearly be in a very unfavourable position relative to our counterparts.
For example, the basis of the information I have is provided by the Air Transport Association of Canada which, incidentally, represents some 90 per cent or 95 per cent of all airline revenue in Canada. They point out that the landing fees of a DC9-that is landing fees only, not en route service charges, navigational charges, and an assortment of other charges-are approximately $45. At many U.S. points that charge is only $20 to $25. At the end of the eight year program, that charge will be over $200 in Canada, or more than that per passenger in landing fees alone. A Boeing 747 landing at Vancouver from Toronto would be paying about $1,800, or $4.50 per passenger. The same aircraft landing at Kansas City with about the same passenger volume would pay $200, $400 in Chicago, and $800 in Seattle, which is one of the highest charges in the U.S.
When we take that into consideration relative to the impact on our tourist industry, can the minister tell us whether he agrees with the statement in the report of the sector task force on the Canadian tourism industry? It is indicated in that report that the airport user-pay policy makes Canadian air transportation non-competitive with that of the United States and is detrimental to Canadian tourism. The Minister of Finance is in charge of the over-all economy. He is interested in bolstering the dollar. He is interested in revitalizing the economy. Does he agree with that statement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a tax increase, yet we are debating transport policies which are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Transport. Of course I want the tourism deficit to diminish. At the same time we must pay for the services we are providing, which is always the dilemma we face. The hon. member should know that if we do not have any landing fee or any taxes, we will have to collect it in another way. If we do not collect it one way, we will collect it another way. Of course I do not want to increase the $10.7 billion cash requirement this year. I am glad to see the hon. member has the same preoccupation as I on that. I hope he will talk with his leader who has been promising, if his party should form the next government, to cut back taxes to the tune of $6 billion on top of the $10.7 billion deficit which exists at this time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Also we are talking about cutting out waste.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When we provided various cuts, every member opposite double talked about those issues. They rose and asked why we did not give a subsidy for this or why we cut the subsidy for that. Also they asked why we were not increasing a certain subsidy. Of course it is easy when one is a member of the opposition. But because of that double-talking,
Excise Tax Act
hon. members opposite will not have a chance at trying their hand at running the government. Some months ago I thought opposition members had some chance, but they have fumbled it. They became crazy and talked about stimulative deficits. Even the financial critic indicated that it was to be an instant deficit, but I call it a phantom deficit. He indicated that it would be there for a month only. We keep our books for 12 months, so there cannot be a deficit for one month. That is why Conservative members lost their chance at finding the facts. If hon. members have some good facts, they should go before the committee and explain them to the minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have some good facts.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They should give the minister some help. I require the help of hon. members opposite in those fields. In fact, I require the help of everyone. I want to make sure that government expenditure will not increase. I appreciate the good work of the hon. member. He is trying to keep the operation of airports as healthy as possible. But we cannot deny that there is a deficit of $193.7 million in the operation of airports. With the imposition of this tax it will be reduced by $72 million, and I will be left with a deficit of $121 million. If hon. members would like to give me some tips about from where I can get this $121 million, other than cutting programs in the Department of Transport, I would be interested in hearing them. There is nothing I would like to add to the list of people and programs which should be cut in the Department of Transport.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When the minister speaks of stimulative deficits and what not, I should like to remind him that he is four-fifths wrong and one-fifth right. If he is looking for suggestions of areas in which the fat might be cut, or where better operational efficiencies and financial management control can be injected, I invite him to read the report of the Auditor General. The minister is a good friend of the Auditor General. He knows the importance of the Auditor General. He does not have to take any advice from me and we do not have to go to committee.
Just to dwell on that point for a moment, the minister knows well that when we were considering the estimates on transport, we had the minister before the committee for a couple of hours, or three hours at the most. The structure of the committee system does not give us the opportunity to deal with these specific issues and to challenge some of the spending programs of the government. Thank God for the Auditor General! The minister should review the facts clearly. If he did so, he would not be as eager to accept the recommendations of the Department of Transport. If the minister looked at the facts very carefully and analytically, I am sure he would tell the Minister of Transport to clean up his act. That is what we are suggesting the Minister of Finance should do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to participate at this point, but now that the minister has made an unnecessary and rather shoddy political intervention, I felt

March 23, 1979
Excise Tax Act
it was only right to rise and bring the minister back to the provision with which we are dealing.
If the Minister of Finance does not want to answer the question, that is one thing, but I am sure he is anxious to get the bill through. The Minister of Finance should let the committee and the country know whether he agrees with that method of dealing with this overwhelming deficit brought about-and I am not being partisan here-in large part by the bungling and incompetence of the Department of Transport under a succession of Liberal ministers. Can the minister give an assessment as to whether this particular tax is counterproductive in terms of international tourism? Does he think that we have gone far enough in this connection and that we must look in terms of the over-all operation? Perhaps this is one instance in terms of taxation policy in which we will do ourselves more harm by increasing this particular tax rather than having it borne by general taxation.
Does the minister think there is something to be said as to how he justifies the imposition of this tax? The minister admitted that it will have a detrimental effect on tourism and travel in Canada. That is what we want to hear about. We do not want to hear partisan political flim-flam. We want to deal with the bill. We want to get down to the nub of the problem before us. The Minister of Finance should be concerned with fiscal policy. Does he have any ideas respecting what level of taxation will cause a serious problem to Canadian tourism? Is this particular tax getting to the point where it will discourage people from utilizing air services and travelling by air in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, this is of course a matter of judgment. Taxes must be paid in every airport. I am told, for instance, that the tax in the United States is 8 per cent with no ceiling provided and that it can reach a higher amount than in Canada. Moreover, had I not been concerned about the level of taxation for tourism, I might have urged the Minister of Transport to recover the full $193 million, but I did not do so. Of course, this is a matter of judgment.
We decided not to exceed $72 million, and this may be somewhat too high. I would have preferred not to have any increase. I would certainly not have wished for an increase, because I recognize that this can be an additional cost for those who visit Canada. However, I believe that in general, most air travellers in Canada are not tourists. They are for the most part foreigners and businessmen who travel by plane in Canada to conduct their daily business and not necessarily as tourists. This is why we did not exceed $72 million, because I believe that if I had insisted that we should recover the full $193 million, this would have had a very negative effect.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think the answer of the minister underlines one of the problems we have in terms of fiscal and taxation policies. It is obvious the minister has had no input into this particular tax and has not given one bit of consider-

ation to the over-all taxation levels. He is simply the errand boy with respect to this particular taxation. He has not been consulted and is here as the spokesman for the Minister of Transport, saying that in fact this particular provision has nothing whatever to do with whether we are going to have a deficit. He simply carries out the orders of the Minister of Transport and that minister has his own little theory about the user having to pay.


An hon. Member:: And he smiles.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, physiognomy was the term used in respect of the Minister of Transport who has the ability to smile. I simply say this, without smiling at all, that it is an interesting admission the minister has now made that, as far as he is concerned, he has little control over the level of taxation or this element of taxation by the government, and he is simply here as an errand boy to carry out the philosophy of user-pay which has been imposed as a burden on him by the Minister of Transport. It is interesting to note that the minister feels this has nothing to do with taxation, but results from the Minister of Transport's theory which will be inflicted upon all the people of Canada who use the transportation facilities of this country. Those are the people who will bear the burden of this philosophy. It should be remembered, no matter what kind of rhetoric the minister may indulge in during the course of the election campaign, that this is the policy of this government. I think I have made my point.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Consumption or sales tax of nine per cent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I think we have reached page 4 of the bill and that clause which states:
There shall be imposed, levied and collected a consumption or sales tax of nine per cent on the sale price of all goods-
This represents a reduction in the sales tax from 12 per cent to 9 per cent, which we on this side of the House welcome. However, we on this side of the House have frequently raised points regarding the application of this tax in respect of stock in the hands of a dealer as inventory, on which the dealer has been forced to pay the tax at the higher level and must therefore absorb the 3 per cent differential. This has amounted in many cases to a great deal of money and has imposed severe hardships on the dealer, particularly small dealers caught in the position of having rather large inventories.
It is interesting to note that in the ways and means motion tabled in the House on the evening of the presentation of the budget it was made clear that the new rate will apply to sales by manufacturers and licensed wholesalers on goods sold or
March 23, 1979

delivered to purchasers and on goods imported into Canada or taken out of warehouse for consumption after November 16, 1978, and that the reduction in the general rate does not have a termination date. That statement generally will be interpreted as meaning when the product is sold to the retail customer, and that is the point with which we take issue.
There are precedents to show that when sales or excise taxes have previously been reduced or removed, funds have been reimbursed to dealers with inventories or stock on hand at the time. I believe there was a precedent in 1958, another in 1974, and it seems to me there was another in 1961 when an excise tax was removed. Inventories in the hands of dealers at the time were subject to remission by the Government of Canada.
We believe the application of this particular measure is very harsh on some dealers, particularly dealers in automobiles, large industrial equipment dealers, dealers handling refrigerators and a host of other items. I do not think the Minister of Finance, being a great supporter of small business and small enterprise, and a believer in the private enterprise system and in the importance of small enterprise to this country, would think otherwise than that a remission should be due and forthcoming to those people who have been left with inventories on hand at the time of the introduction of the budget.
With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I should like to introduce an amendment as follows:
That clause 4 of Bill C-38 be amended by striking out line 39 on page 4, substituting therefor the following:
"Goods which had not by November 16, 1978, been delivered to the final
retail purchaser."
I have this amendment in both official languages and I will make copies available to members on the government side.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I have written many letters in this regard. I have a great deal of sympathy for the suggestion by the hon. member. We have reduced the tax on almost all items taxable in many fields and it would have been almost impossible for the government to reimburse everyone affected. I have recognized the situation in the letters I have written to automobile dealers, and they are the ones who have raised the most flak. I have been in touch with them and have received some communications. We felt that if we did this for the automobile dealers we would have to do it for everybody else. When we did this previously it was in respect of one exceptional case when there was a reduction on one item, namely, trucks. That was easy because it was easily definable and there was no other sector involved. Sometimes we must have rough justice when a variety of items are involved. We have to keep everybody under the same umbrella in the same circumstances. In these circumstances every aspect of the tax is reduced from 12 per cent to 9 per cent and, unfortunately, it is not possible to make a distinction.
I appreciate the efforts of the hon. member, but I cannot accept this proposition which would in effect increase the deficit of the government by some $351 million. I am sure the hon. member will be shocked to find that he might be personally responsible for increasing the deficit to the tune of $351
Excise Tax Act
million. I had to give him that explanation and I am sure he did not think it would involve so much money. Under the present circumstances I cannot accept the amendment, a move which would cost the treasury more than $351 million.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, in attempting to justify or explain his position, surely the minister is not telling us that he expects the poor dealers to pay the 3 per cent tax differential. Surely he is not suggesting that they should pay that 3 per cent, but that is exactly what is happening. Having regard to automobile dealers, when the tax was reduced the retail price was reduced automatically, and the dealer who was stuck with the product on his lot had to reduce his price accordingly. Surely he is not suggesting they should pay the $350 million.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, by this time I think most of the dealers will have sold their inventory, otherwise they would be in bad shape. There is always a problem from one day to the other when the tax system is changed. In previous budgets that raised taxes, those people who already had inventory paid less tax than those who bought later, but they never suggested that they would make too much money and should return the money to the government. When taxes were increased the person who had goods before the budget made a profit through having paid less taxes on them.
It is too late now. The budget was presented on November 16 and the inventory has probably been depleted by this time. We cannot make a distinction between car dealers and other dealers. If we were to accept this proposition it would cost the treasury $350 million. It would be irresponsible to add that much to the deficit of the government.


William James Kempling: Mr. Chairman, I have a few things to say about this provision. The minister knew when the motion was put in the budget that this was going to cost the treasury $350 million. New automobile models had just been introduced, so surely the officials knew inventories were at a high level in anticipation of Christmas sales. I say this was a cynical move. The ministry knew this $350 million would be swallowed by the retailers. Some of the large ones can write it off through taxes, but the small and medium-sized retailers had to swallow a good portion of it, and so it is a direct loss to them. I say the minister and his officials were totally irresponsible and they should be censured for acting in such a cynical way. I see some of the officials at the table smiling; they would smile on the other side of their faces if they were in the business.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I want to add a few words. I suggest the government was most incompetent and irresponsible. If it was the intention not to allow dealers to take advantage of the reduction in tax on the stock on hand, then it was a cynical move and a burden on hundreds and thousands of dealers across Canada.
There is some ambiguity in the provision covering this proposal in the ways and means motion. The part dealing with the general sales tax reduction states that the new rates will apply to sales by manufacturers and all licensed wholesalers on

March 23, 1979
Excise Tax Act
goods that are sold or delivered to the purchaser as well as goods imported into Canada or taken out of a warehouse for consumption after November 16, 1978. To the uneducated eye that provision means that the dealer could have the benefit of the reduction on stock on hand. That is in the publication put out by the minister as an explanation of the ways and means motion. When clarification was sought by the thousands of dealers upon whom a great financial burden is imposed they were told that a bill would be introduced which would specify that the provision does not apply to the stock on hand at the time of the budget.
I want to support the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville. It reflects what appears to have been the minister's intention at the time of the budget. Perhaps the problem arose as a result of an oversight on the minister's part, but if he had the honesty and the courage to stand up and admit that he was wrong, we could at least dismiss it as another instance of incompetence. I would like to know what the minister feels about the burden he has placed upon the hundreds and thousands of dealers, small businessmen and taxpayers in this country, who have been severely punished through this incompetent provision. I strongly support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to rise on a point of order. You could perhaps see if the amendment is in order, because indeed it is not covered by the ways and means motion. Therefore the motion may not be in order in its present form, but I will give you a few minutes to think about this. I would like you to look at this question of procedure. As for the substance, I would like to say-
[English\
The hon. member referred to the hundreds of thousands. There are not hundreds of thousands of car dealers in Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hundreds and thousands.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Tens of thousands.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Or tens of thousands. There are about three or four thousand.
I should like to make two points, Mr. Chairman. Some years ago we reduced the sales tax on building materials from 11 per cent to 5 per cent in exactly the same way. In one day the tax went from 11 per cent to 5 per cent and no one was reimbursed.
Second, I am not an expert on how car dealers operate, but I know there was a shift in price because of the models and many of the inventory-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are absolutely wrong.


William James Kempling: That is wrong.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Now the opposition seems to argue that I should not have cut taxes. When the tax is changed from day one to day two, the situation is just the same as if the

electricity costs for the garage went up. In that case they do not go to the municipality and ask to be reimbursed. When there are other cost increases from day one to day two, that is part of the system. I think some of the costs can be absorbed. I know of dealers who had some special deals with the industry because of their inventory. They had to absorb some part of the cost in the inventory they held, but if it stimulates demand then they can get it back through the number of cars sold because the tax is somewhat lower. The theory is that if taxes are reduced somewhat, the number of sales increases.
The Chair can look into the procedural point, and perhaps the best way to dispose of it is to face the reality that we cannot afford to lose $350 million. We knew that, and I faced the flak. I replied to the 300 letters I received quite candidly and frankly saying I could not do anything. Those correspondents accepted that better than hon. members opposite.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. Perhaps before continuing we should formally propose the amendment. In answer to the concern an hon. member had as to the acceptability of the amendment, in my opinion procedurally it is quite acceptable. There are many provisions for that in Beauchesne's fifth edition at citations Nos. 526 and 527 where it says that reductions can be made in committee so long as the existing tax is not increased. Therefore, the amendment is acceptable. The question is on the amendment, moved by Mr. Mazankowski:
That Bill C-38 be amended by striking out line 39 on page four, and substituting therefor the following:
"Goods which had not by November 16, 1978, been delivered to the final
retail purchaser."


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister realizes that sometimes repentance is good for the soul. There is still time for him to repent because of the error, and perhaps gross misjudgment, he has made. I make this statement with regard to the timing of the proposed taxation. Perhaps the tax should have been changed to coincide with the change in models, namely, from one model year to another. This does not necessarily apply only to the automobile industry, it applies through the whole system including such things as fridges, stoves, etc.
New models usually come on the market in the months of August, September and October. If the government, and the minister, had chosen that period of time to make the change, there would not have been that high inventory on tap with which these small dealers were caught.
I want to explain to the minister something of which he may not be aware. Canada relies to a great deal for its financial stability on the small towns across the nation. I am speaking of small towns with populations of 6,000, 5,000, 4,000 and less. It was the dealers in these small towns who were caught in the middle by the change in taxation at that time of the year. In many cases they have nothing to say as to the number of cars or other products they have on tap at that time. Companies send out products as soon as they are available. It is possible that orders had been placed a year previously. These dealers
March 23, 1979

were then caught with a high inventory of new models. If the minister can see his way clear to make some adjustment to these people, it will be of real benefit to the small business people who form the backbone of the Canadian economy.
I realize that dealers in large centres can absorb this loss much better than in smaller centres. It is the smaller dealers in small centres who are caught. I hope the minister will repent and give some consideration to this request. I would ask him to be fair to these people who are hurt so badly by the timing of his legislation.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, I enter this debate because I come from a small riding with 40 small communities, all of which have two or three small dealerships in each community. I have received letters from each one. I suppose it would take me 15 minutes to put them all on the record. I will not do that but I want to be sure the minister understands that there are communities in this country which have dealerships in them run by people who are not rich. These people operate small businesses. Total income for the year for these people is possibly $15,000 to $20,000 on which their families must live. Because of this decrease in tax at a time when their inventories were large, many of those dealers have told me privately that they have lost between $6,000 to $10,000 this year.
I have a letter from an international truck dealer in which it is mentioned that because of the lowering in tax there is a difference of about $1,800 on one unit. If he has 10 units on his lot, although at the time I think he had six or seven units, you can understand the kind of loss he would face in his income.
This amendment asks that consideration be given to those dealers who had units on the lot in stock before November 16, 1978. One of the dealers said:
The problem relates to the removal of federal sales tax on trucks of 16000 G.V.W. and larger as announced in last week's budget.
It is my understanding that the tax removal only applies to those units manufactured after the budget date. You will realize that dealers having large inventories will stand to lose considerable by having to absorb the amount of tax. It is my considered opinion that all units unsold and dealers inventory should be exempted.
This is exactly what this amendment does.
I have another letter from a small dealership in the city of Wetaskiwin. He says:
I would like to go on record that in no way can the dealer be expected to absorb the costs of this tax. You can be sure the customer will be insisting on a rebate and rightly so, but not at the expense of the dealer.
Consumers who visit a dealer following the tax decrease mention car prices should drop between $300 to $500. They would look at various cars and ask the dealer if he had knocked down the price. In order to keep his customers the dealer had to answer, "Yes, because of the budget last night the price of vehicles has dropped". But he had to refer to the 10 or 20 vehicles he had on his lot and say; "I am sorry, you will have to buy one of these cars in stock at the old price until I get rid of this stock." In view of that, the prospective purchaser would go to Edmonton or perhaps another larger centre where a dealer sells thousands of cars per year. These
Excise Tax Act
larger dealers can put any loss sustained over a much greater volume. The loss does not harm them in the same way it does a smaller dealer.
The minister should show some compassion to the small dealers and accept the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, the minister in the course of his reply clearly misunderstood what I had been talking about. I said hundreds and thousands. The minister is trying to argue what is a very weak case for him on this particular provision. I am satisfied the minister came into the budge with a statement, realized his error afterwards, and has had to backtrack and make explanations ever since when he realized the full implication of the provision. I wish the minister would get up and admit that that was the case.
The minister tried to suggest that we are only dealing with car dealers. I have to concede that car dealers are an example of independent Canadian businessmen who are most seriously affected by this particular revision. These businessmen have inventories of equipment and goods to be sold to the public, worth quite a substantial amount of money. Naturally people in that particular industry are the ones who will feel the pinch of this rather inept dealing on the part of the federal government with respect to reduction of tax. We are not just talking about car dealers. I hope everyone understands that. We are dealing with retailers of every description who carry goods to which the manufacturers sales tax applies.
Budget night was a great night for the minister with the red rose in his lapel, the new shoes, and his hair combed. It was a great television production. I recall it vividly. He was surrounded by his sycophants who applauded every time the minister raised his hand to give the signal. A lot of people made the mistake of believing the minister when he said there would be a 3 per cent reduction.
I have learned never to argue with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, not because she is right but because it is just too much trouble. She is a good friend of mine. I will not say more because I know she does not want to interrupt the thrust of my argument.
When the minister makes a presentation in terms of budgetary matters, it is extremely serious when he conveys an impression to Canadians, including consumers and dealers, that a particular tax provision will become effective on the date of the budget. If the minister understood this all along, he should have clarified it in the course of his remarks, indicating that it would not take effect until some time down the road. The implication in the budget papers and the general statement left a distinct and clear impression.
I pointed out the provision in the budget papers, that this would apply effective that date on all sales which took place after the budget was brought down. The parliamentary secretary agrees with me. I appreciate that because the minister would not do it.

March 23, 1979
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Martin:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was not agreeing. In the context the hon. member was assuming, I was merely making it clear by nodding my head that the minister did indeed in his budget speech make it quite clear, and he has asked me to give notice that no claims will be entertained for refunds of tax in respect of goods on which the 12 per cent tax has been paid. That was in the budget speech of the minister on November 16. It was made abundantly clear there would not be rebates for inventories on hand.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That's flim-flam.


Alan Gray Martin: That is standard practice with increases and decreases.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have to agree with my colleague from Vegreville. It falls in the category of flim-flam. It is the opposite to the truth. If a legal expert reads the documents put out with the budget papers, the notice of ways and means motion and so on, he can come to only one conclusion. I quote from the budget papers:
The new rate will apply to sales by manufacturers and licensed wholesalers on goods sold or delivered to the purchaser, and on goods imported into Canada or taken out of warehouse for consumption, after November 16, 1978.
It is plain and simple. It says everything. However, we find later that it does not apply to sales by manufacturers to dealers after November 16. We have been talking about car dealerships. A car dealership is classed as a licensed wholesaler. Any car dealer would have no difficulty in concluding that it would apply to sales made after that date.


Alan Gray Martin: By the manufacturer.


Mr. Elnatyshyn:: By the manufacturer and licensed wholesaler. I am talking about dealers generally.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: You are always wrong.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister says I am never on the side of wrong. That is the distinction. I want to hear the parliamentary secretary explain himself out of this. There has been some great confusion. The parliamentary secretary cannot dispute that on the basis of the volume of mail received by members of parliament regarding this provision. I know there are many dealers in his constituency who are very upset about this provision. I am sure if at all possible the parliamentary secretary would vote for the amendment put forward by my colleague from Vegreville.


Alan Gray Martin: I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar is quoting from page 22 of the document "Notice of Ways and Means Motions". It is important to read the two paragraphs that pertain. The hon. member is referring to sales by manufacturers, and yet the problem that was raised earlier by the hon. member for Vegreville and others relates to the problem faced by retailers. The paragraph from which the hon. member was quoting reads:
The new rate will apply to sales by manufacturers and licensed wholesalers on goods sold or delivered to the purchaser, and on goods imported into Canada or taken out of warehouse of consumption, after November 16, 1978.

A further paragraph in that same section reads:
In accordance with standard practice, no claims will be entertained for refunds of tax in respect of inventories of goods on which the 12 per cent tax has already been paid.
I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is aware that the tax becomes payable when the goods leave the manufacturer's shop. The tax has obviously been paid by retailers on the stock they have on hand. It is made abundantly clear there will be no consideration of a claim on their part covering those inventories on which a higher rate of tax has already been paid. That is clear as a bell to all of us. I am sure it will be clear to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar as he applies his expertise and takes a closer look at it.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I am in full support of the amendment moved by my colleague. I appreciate that it has been recognized as constitutional by the Chair. The parliamentary secretary made a statement that intrigued me, that it was according to usual or standard practice. I did not think this government was bound in any way by what is standard practice because, with regard to the operations of this House, it has departed so far from the standard practices and principles of the House that we hardly recognize them any more. I could explain that if I had the time.
Progress reported.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Order.\nAnd there being only 18 members present, including Mr. Speaker, the names were taken down and the House adjourned, without question put, at 4.30 p.m.', 'Monday, March 26, 1979']
Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 

Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues very much. I have the distinct honour to present the second and third reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 23, 1979


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, and private bills.
I might draw the attention of the House to the fact that the first three items on the order paper under private members' business, notices of motions, were called and allowed to stand at the request of the government, on March 19, 1979. In accordance with the ruling of the Chair on December 5, 1977, and in conformity with Standing Orders 19(4) and 49(1) these items can be stood a second time only by unanimous consent. If unanimous consent is not forthcoming, they will be dropped from the order paper.


Mr. Herbert:: To save time, Mr. Speaker, I will put my remarks into one package. Each member is allowed to put on the order paper one notice of motion at the start of a session and there is a draw for the order in which the motions are listed. These motions were put on the order paper on October 27 last year in the order of the draw. If members are serious they should be prepared to proceed with their motions when they are called. It is for that reason, and because leaving motions on the order paper makes it confusing for other members who are not then aware of which motion should be called on any particular day, that the first three motions on the order paper which are not to be proceeded with should be dropped today.
Furthermore, the following motions-and maybe I am moving a little ahead of the parliamentary secretary-Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27 which also are going to be passed over today-should be listed as having been called for the first time, in other words, allowed to stand at the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I gather from the hon. member's remarks that the first three items will be dropped as I have just mentioned. Therefore, items Nos. 7, 9 and 19 stood at the request of the government will drop. Further, as notified by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), items Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27 will stand at the request of the government.


DEPARTMENTS AND FEDERAL AGENCIES OF NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing one address with one postal code for all federal
Postal Code
government departments and agencies in the cities of Ottawa and Hull and in the National Capital Region, namely:
Department or agency,
National Capital Region,
Ottawa-Hull,
Postal Code,
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the contents of this motion might have been dealt with in another way, but I feel I have a duty to put this motion before the House to allow the government to consider the initiative referred to in the notice. There is no need to explain that a number of departments having moved to Hull, there seems to be some confusion within departments as to their postal addresses.
I attempted for a few years to awake departmental awareness to this, and it seems this was not one of their priorities. Confusion ensued and today, looking at the postal address of some federal department buildings, we find addresses such as Northern Affairs, Terrasses Chaudiere, Ottawa, Ontario with an Ottawa postal code. It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that Terrasses Chaudiere are located in Hull, Quebec, rather than Ottawa, Ontario. The answer I got was that naturally the postal code was an Ontario one because, as you know, postal codes are allocated by provinces.
My point is, Mr. Speaker, that for 50 years the good citizens of my constituency, Hull area, have been waging an uphill fight since 1917 to get their fair share of the moneys spent within the National Capital Region. I do not say this to be critical. I simply want to emphasize the problem we are now facing to present a reoccurrence of such a situation in the future and to avoid offending people and municipalities within the National Captial Region.
I am well aware that this is a new development and that the bureaucracy has perhaps not had the time to get used to life on the other side of the river. However, I believe that the government could have shown more foresight and provided a single postal code for the National Capital Region. This could have included all municipalities within this area. As a matter of fact, its boundaries are described in a document which provides for the Act on the National Capital Commission. I believe that this would enhance the pride of people who live in the national capital and I also believe that it would reflect the sense of belonging to the National Capital Region of all those who live on both sides of the river. We must not forget that the Hull area has been part of the National Capital Region for a long time. I therefore believe that we are entitled to the same privileges.
I know that it may be because of a historical accident that Ottawa was chosen by Queen Victoria in 1857 to be the capital of Canada. We must however recognize, as the premiers did in 1969 in Toronto, that the region of the national capital on both sides of the river makes up the real national capital of Canada. It is with this in mind, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
March 23, 1979
Postal Code
Speaker, that I ask the House to agree to this motion, which I am sure does not call for a lot of speeches and which would please people on both sides of the river.
Some may object to this and say: Of course, the postal code is an Ontario postal code and Ottawa is in Ontario. I know all that. However, I do not like the idea of an Ontario postal code being used on the Quebec side for federal departments because the federal government, Mr. Speaker, does not belong any more to the people of Ontario than to the people of Quebec.
The federal government represents Canada as a whole and the National Capital Region is supposed to represent what Canada should represent. This is why Queen Victoria, when she chose the Ottawa area as the capital of the Province of Canada, as it was called at the time, because of its central position, between Upper and Lower Canada, and because it reflected the two major ethnic groups of that new country. Furthermore, the policy of the government has always been to encourage acceptance by every Canadian of the whole area as the capital of the country. This is my request, Mr. Speaker. I know that hon. members will support everything that is done in the National Capital Region, as they did for many years. I think that if we do not do this simple thing, it might create some problems which we would not like to discuss. I think that it is an administrative issue and that it can be easily done since the National Capital Region is unique. Not only is it unique in Canada, but considering everything that has been accomplished in the capital and that have been paid for by all Canadians, it reflects the origin and the spirit of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to draw your attention to some anomalies in the National Capital Region which might be corrected very simply. I refer particularly to various administrative decisions that approach stupidity. For instance, when I heard recently about the moving of the manpower centre in Place du Portage. That Manpower Centre would be moved elsewhere, in the new city core, on St. Joseph Boulevard, but the building not being completely finished it would be moved temporarily in some sort of dead-end in the building on Fontaine Street where traffic is very light, where people normally going to work do not have to go by, basically very far from any traffic.
I think the Manpower Centre should be located in the heart of the city where people pass by or can go in every day as in the case of all other large Manpower Centres in Canada. I find that disastrously stupid and I say that in this case at the Manpower Centre the decision is made by Montreal because being in the province of Quebec even if you see parliament and the federal buildings every day, Montreal is the place where the decisions are made in this case, namely the Manpower Centre.
I hope we can make the civil servants taking those decisions aware of that so as not to cause any prejudice to the people in the National Capital Region.
I think we have suffered enough for years and are still suffering from overgovernment, we are suffering enough from overtaxation, I hope that federal government through its bureaucracy by the means we can use will stop causing us prejudices, at least we will have a few prejudices less to suffer. I also heard all sorts of rumours, Mr. Speaker. I am told the Government Printing Office is being abolished. I find it quite odd that the printing of the debates and everything that comes under the House of Commons should be done here in Ottawa on Wellington Street in the Metropolitan building.
So I do not understand why things like that are done as that is taking away employees from the Government Printing Office itself. They are being brought on Ottawa's side and the others are told: In a few years, you will not have much to do because parliament as such will take over the distribution and the printing of its material.
In my opinion, the Canadian Government Printing Office certainly has specific functions to fulfil. One of those is undoubtedly to print what parliamentarians thrive on day after day, the literature with which hon. members provide us and the committee reports. I find it very funny that, living in the National Capital Region, we often find that decisions seem to have been taken without consulting one department or another. It might be a good idea to be more orderly to avoid causing any detriment to anyone. The postal code is one of those. It would be so easy to reach an agreement with the provinces of Quebec and Ontario on a new form of postal code which would satisfy everyone.
If Ottawa is displeased that its name is linked to Hull, and if Hull is displeased that its name is linked to Ottawa, we can easily find a compromise and speak of the National Capital Region of Canada. It would be much simpler to have a distinct code which would be neither a Quebec nor an Ontario code, but a special code for buildings located within the National Capital Region. This would extend beyond Hull to other municipalities, towns and cities where federal government buildings are located.
I think I have summarized briefly what I wanted to say. I felt it my duty to bring this important matter to the attention of the House and urge our leaders to act through the bureaucracy. We often do not have much to say in the way the bureaucracy does things because, as the saying goes, members of parliament move on, the bureaucracy remains. We sometime have the feeling that some people spend their time seeking solutions to simple problems and, in the process, complicate them to an extraordinary degree. That is therefore why, in the name of simplicity, in the name of Canadian unity, and in the name of all my constituents in the national capital, I urge hon. members to provide a greater degree of autonomy because this is the beginning of something bigger.

March 23, 1979

Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Region is in the process of losing all it has gained since 1867, for the simple reason that the powers of the federal government in the capital of Canada are very limited. If that trend continues, Parliament Hill will soon be just about the only place where the federal government will have a say. That, to my mind, is inconceivable because by building up the area on both sides of the river the federal government wanted specifically to develop a distinctive region where all Canadians might see the achievements of this country, in a given spot, from every point of view, whether it be culture, administration, museums or anything else. I am sure my hon. colleagues will avoid, by rejecting this motion, having all those small powers, that are ours and those of the federal government, disappear further. That is why by accepting this motion I am sure we will continue to keep or to indicate that we want to see the federal government keep a bit more autonomy, that autonomy which is now gradually being eroded, and those powers it was intended to have in 1867. I do not have to give a history lesson, however it was in 1857 that Queen Victoria decided to make Ottawa the capital of Canada. She did not say the capital of Canada but the capital of the Province of Canada which was the union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, considering that Ottawa as such would have some powers, for example the same powers as the provinces because it was the capital of the Province of Canada. Some unforeseen historical events occurred, the Fathers of Confederation divided Canada into provinces and the capital of Canada was divided in two without any power, nor any jurisdiction over its development, over road construction or over education, because the Queen had indirectly given those powers to the capital of Canada at the time, except that it is reported in our history that apparently nobody ever realized it.
Postal Code
Anyhow, I think it was my duty to point out to this august assembly that anomaly which I hope will never occur again. Each and every one of us is proud of his or her identity, and I am sure that a member from one riding would not want to be mistaken for a member from another riding. We are proud of what we have, we are very proud to belong to the National Capital Region. Since 1917, the people from western Quebec have been very attached to the federal government, which has been our bread and butter and will continue to be so.
In view of all the reasons I mentioned, I trust that hon. members will quickly adopt this motion which will give the same identity to all those who live in the National Capital Region. And if it is adopted, we will be able to say, as some visitors have shouted from one side then the other: Long live the free capital region of Canada!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) decided today to cancel two or three of my colleagues' motions on the order paper, and in view of the fact that there is no quorum in the House, I move that this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I will ask the Clerk Assistant to count the members present in the House.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, this is a real shame. It is a disgrace because there are only two members of the opposition present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.
And there being only 18 members present, including Mr. Speaker, the names were taken down and the House adjourned, without question put, at 4.30 p.m.

Monday, March 26, 1979