1980-06-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, in view of the importance of the events taking place in another part of the city today, 1 should like to move, seconded by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette), the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That this House welcomes the provincial first ministers to the national capital, and extends to them and to the Prime Minister its best wishes for productive discussions and a hopeful beginning to the process of constitutional reform.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the recent arrest and detention of Dr. C. M. Kao, General Secretary of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, who, along with other church officials, has been placed in solitary confinement without public trial, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Government of Canada express its concern about this violation of human rights-the summary arrest and subsequent solitary confinement of Dr. C. M. Kao, General Secretary of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan-to all Canadian companies transacting business in Taiwan so that they, in turn, may
impress upon their trading partners in Taiwan the urgency that Canadians feel for the release of these persons; and that a similar concern be conveyed to those governments which still maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, so that Canada's views can be brought directly to the attention of the government of Taiwan.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, the subject matter of this motion grows more urgent as time goes on, and I hope this is the day the House will agree to it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House calls on the government to recognize the contribution that women in their homes make to our economy, and as a minimum to recognize this contribution by establishing pension equality, including the equivalent of the Canada Pension Plan for women whose work is in their homes, equal pension rights for all women between the ages of 60 and 65 regardless of marital status, increasing the pensions paid to widows under various government plans to at least 75 per cent, and the continuing payment of pensions granted to widows regardless of any subsequent change in marital status.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity regarding the proposal of the Aluminum Company of Canada to complete its industrial power generating capacity in British Columbia under an agreement and licence that was issued 30 years ago. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the government be required to exercise its various jurisdictions to ensure that the proposed Kemano II project is examined fully in light of standards which are used currently to evaluate such schemes, rather than those which were

June 9, 1980
in place 30 years ago, and that a full public inquiry be ordered to examine the clear federal interests in connection with the Kemano II proposal.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I seek the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the terms of Standing Order 43.
Taking into account that this weekend marked the fourteenth year of multilingual broadcasts by CHIN radio in metropolitan Toronto, which broadcasts in 32 different languages-the same languages that one hears in my riding of Parkdale-High Park-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House congratulate and support the efforts of CHIN radio, a truly multicultural institution, for helping to preserve the heritage of minority groups in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of importance to the citizens of the city of Edmonton.
In view of the fact that there is considerable concern in the industrial and residential areas of southeast Edmonton, which is a highly developed petrochemical transportation and storage centre, that an accident equivalent to, if not worse than, the recent accident in Mississauga may occur in the future, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the Minister of Transport table in this House a policy statement of his department's responsibility regarding emergency procedure guidelines designed to deal with pipeline explosions, tanker car derailments, tanker truck accidents and refinery explosions and fires, to name a few.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ALLEGED DETERIORATION IN FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL-TERRITORIAL BUSINESS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, 1 feel almost guilty in bringing this matter to the attention of the House after the motion which was introduced by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). However, we cannot let them get away with everything.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and in view of the fact that the antagonistic approach of the present government, especially toward the western provinces and the territories, is making it very difficult for normal federal-provincial-territorial business to be transacted at the official level, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Prime Minister be requested to call to heel his baying hound dogs, the ministers of Justice, Finance, and Health and Welfare so that sweetness and light can once again rule federal-provincial affairs just as they did in those enlightened days between June and December, 1979.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that two years ago the Department of Fisheries and Oceans participated in the task force on the Cowichan estuary convened by the province of British Columbia, in view of the fact that, in spite of repeated promises, the report of the task force has not been released, and in view of the threat that proposed industrial expansion poses to fish habitat in the Cowichan estuary, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That the Department of Fisheries and Oceans table its submission to the Cowichan estuary task force, and take immediate steps to assure the people of British Columbia that it will protect the Cowichan estuary and its potential as fish habitat.
June 9, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canadians from every part of this country are blessed with the existence of thousands of clean and unpolluted rivers, whereas such rivers are every day threatened with contamination by toxic substances and other pollutants, and whereas no national policy exists to ensure a minimum standard of cleanliness for the rivers of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House requests the Minister of the Environment to contact each of his provincial counterparts with the purpose of establishing a permanent federal-provincial committee under the authority of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers which would have the responsibility of establishing, on a national scale, a uniform standard of cleanliness of rivers, of maintaining a registry of clean rivers, and of advising provincial governments when pollution of a river reaches a level below this standard, in order to ensure that future generations of Canadians will always have the benefit of clean and unpolluted rivers.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and request the unanimous consent of the House to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to all Canadians flying to Victoria.
Since Victoria is the only provincial capital in Canada that is not provided with radar, and given the great increase in traffic at that airport over the past few years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House urge the government, when priorizing the various projects being considered for Victoria international airport, to place the installation of radar at that airport at the very top of the list.
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lome MeCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Aluminum Company of Canada remains determined to embark upon the second phase of its Kemano hydroelectric development project in central British Columbia, a program which will cause devastating ecological and environmental damage over a wide area. On April 28 the minister informed this House that he had the assurance of the province of British Columbia that this program would not be proceeded with until a full public inquiry had been held.
At that time, Madam Speaker, I urged that the minister go to British Columbia to see for himself exactly what would happen. I now urge that he remain behind, because if he should go he will come back in a Glad bag.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne McCuish: In light of Premier Bennett's recent announcement that Alcan has a contractual right to proceed whenever it wants, with or without a public hearing-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could the hon. member put his question right away, please.


Mr. Clark:: He is being shouted down, Madam Speaker.


Robert Lorne McCuish: Would the Deputy Prime Minister now inform this House that, in light of the indifference of his minister and in light of the attitude of the province of British Columbia, he will take the necessary steps to protect the 200,000 people in central British Columbia?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Madam Speaker, we are aware of the situation to which the hon. member has made reference. Yes, in response to his direct question, we are concerned about the

June 9, 1980
Oral Questions
welfare of the 200,000 people he mentioned; and yes, we will take his representation under advisement, as the minister assured the House we would last week.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne McCuish: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder if he is in the House.


An hon. Member:: None of them is present; this is Monday.


Robert Lorne McCuish: In that case, I shall again direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. As Kemano completion will cause flooding of Indian lands and will adversely affect aboriginal fishing rights and game habitats, is the minister consulting with Indian leaders, and is he prepared to intervene to compensate for the weakness of his colleague in the Ministry of the Environment?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I shall draw the hon. member's representations to the attention of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the hon. member knows, the minister is in contact with the Indian leaders of this country on a regular and constant basis, and he has their welfare very much at heart.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chileotin):: Madam Speaker, I wish to follow up the subject raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. The concern he has voiced cannot be overemphasized. This scheme, as it is proposed right now by the Aluminum Company of Canada, will divert the waters from major spawning grounds of coastal and inland fish species, and will result in untold ecological consequences over the entire area of central and northern British Columbia.
Therefore, my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or, in his absence, to the next man down the totem pole, is this.


Mr. Crosbie:: You are pretty low now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Can the minister give the House an assurance that before the further damming of any rivers in B.C. by
the Aluminum Company of Canada is permitted, he will exercise his clearcut jurisdiction in assessing the project, not in the light of guidelines that existed 30 years ago but in today's context?


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated last week, before the committee on fisheries, that he would investigate this whole question to see where his authority lies, and that he would impose that authority if the situation warranted it.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that he has the clearcut legal right to stop this development. Is the minister now prepared to call for a federal inquiry which would permit public input, or is he prepared to allow the Aluminum Company of Canada to proceed regardless of the consequences?


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, the minister also stated at the same committee meeting that he would favour a public inquiry into the situation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and the minister for economic development, to the acting prime minister. Each weekend as I return to my home in western Canada I see the crop conditions further deteriorating. They have been holding their own, but in spite of the cool weather this past week they are beginning to turn yellow, wither and die.
In view of this very serious problem that has been developing, can the minister tell us when we can expect an announcement from this government with regard to co-operation with the provinces to look after the drought situation?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I should like to reply to the hon. member that recently I went to a western province. I met with the director of PFRA there three times. A group of ministers of the government also visited the area. I should like to point out that I do not know of any government of the prairie provinces complaining in any way about lack of co-operation from the federal government in that regard.
I signed an agreement a week ago with the resource and finance ministers of Manitoba about the problem of drought. Last week the cabinet also approved a series of new measures which will have to be implemented immediately, and a minister of the western area was made responsible for monitoring
June 9, 1980

this new set of measures aimed at dealing with this very critical and very disturbing matter.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the answer was that a minister has been appointed. The concern of the people in the west is that we have not heard who has been appointed. We have not heard what kind of programs are being proposed. We were told that there was to be an announcement on Thursday. There was no reason given as to why the announcement was not made.
There is a great deal of concern in western Canada and in this House as to just what these proposals are. When will we be hearing the details of them? It is fine to know they are being considered and discussed, but what are the details?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the series of measures will be announced this week.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to direct my final supplementary to the Minister of Transport, who also speaks for the Wheat Board.


Mr. Epp:: He does?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Feed supplies are extremely short in the whole western region of North America. Montana producers are looking north for feed supplies. British Columbia hay producers are concerned that their hay will not be fit to eat because of volcanic ash. In short, the sources of supply are diminished more than just as a result of the drought.
What commitment can we have from the minister, the government and the Wheat Board with regard to maintaining initial prices for feed grains and for grains at the current year level, so that producers will be encouraged to keep their grains on the farm instead of trying to get them out before the price drops and the new crop year begins? Can the minister advise when an announcement will be made?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my information is that the Wheat Board is trying to keep a very delicate balance between the interests of stability of exports and the requirements of the Canadian domestic situation. They are not making new sales, and they are monitoring the situation as well as they can. This is a very difficult set of circumstances.
With respect to initial prices, the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board said, on May 26, that he would review the situation before the end of the crop year. In a letter which he recently addressed to the hon. member for Prince Albert, he indicated he might do so in June.
Oral Questions


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises out of the many requests I have received and, I presume, members on both sides of the House have received with respect to the new amendments to the Small Loans Act.
As the minister is aware, credit unions across this country are not able to lend money at over 12 per cent? Will legislation be brought forward soon to change this and give the credit unions a break along with the chartered banks, which do not need it nearly as much?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the options that are now open to the government range from the revision of this act to minor amendments. There has been no final decision yet. We are studying the matter within an interdepartment committee, and as soon as a decision it reached, I shall be pleased to inform the House.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments, but I would assume that a simple amendment could be brought forward, or a simple bill, without the legal gob-bledygook and jargon stating that they can lend money at over 12 per cent. Can the minister give a commitment that this will be done before the long, hot summer recess?


Walter David Baker: What recess?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: I am pleased to see how strongly the hon. member is expressing his hopes that a bill be adopted to solve the problems outlined. I just hope that when I introduce the bill, he will work as strenuously at convincing his colleagues on the other side of the House to give the bill speedy passage.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In Los Angeles this past weekend an engine of an Air Canada L-1011 caught fire on take-off and the passengers had to be evacuated. This is the second such Air Canada incident in Los Angeles in the past year. Also, this past weekend three engines failed on an Air Canada 747. Will the minister contact the president of Air Canada and request a complete and detailed inquiry into these incidents, especially since at the Justice Dubin air safety inquiry witnesses stated that Air Canada has been operating

June 9, 1980
Oral Questions
for eight years without a review of routine maintenance procedures?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 have had a report on both these incidents and they are presently being investigated by the Department of Transport. I will report further when the results are available to me.


A. Daniel McKenzie: At the Justice Dubin air safety inquiry, Transport Canada civil aviation inspectors stated that Canada's air safety monitoring system was "in a shambles". Since the Dubin inquiry will not be completed until October, 1980, will the minister launch an immediate investigation and, further, request pilot training in Canada for landing 747s on one engine? Finally, I think we should ask the minister to relay our congratulations to the pilot and his crew for a job well done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will relay the hon. member's compliments to the pilot. As to the meat of the question, this was exactly the purpose of the creation of the Dubin commission. 1 would think the judge would be quite annoyed if I were to set up another commission to do the work he is supposed to do. He is doing it very well, I believe, at this time.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. According to press reports this past weekend, the minister has apparently promised aid to the construction industry rather than to home owners and tenants who are suffering very much as a result of the housing crisis.
Will the minister assure us that he will not repeat the mistakes of his predecessors by reintroducing tax shelters similar to the ARP-MURB program, the assisted rental program, which subsidized developers and encouraged them to build luxury bachelor suites, destroyed family housing and resulted in a net loss of rental units for low income families?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that the two programs the government intends to present, which will be modifications of existing programs, will not only benefit existing home owners or tenants but will be of some help to people first coming into the market, as well as of some help to the industry generally. But they would constitute a modest intervention by CMHC at this time, bearing in mind the problems about which the Minister of Finance has cautioned the House.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Is the minister aware of a number of reports, including one from the Canadian Council on Social Development, which proved beyond a doubt that past programs such as capital cost allowances of the kind which I presume he is proposing have cost taxpayers approximately $65 million a year, while making possible huge profits for developers?
Since non-profit housing creates just as many jobs in our economy, will the minister increase the funding for affordable, non-profit housing instead of providing these tax rip-offs for developers, encouraging them to build high-cost housing which we do not need?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am confident the hon. member opposite will be very pleased with the announcement the government will be making shortly. It will represent modest help to the industry, renters and present home owners, though certainly it will not be on the scale of the many millions of dollars the hon. member has mentioned. It will be a modest program.


HOLDING OF NATIONAL TRIALS-RECOGNITION BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question would have been directed to the minister responsible for amateur sport, but in his absence and in the absence of the parliamentary secretary to that minister 1 will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. The question arises from a recent indication by a representative of one of our national sport federations that national trials would be cancelled, in spite of the recent announcement by the responsible minister that $1.5 million would become available for quality competition among Canadian athletes, which presupposes a declaration of national champions.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now tell us whether or not the national associations or governing bodies of amateur sports in Canada will proceed through Olympic trials to a declaration of national champions and, should such national champions be declared, whether they will be appropriately recognized by the government?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: I regret I cannot give the hon. member the information he requires, but I will make inquiries and ensure he has it by the earliest possible date.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport, who is also responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. As the minister knows, the Wheat Board does not now have complete control over flax and rape. Is he aware of any move by the board to assume more complete control, and thus
June 9, 1980

tighten up the system? If he is, I should like to know what his attitude toward a tightening up of the system would be.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not
aware of any change with respect to the grains coming under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.


Charles James Mayer: The minister did not tell us what his attitude would be toward such a move were it to come. My supplementary was intended for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence, I would ask the Minister of Transport or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether they are aware of any move in the department, specifically by the officials in his department, the grains group which is currently studying a feasibility report on whether the Wheat Board should take over more complete control of the marketing of rape. I would also like an assurance that when this study is completed-if, indeed, it is under way-a report will be made available to the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is, of course, a running debate on this matter, in the west particularly. I would think the Government of Canada would not express views on this subject unless it was intended to change the present situation. 1 do not believe that one Minister of Transport or one Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could simply make commentaries on these matters. If there is a decision to be made, it will be made and announced as such, not as a simple reflection on the matter.


PARKS CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, we heard a lot of talk last week about the enormous amount of sympathy and compassion shown by the government toward civil servants. My question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board.
In light of the petition which was presented to the House on Wednesday of last week from the employees of the Parks Canada office in Cornwall, and in light of the mass grievance placed before the Civil Service Alliance by those employees over the cancellation of the move to Peterborough, would the President of the Treasury Board agree, before any further cheques are paid out to the employees of Parks Canada in connection with the cancellation of that move, to meet with them in order to resolve present differences and permit a return to a good esprit de corps and a feeling of high morale among the employees of Parks Canada in Cornwall? Would the minister meet with these employees before any further cheques are issued?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am always ready to meet with people who have a just cause to plead with the government of
Oral Questions
the day. I believe the minister in charge of Parks Canada answered those questions quite adequately last week.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: 1 should like to direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is on the same subject and it is one which has never been answered. When the regional office in Cornwall was divided, half went to Quebec and half was to go to central Ontario.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree to look into what is best for Ontario and what is best for Parks Canada in Ontario? If Quebec is best served in Quebec by having the regional office moved from Cornwall to Quebec City, would Ontario not be best served if the regional office of Parks Canada were located in central Ontario, where the minister's government proposed in the first place it be located?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will make sure that the views and the questions of the hon. member are drawn to the attention of the minister. I will draw to the minister's attention particularly the interest of the hon. member in ensuring that the province of Ontario is well served and its interests are looked after. I share the hon. member's aspirations in that respect as well.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On Friday last the minister indicated, in denying an application for a DREE grant from Magdalen Islands Salt Mining Corporation, that at least in part the reason for the denial was that there was an unused capacity within the industry in other parts of the country and that he intended to introduce some other economic beneficial programs for the area.
Can the minister tell the House why that same rationale was not applied in the case of the Michelin grant, given that assistance to Sydney Steel and/or the Cape Breton Development Corporation could and would have produced more jobs, more economic development and, in fact, could have saved energy on the east coast?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, with regard to Magdalen Islands, as the hon. member said, I could not give a grant to that mine because already the mines we have in Nova Scotia and Ontario have a capacity which exceeds the consumption of eastern Canada. What about other projects in Nova Scotia? Of course we will be helping other projects in Nova Scotia.
As for the tire industry, as the hon. member knows-and we have talked about it at length together-there is a major
1878

June 9, 1980
Oral Questions
structural shift in North America in the tire industry. At the beginning of the seventies, radial tires represented 1 per cent of the market. Today they represent more than 60 per cent. That structural shift is happening all over North America, and I think nobody can avoid that change in the market.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance. Surely it is understood by the government that, just as there is unused capacity in the mining of salt, there is also unused capacity in the production of tires. What would the Minister of Finance say to employees in other parts of the country working in the tire industry if they asked him why they should subsidize Michelin not only with their taxes but also with their jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member raised the question of Michelin, because the grant that is made available to Michelin is made available because the plant is located in an area of slow growth. Any manufacturer in any other area of slow growth in Canada- which includes a large part of Quebec, many parts of Ontario and other provinces-would be eligible for the same consideration as the Michelin plant in Nova Scotia was.
I say in reply-and I think the hon. member will at least want to have it clarified-that if there is, as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has explained, a change in the market and the plant that is to be located in Nova Scotia is to produce a product which has a rapid future growth, it is not the fault of the department or the government that consumers have changed very drastically their preferences with respect to purchasing tires on not only the Canadian market but the export market as well.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Friday, the hon. member for Vancouver South was asking the Secretary of State about financial help to the Vancouver art gallery and he was told by the Minister of the Environment, speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State, that that would be somewhat contingent upon federal entry into the lottery program.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if it is now government policy that legitimate help to legitimate artistic communities is dependent on federal entry into gambling.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member sincerely wants a response to that question, I am quite happy to say that the answer is no to the question put in that way.


Benno Friesen: That is very interesting, Madam Speaker. Since all studies indicate that lottery programs are supported most by people with lower incomes, and art galleries are supported mostly by people with middle and higher incomes, and given the fact that the Minister of the Environment indicates that it is contingent upon gambling, is it now government policy that lower income people should support higher income people in their programs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am satisfied in my own mind that the hon. member is not quoting accurately the words of the minister to whom he refers in his question. The policy to which my hon. friend refers is not a Liberal policy. It was a policy which was found in the budget we defeated last December.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. The people of the Keewa-tin district were denied direct participation through public hearings when the Canadian Transport Commission made a unilateral decision in the selection of an air carrier for that region.
Would the minister agree to review that CTC decision with regard to Calm Air International's operations in the Keewatin District, and make arrangements to hold public hearings in order that all views on the subject of appropriate air service can be heard and taken into account?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there are procedures for appealing decisions of the CTC either to the Minister of Transport or to the cabinet as a whole, and these ways and means are open to any person affected by a decision of the CTC.


Peter Ittinuar: Madam Speaker, that CTC decision was made in a fast manner because the commissioner who was responsible was moving on to the Railway Transportation Commission; he wanted to get rid of that decision so that he could move on into the Railway Transportation Commission. The decision has resulted in additional costs to already exorbitant transportation and freight prices, which are some 200 per cent in excess of southern prices because of lack of competition.
Will the minister, in conjunction with a review of the Arctic airport facilities policy, ensure that all decisions related to and with regard to the selection of air carriers in the north will be bilateral through public hearings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is my understanding that decisions made by the Canadian Transport Commission are made after public
June 9, 1980

inquiries, but it may be that this case was an exception. I will meet my hon. friend later and we will discuss it further.


NUCLEAR POWER
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister no doubt knows, the government of British Columbia announced a moratorium on the construction of nuclear power generation plants on Vancouver Island.
Can the minister tell us whether, prior to making that announcement, the provincial government in British Columbia made representations to the central government complaining about the failure of the central government to provide Candu safety measures or to assure that the safety measures were satisfactory?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 know of no representation from the government of British Columbia to the national government in this respect.


Donald W. Munro: Has the minister made any inquiries? Has he been able to determine whether it is the nuclear waste disposal problem which is causing the provincial government to hesitate in this area?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that 1 have no particular information as to the reasons that motivated the British Columbia government in its decision. 1 expect to meet with my provincial colleague in a very short while, and 1 will take that opportunity to raise with him the point raised by my hon. friend.


CANADIAN CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL ON MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). Would the minister advise the House whether he has filled the position of president of CCCM, the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, and if he intends to keep the membership in the CCCM at 100?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to see my good friend back
Oral Questions
after a long illness; and after 12 weeks I am glad to get a question on multiculturalism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1 was very sad that the former chairman of the CCCM, a distinguished Canadian appointed by my predecessor, the hon. member who posed the question, Mr. Norm Kwong, was unable to continue in that post for business reasons. But 1 have pleasure in telling my friend that I have appointed Mr. Lawrence Decore of Edmonton, of Ukrainian heritage and a former chairman of the Alberta Heritage Council, as the new chairman of the CCCM.
On the issue of membership, previous CCCMs have recommended a reduction in the size of the council to make it more effective. I am giving that matter serious consideration.


Charles Joseph Clark: Another Grit at the trough.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that his colleague, the Solicitor General, the hon. member for York Centre, was a consistent complainer when the ethnic press was not receiving advertising moneys, what is the minister planning to do with regard to this particular problem with the ethnic press? How much money has the minister spent on ethnic advertising since February 18?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member leaves himself open a little because, of course, the previous government put a freeze on ethnic advertising. That freeze has been removed, and ads will be run.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is no ethnic advertising.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I have a concern that that budget should not simply be for the ethnic press, but that in fact my multiculturalism budget should be directed toward the English and French language general press so that there is a better understanding of multiculturalism in Canada. In turn, because in another capacity I have responsibility generally for Government of Canada advertising, I hope to be able to set a more professional criteria for the ethnic press and at that point assure them that they will get their fair share of advertising.


PROCESSING OF RESOURCES NEAR SOURCE-POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF SARNIA COMPLEX
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On Friday last the minister reaffirmed government policy whereby public funds would be used to transfer industrial plant so that resources can be processed near their source. When will the government be announcing the movement of the entire Sarnia complex to Alberta so that these millions of barrels of oil can be processed near their source?

June 9, 1980
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has an interesting suggestion, but he will remember that the decision concerning the Eldorado refinery concerned a planned or projected installation, not one that existed at the time. So it was a new plant that was being planned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know from the minister what facts drove him to the conclusion that there was inadequate leadership in the area of foreign policy in the United States. Would he list those facts, please?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow I will be appearing before the parliamentary committee, and we will have lots of chance to explore my views and their views on the present state of Canadian-United States relations.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, that is totally inadequate. 1 ask the minister, please, to enumerate some of the facts, which we are entitled to hear in this House, which drove him to the conclusion that there was inadequate leadership in the United States in foreign policy areas. Please tell us.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I believe my statement speaks for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the CHIP program. A constituent of mine received a nice note from the minister the other day thanking him for participating in the CHIP program, with a nice cheque for about $380. The only problem is that he did not receive any insulation. My question to the minister is, how many such cheques have been sent out? Is this the reason the program keeps running out of money?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have responsibility for the Ministry of Public Works, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the National Capital Commission, but not the Ministry of Labour. I believe the CHIP program comes under the corporation's responsibility. I am sure the corporation would be very happy to have that cheque back, because indeed we are pressed. It is a popular program, but it has some problems on which we are presently working.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to inform the minister that my honest constituent sent the cheque back immediately. The minister admitted in the House weeks ago that the administration of this particular program is completely inadequate. When will he smarten it up?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am happy to refer to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail today-I am sure the hon. member would be pleased to see the article- referring to the steps that the Canadian General Standards Board in Ottawa has taken to bring some standardization to the delivery of the program into the marketplace and, second, the plans by the corporation to consider having any contractor under the program designated as the contractor recognized by the corporation. With these two steps, which we hope to be in place by July, we think that some of the administrative problems-of course, not totally the responsibility of CMHC-will be ironed out.


CANADIAN MONEY AND EXPERTISE FLOWING INTO UNITED STATES
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister aware of the substantial sums of money and technical expertise which are flowing to the United States from Canadian oil and gas producers as a result of the difference in the crude oil price they receive in the United States as compared to that in Canada?
The minister may be aware that crude oil discovered in the United States nets $32 per barrel to the producer, compared to the price of $7 per barrel for that oil discovererd in Canada. If the minister is aware of this condition, what steps does he intend to take to encourage Canadian explorers to stay and search for oil in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed I am aware of some movements that have taken place for a variety of reasons. As the hon. member knows, those movements have taken place historically over the years between our two countries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


mssm
June 9, 1980


Marc Lalonde: As to the differences to which the hon. member referred, indeed they are real. But one must also realize, as I am sure the hon. member knows, that there are other factors in the United States that make that cost-the net cost to the producer-less than it appears at first sight.
I am discussing with the producing provinces, particularly the government of Alberta, the elements of a new pricing arrangement which I hope will be satisfactory to all concerned. As the hon. member knows, if the producer gets only $7 back at the present time, the price nonetheless to the consumer is $15-$14.75 to be exact-and most of the difference between $7 and $14 goes to the governments of the producing provinces, particularly the government of Alberta.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since the previous Conservative government ignored many of the branch lines which are important to the west, could the minister consider placing into the basic network those branch lines in the west which grain elevator companies have said they wish to service?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the way I see it, the willingness of a company to serve a branch line would be one of the factors-obviously, a very important one, otherwise we would not have a branch line-in the decision to rehabilitate one.
Offhand, 1 can think of a number of other factors. There would be the cost of rehabilitation, the cost of maintaining it after rehabilitation, the level of the subsidy, and there would be the total volume on the branch line, the availability of alternative routes. There would be a number of other factors to be borne in mind, and presumably that was done by Hall and PRAC when they identified some of these branch lines for rehabilitation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Deputy Clerk of the House has laid on the Table the seventh report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for New
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES COMMISSIONER
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations and I think there is unanimous consent so that the following motion can be proposed and passed. The motion deals with the membership of the joint committee set up to study the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The motion is as follows, Madam Speaker, and with the consent of the House, 1 would like to move, seconded by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Bussieres):
That the following members do represent this House at the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons appointed to consider the reports of the Commissioner for Official Languages: Messrs. Beatty (Well-ington-Dufferin-Simcoe), Corbin, Gauthier, Herbert, Joyal, Kilgour, La Salle, Nystrom and Stollery; and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing honourable senators of this decision.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: That in relation to Bill C-30, an act to provide for supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of second reading stage of the bill; and that at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the motion may now be debated. I would like to make a few brief comments on the subject. Madam Speaker, I think that the fact that we have waited so long to introduce the motion is evidence that the government has been quite generous toward the opposition and I will show how patient it has been in a few

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
moments. A few seconds ago 1 heard the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) tell me: "Try to defend closure".
1 should remind him and he knows quite well that the procedure now applied is not closure but a limitation of the debate. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to refer to our rules, he will note, Madam Speaker, if he carefully reads SO 33 that closure is imposed when an additional day of debate is required so that all questions will be put at 1 a.m. Such a procedure has seldom been used in the past even if it had been warranted, considering the behaviour of the official opposition. Anyway, we are not resorting to closure today but to the limitation of the debate, as provided for under SO 75c and, for explanation purposes, I think it is important to indicate under which circumstances these provisions are invoked.
Madam Speaker, people are aware that a bill must go through various stages before being adopted. When it is introduced for first reading there is no debate. The purpose is to have the bill printed. I feel that the public at large should know that. When the government decides later to call the second stage of the bill, the debate is on the principle of the bill, and once the principle has been adopted on division or with the unanimous support of all parties, the bill can, at a later stage, be examined in detail either by a standing committee or a committee of the whole, depending on the nature of the bill, one clause after the other, and it can be amended and then reported.
There is another stage during which a bill continues to be studied after second reading and the study in committee, and it is the report stage, and, as though that were not enough, Madam Speaker, there is still another stage at which the bill can be considered by all hon. members, and that is called third reading. So it is important at this time that the public at large watching us on television or otherwise following our proceedings in newspapers or from the gallery, know that the motion introduced today is moved not at the final stage but rather at second reading, a preliminary stage where it is the principle of the bill that is being discussed.
Before being able and allowed to ask the House to limit the debate at this stage to a given number of hours or additional days, there is an obligation for us, on the government side, to hold consultations beforehand with opposition parties, and the rule involved in such a case is paragraph A of Standing Order 75. Since this motion is moved under Standing Order 75c, it stands to reason that we also have Standing Orders 75a and 75b. So, Madam Speaker, before using SO 75c, we tried to apply SO 75a. What does this rule say? Under that Standing Order we ask the official spokesmen for the various parties in the House to have a meeting and discuss whether it is possible to reach an agreement on a set period of additional time to conclude discussion of a bill at one stage. I would like to point out that in the present case, I had this required meeting and discussion with my hon. colleagues and leaders of opposition parties, and unfortunately in this case, contrary to several
other instance; in the past where we reached understanding and agreement, in this particular case, for reasons that are known to them, we could not reach agreement on a given period of time before concluding the debate on second reading.
So we must turn to 75b, which says that lacking an agreement between all parties, a majority of parties could conclude an agreement to allow for a fixed period of time in which to conclude the debate on a given stage of a bill.
And unfortunately there was not a majority of the parties which agreed to limit debate on Bill C-30 at second reading stage. Consequently it was only after these two formalities were completed that the government could apply Standing Order 75c which makes it mandatory to give advance notice- which we did last week-of our intention to move the motion today, what we are doing now, a motion which is debatable for a period of two hours and according to which, as members can see for themselves, an additional day will be provided if the motion is passed by the House regarding the second reading stage of Bill C-30. What we are now doing is to debate this motion under Standing Order 75c, a motion of which notice was given last week and which is intended, in the absence of an agreement after negotiations between the parties, to put an end to the second reading stage of Bill C-30.
As we very well know, Madam Speaker, this legislation can be discussed in committee, also at the report stage, if needed, and further on third reading. So in no way is this closure, nor muzzling the opposition. So much less that we did not decide on this at the outset, when this bill that is quite simple was introduced. Quite the opposite, we waited until the legislation had been discussed much too long on second reading. We waited until five debating days had gone on, or almost, because the first day was very limited. So to be honest, it was four debating days. However, we computed the total time used by hon. members up till now on second reading. According to the research I had undertaken already eleven hours and 47 minutes have been used on the government's time, on the time of the House to discuss one bill, and this is quite abnormal, improper and totally unacceptable.
As 1 said, Madam Speaker, we are at the second reading stage, and at this point almost twelve hours' debating time have been used on the principle of the bill to discuss nearly every matter but the principle of Bill C-30 itself.
As you may recall, Madam Speaker, the legislation was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). He did this at the end of the evening, he spoke for five minutes and very clearly explained the principle of the bill, and in my view his remarks were complete, concise and quite adequate to explain what the bill is all about. The Minister of Finance deemed fit to use five minutes, and this was quite adequate.
He was followed by the official opposition critic, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the previous minister of finance and he took a whole hour and 37 minutes, Madam Speaker, a considerable, unjustifiable and unaccept-
June 9, 1980

able amount of time to talk about the principle of Bill C-30 on second reading.
Madam Speaker, there are 282 members of the House. These are the 1980s, a time when more legislation, coupled with a reshuffling of the electoral ridings and an increase in population have raised the number of members proportionally or just about. We are already 282 members and the standing order limiting speeches has not yet been amended. For second reading, it provides forty minutes, an unreasonable time in 1980, except that the first speaker following the mover of the motion is entitled to forty minutes; in this case, it was the hon. member for St. John's West who, not satisfied with using outdated Standing Orders and, therefore, with using forty minutes, which is somehow inappropriate in 1980, given the large number of members in the House, he nevertheless took one hour and 37 minutes of the time of the House, of the time of Canadian legislators, to speak only to the principle of this bill, and this at only one stage of the bill. I say this is an injustice, it is unacceptable and it explains the measure currently taken by the government simply to limit the debate on second reading of this bill so that it can be studied sooner in committee to give other members a chance to have the floor to express their views.
Madam Speaker, we have here a striking example of an abuse of the Standing Orders. We have here a striking example of the need to change as soon as possible at least the orders dealing with the length of speeches in the House. We have talked about it many times since the beginning of this session and we will hear a lot more about it. 1 do hope we will be able to do something very soon about it because some hon. members do not show reasonable restraint as our colleagues in England do, even though there is no written rule to limit the length of speeches, and where civilized people very seldom exceed ten minutes, out of respect for their colleagues and to give them the opportunity to express their views on any legislation. Here, when someone uses one hour and 37 minutes in a second reading debate, I say that is unacceptable and that the government is-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, had the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who opened debate on this bill, spoken for a decent length of time and given us some information and a promise as to when he will bring in a budget, then this debate would not still be going on. We are not going to be forced into accepting this legislation now or ever until this government gives us a date for a budget and tells us what its economic and financial approach is going to be to the problems of Canada.
It was six months ago that the Minister of Finance claimed credit for authoring the defeat of our budget on December 13. Six months later and after three months in office, the Liberals
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
cannot indicate to the people of Canada what their economic and financial solutions are or what approach they will take to governing this country. Investors do not know what their position is, and neither do the people. They have heard rumour after rumour and suggestions of tax increases.
The same group which was complaining last fall because we intended to introduce an excise tax on gasoline is now going to do away with indexing of income tax and really give it to the lower income people of Canada. They are going to impose a tax at the refinery level, which means a tax not only on transportation fuels but on heating fuels and products which are used in the petrochemical industry. And on it goes. The government is afraid to come into this House and bring down a budget. That is why we are opposing this bill.
This bill authorizes the borrowing of SI2 billion. The House leader has complained because we have spent under 12 hours discussing this bill at second reading-$1 billion an hour. It is a credit to the people of Canada that the government wants us to rush this bill through the House in less than 12 hours, $12 billion in credit. We are not going to do it. The government House leader says that the government was very generous with the time it allocated for this bill. The government is very generous with the credit of the people of Canada.
The government House leader says that they are not imposing closure. This is garrotting. This is the gag, the noose, the stiletto, the bastinado. This is the sledge-hammer, the bludgeon. The government House leader is right when he says that it is not closure. He talks about the principle of the bill. It is not the principle of the bill; it is the "unprinciple" of the bill and of the actions of the hon. gentlemen opposite which are upsetting to us.
The government House leader has asked us to rush this bill through. It is like asking the goose and the turkey to help lay the Christmas table. We are not going to do it. We have debated this bill for three full days, one afternoon and 20 minutes one evening. There have been 21 speakers-three Liberals, a waste of time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans), though, gave us a few facts. There have been four NDP speeches which were almost a waste of time, and 14 PC speakers with not a wasted minute among them.
What do we want, Madam Speaker? We want the Minister of Finance to come to this House and bare his soul to us. We do not want a four or five-minute speech in which he says nothing. What are the bold, new economic directions for Canada? This gentleman goes outside the country and makes speeches. We want him to explain. For example, he has just been to a meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and this is what he said in a speech there on June 4:
But the experience of the 1970s has brought home the point that we are unlikely to achieve a sustained improvement in employment unless we get inflation under better control.

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
We want him to come to this House and explain what that statement means. Does it mean that the government is going to attack inflation as its first priority, and that until it does that and beats inflation we can expect no improvement in employment? What direction is he going in? How is he going to achieve this?
The minister is a world traveller. He attended a luncheon meeting of the France-Canada Chamber of Commerce in Paris-"Gay Paree".


An hon. Member:: How was it?


John Carnell Crosbie: While the unemployment figures are increasing in Canada the minister is in "Gay Paree". What did he say his priorities were on June 2? He said the first one was:
Reduce in an orderly way our current budget deficit.
That is the priority of the Minister of Finance but back here in Canada it is not the priority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who says this government is not obsessed with the deficit in the same way the previous government was and will not reduce the deficit at the expense of creating more unemployment. The people of Canada want to know how the minister is going to reduce the deficit without increasing and creating more unemployment.
The Prime Minister also said that the government does not need to reduce the deficit to help the economy, because it is a healthy economy. The people of Canada do not understand this economy to be healthy when unemployment is rising.
The deputy minister of finance, Dr. Stewart, has said it is recognized that the federal government is in a deep budget deficit. The Prime Minister does not realize that. Dr. Stewart says the deficit problem will have to be solved by generalized tax increases ultimately across the board. The people of Canada want to know what these generalized tax increases are. When is the minister going to tell us about them? Who is going to be struck? Who are the geese whose gooses are going to be cooked, or whose geeses are going to be goosed? This is what we want to know. It is what the people of Canada want to know.
Is the minister seriously going to take indexing off the income tax? Will there be a special levy on refinery products? The minister may say that there is a great rush for this bill, Madam Speaker, because the government cannot borrow another sou unless the bill is passed. They will not be able to pay the mothers' allowance or the old age pension if they cannot borrow this money. What a confession of failure that would be! I warn the minister not to say that because an article in The Globe and Mail of June 5 reports as follows:
Finance department officials emphasize they still have room to handle this month's bond issue even if the new legislation does not go through by the end of the month.
In other words, they think they can borrow another billion dollars this month without the legislation; they do not need it during June. What is the rush now to bring in closure-the guillotine, Madam Speaker-if they do not need further borrowing authority this month?
It is said that small business fears the future of the bond plan. The minister is happily back now from the sustained dangers of Paris-anyone who goes to Paris is in danger of having too good a time. When is he going to tell us and small businessmen about the future of the small business development bond that he introduced in his mini budget on April 21? He took that from my budget and I congratulate him for that. When is he going to act on it and when will the legislation come before the House? When are the people of Canada going to be told what his economic plans are?
Does the minister know the recession has started in the United States? The National Bureau of Economic Research has said that it started in January. According to a report in The Globe and Mail on June 5 a member of the board stated as follows:
'Things are going down very rapidly,' Mr. Feldstein said, 'more so than in previous recessions.'
The recession in the United States is apparently more severe than any recession since World War II. What does the government plan to do about that? That is why we want to know when the minister will bring in a budget. When will he indicate the government's long-term, medium-term and shortterm economic and financial plans? How can he reduce the deficit and still try to counteract unemployment? Does he know about the forecast of the deputy minister of Finance that the unemployment rate that we thought might go to 8.3 per cent in 1980-81 will be worse than that? That is what the deputy minister forecast in his statement to the Senate a week ago last Tuesday.
Does the minister know that the deputy minister is also forecasting that the inflation rate will be higher than our forecast of last December, when for 1980 we forecast an 11 per cent increase in the CPI, and for 1981 a 10.1 per cent or 11.4 per cent, whichever of two scenarios occurred, high price or low price? Now the deputy minister of finance is forecasting increased inflation and that increases in the cost of living will be higher than the forecast of last December. The minister's department is forecasting that unemployment will be higher than 8.3 per cent this year and next. What is the minister doing about that? What is his approach to it?
Having defeated the previous government on a budget six months ago, and with the last budget passed by this House being brought down in December, 1978, the government owes it to the members of this House and to the public to bring in a budget before the summer recess. If they do not, then they are not accepting responsibility for having defeated our approach to the economic and financial problems of Canada.
We did not suggest that we would put the yoke of indexing on the backs, the hearts, the minds, and the pocket books of lower income Canadians, as the Minister of Finance says is probable.
We are not prepared to authorize $12 billion, $8 billion or $6 billion. Well, perhaps $6 billion or something less, so that we know we will have the minister in the House again before the end of this year. We might go for something like that, but
June 9, 1980

not for $12 billion. Not until the minister can tell us exactly what his plans are and when his budget is coming down.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has to stop this shameful equivocation-his bullyragging and bullying of the provinces-get down to serious negotiations and come in with a sensible oil price proposal. We know that it will probably be more expensive than the one we offered last December. The hon. gentleman should face up to the fact that they cannot carry out their commitments to the Canadian public. They cannot tell falsehoods, lies, and get away with it any longer. There are serious economic and financial problems facing this country.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The time of the hon. member has expired.


Some hon. Members:: More, more!


John Carnell Crosbie: Guillotine!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, at the outset may I say to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) that in spite of his unkind allusion to the speeches made by four members of my party in this debate-an unkindness that I am sure he did not intend-I can tell him that we are as strong in our opposition to this motion as is his party. We think the action of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) this afternoon is an abomination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Shameful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the vote is called on this matter tonight some time after eight o'clock, we shall be voting against the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the government is able to get enough of its members here to carry the motion, there is one thing I hope the minister will not do. I hope he will not use a motion which provides one more sitting day for the debate on second reading of Bill C-30 to call that debate on a Wednesday.


Yvon Pinard: Why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because there is such a thing as fairness and decency around here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I object very strongly to what is implied in that question from the President of the Privy Council. In other words, he has it in mind, having got the authority of the House on a vote tonight to conclude second reading debate with one more day's debate, to do it on a Wednesday, which is a short day.
Time Allocation for Bill C-30


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is compounding the abomination. The President of the Privy Council likes to stand up here and refer to rules 75a, 75b and 75c as though they were the gospel truth, as though they were something that the House wrote into the rules with pleasure and with unanimity. I can tell him that is not true at all. I can tell him that in November and December of 1968 the government of that day tried to get through a closure set of rules under another number and heading but had to withdraw that set of rules to get the rest of its changes through before Christmas of that year. Not satisfied, the government of the era came back in June and July of 1969 and brought in rules 75a, b and c and pushed them through with its majority. The rules do not express the views of the House of Commons generally, which is what ought to be the case with respect to the rules that govern this place.
If my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council and others over there want to know what Liberals used to think about closure rules, I invite them to go back to 1913 and read the ringing words that Sir Wilfrid Laurier used against the Tories of that day who stopped a debate in the middle and brought in a closure rule. Here we are again, in the midst of a debate on Bill C-30, and the government brings in this closure rule.
The hon. member for St. John's West is quite right in pressing the point that the most serious offence about this is that we are being asked to close off debate, the basis of which is government spending, at a time when we have not been given a budget or any indication of what the government's financial policy is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If ever there was a case of asking this House to sign a blank cheque, that is it. We think it is wrong and we have no intention of going along with this desecration of the parliamentary process.
It is interesting to watch some of the things that happen around here. This afternoon, the President of the Privy Council stood up and told us how unco-operative members are on this side. He singled out the member for St. John's West for having spoken for an hour and 37 minutes at one point. I know that the member for St. John's West was embarrassed that he had to cut off at that point, that he was unable to establish a record, that he was not able to surpass the record established some time ago by John Rodriguez. But today, as I say, we are told that we are so terribly unco-operative on this side. However, I remind the President of the Privy Council that on Friday of last week his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), had this to say in the middle of the afternoon:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the clerk said and I am sorry that there is some confusion this afternoon.
1886

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
I ask hon. members to listen to this next sentence:
All hon. members have co-operated-
That includes the member for St. John's West and it includes me. The sentence continues:
-and now we are desperately trying to find out what will be the next item of business before four o'clock.
We were passing so many items on Friday that the government wondered how it would fill the day. Which way do government members want it? Do they want an opposition that is co-operative or an opposition that is trying to stall? We are not stalling, Mr. Speaker. We are insisting on the right of this House of Commons to know what the government's financial plans are before we sign a blank cheque, which is what it amounts to if we are called upon to pass this motion for closure and to settle this debate with one more day.
1 had assumed until I asked my question a moment ago that one more day would at least be a full day, at least a Thursday or a Friday, which has a few more debating hours in it than a Wednesday.


An hon. Member:: What about Saturday?


Yvon Pinard: Why not on Wednesday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The President of the Privy Council asks "Why not on Wednesday?" In others words, the government is prepared to use a rule that was brought in under closure to close off debate, and no amount of semantics, of trying to use euphemisms and saying that it is just time limitation, will get away from the fact that what they are doing is cutting off debate.
The minister says that it is time for some reforms around here, and 1 agree with him. I have heard that statement many times. But is it not time that we deal with something basic? The only kinds of reforms that we hear from over there are shortening the length of speeches or cutting down to a four-day week-


An hon. Member:: Then a three-day week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A four-day week will soon be a three-day week, that is right-or sitting mornings instead of evenings and so on. But we hear nothing about the fundamental problem that faces this House, and that is organizing our time from the beginning of the session.
What this Parliament needs-and it has been agreed many a time in meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-is a government that tells us at the start of the session what is to be before us and invites both sides of the House to sit down and discuss the line up of bills. If we do that, we can agree that some bills are unimportant and do not need to be debated on the floor of the House of Commons and that they can be sent right off to committee. We can agree that there are many bills that should be limited to one or two days of debate on second reading. But surely, along with that, along with the House being willing to let some bills go without debate and many bills to be given limited debate, it would be
understandable that when we get to the crucial bills there should be whatever debate the House feels is necessary.
In my view, that is the kind of reform that we should be dealing with. I quite agree that the main problem facing us is how to use our time. I have seen this problem grow in intensity in the years since I first came here. In those early days we could get through a session in five or six months, and while we complained we seemed to have dealt with everything. But the things that have to be dealt with now are so numerous, there has to be co-operation. One does not get co-operation by bringing in closure, threatening more use of closure, threatening to change the rules or threatening to cut down the length of time used on speeches. I want to say parenthetically that I think that the 40-minute rule is one that should be changed. I certainly think that no speech needs to be that long. Members will see today that debates where speeches are limited to ten minutes go a bit faster, and perhaps when the rest of the members get going they will make still better speeches. But to think that that is the answer, just to cut the 40 minutes down to 20 minutes or 15 minutes when a government does not plan a session as it should and as it could, is a failure to recognize what Parliament is all about.
I emphasize the point that what we are faced with is a form of closure just as mean and vindictive and hard on the opposition as was the closure that the Tories brought in against the Sir Wilfrid Laurier Liberals back in 1913. It is the wrong way to cope with the problems of this House.


An hon. Member:: Were you there?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend wants to know if I was here in 1913. The answer is no, not yet.


An hon. Member:: Just on your way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I can tell my hon. friend that there is no better reading in the pages of Hansard than the debate of 1913, especially the contributions that Sir Wilfrid Laurier made, on this very issue.
I see that my time is about up, Mr. Speaker. 1 am prepared to sit down, but I want to say categorically that this is an abomination, an offence to Parliament, a failure to realize the best way to run this place, and when the vote is called tonight the New Democrats will stand and vote no.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate I would like to answer some of the comments made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), but before I do so, since my name was taken somewhat in vain by my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning last Friday-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was a compliment!


David Michael Collenette: -may I say that I did make those statements. I was flabbergasted on Friday afternoon that we had so much co-operation from the other side and we had to scurry around for more business. The opposition is ready, willing and
June 9, 1980

able to co-operate on small bills, bills that require no great discussion, bills that should have been through in half the time-half the time that was taken on Friday in the case of some of them. But when it comes to major bills, the opposition wastes time.
I need not talk about Bill C-19, the employment tax credit, which we will be getting to later tonight. But when member after member rise from the official opposition benches and talk about everything under the sun, such as their constituencies, their grandmother, their ailments, everything except the content of the bill, that is wasting time.
The hon. member for St. John's West talks about the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) not saying anything. When the Minister of Finance spoke in this debate a couple of weeks ago, he said more in five minutes than the hon. member from St. John's West said in an hour and a half in debate on the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: In fact, I would ask hon. members to check Hansard for the days when the hon. member for St. John's West was speaking. I think hon. members will find that the same speech was given today in a truncated form. The hon. member is like a musak tape: it plays over and over again until one changes the tape. We have heard it so often and we heard it again this afternoon.
The official opposition ruminate and fulminate about this terrible rule. They call it closure. 1 would like to remind members opposite that on December 5 last year, a scant two months after Parliament had opened, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rose in his place concerning Bill C-20, the mortgage tax bill. I think the bill was in Committee of the Whole stage. They talk about arrogance on our side, but after second reading had been granted, one day after bringing Bill C-20 into Committee of the Whole, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, as reported at page 2149 of Hansard, said this:
Closure was used by C. D. Howe and it became an infamous rule of the House in the flag debate. It was the initiative behind the debate to ram changes in the rules of the House down the throats of members. I do not intend to do that today. What we are using here, and I think we had better make it clear to the people of Canada, is time allocation under the provisions of Standing Order 75c. This is a far gentler measure.
That is what he said on December 7. 1 agree that what we are doing here is trying to expedite the business of the House. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton knows, as do all House leaders, that time must come to end debate. This is an important bill. We are talking about borrowing $12 billion for the Government of Canada. We need to have this bill put through very quickly. I will not cite the whole myriad of things that will happen if this bill is stalled any longer. The government needs this bill. 1 think we are fully justified in bringing in 75c.
I think we can have some fun looking at the record. Later on
the same page the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said:
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
I have only done this because there is no end in sight to the debate, none whatsoever ... I do not think Canadians should be shortchanged by a short-range government and a short-range opposition.
The people of Canada did not realize how short-range that government was. In looking back, we can only thank God that on February 18 the voters of Canada took a very wise and just decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: I do not want to be cruel because, when you get right down to it, I am not a bad-natured guy. I do not want to go any further with the record in that debate and quote all the words of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. After all, the government House leader and 1 have to deal with him on a daily basis, and generally we have a very good relationship. But on matters of principle and urgency affecting the government and legislation, we have to be blunt. That is the reason I looked up these words today.
Comments have been made in the House in the last few minutes that we are not reasonable, that we cut off debate, that we do not allow people to speak. We had seven days of throne speech debate when any member could talk about any single matter under the sun, not just matters relating to the throne speech debate. We had several days on second reading of the employment tax credit bill. I class that as a small bill as it was not one that was really controversial; in fact, the opposition will probably vote for it. We had two days in Committee of the Whole on interim supply.
The opposition rant and rave about not having adequate time to express themselves. Perhaps you were here those two days, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House when the official opposition could not get their act together. They needed more speakers. They wanted more time in Committee of the Whole. They have all the time in the world, but they cannot plan properly.
I am not criticizing the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton but his members do not listen to their House leader. There was debate on Friday afternoon when someone objected. They did not listen to him. I say to hon. members opposite, "Listen to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton; sometimes he is right".
Let us talk about other provisions that we will have this year when members can adequately express their feelings and points of view. We have arranged by unanimous consent a most imaginative supply order covering this year because the regular supply order is inoperative as a result of two federal elections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: Hon. members agreed to it. There was great patting of each other's backs because everybody got together. In the fall there will be ten opposition days. Six will be in Committee of the Whole. On three of those days the hours may be extended through dinner until midnight. There will be plenty of time. However, after seeing the performance a few

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
weeks ago of the official opposition in Committee of the Whole when we had four ministers simultaneously answering questions, i do not think they will be able to get their act together. We have given them that opportunity. There is no question of trying to cut down debate, of trying to limit an hon. member from expressing his or her views in the House.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, then.


David Michael Collenette: I have ten minutes. The hon. member for St. John's West used his ten minutes. We have been most reasonable. I see the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) is here. A couple of weeks ago I stood in my place and asked for unanimous consent to extend private members' hour to the full hour because government orders had intruded by about 20 minutes into private members' hour.
We are quite reasonable. We are mild-mannered people. We are good natured. As Henry Higgins said in "My Fair Lady", we have "the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein". I would sing it, but I do not think 1 should. We are quite reasonable.
Hon. members opposite have to look at their position in the debate. They talk about everything. They are still fighting the last election. I do not blame them. We had the spectacle on Friday of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) going to Toronto cap in hand, or whatever the expression is, and pouring forth his heart to Bill Davis and all the provincial Tories. He was wrong, he said, they should not have allowed that vote to happen on December 13. We can understand the sensitivities and sensibilities.
I do not want to ram anything down anyone's throat. As 1 said, we want to be mild-mannered and reasonable. We can understand when the Leader of the Opposition makes a public display of pouring out his heart, much like a group therapy session. We do not want to rub it in any further. The government is quite within its rights, not just technical and legal rights but within its moral rights to bring in 75c.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says no. We have the rule on the books. It is a rule that has been used at some times with extreme caution. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton used it in this very House only a few months ago. It is there for specific situations when urgent business has to get through the House. I think we are doing hon. members a favour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: We should be able to go back during the summer recess and say to our constituents that we had a very productive session. However, if we allowed Bill C-30 to be debated ad infinitum, we would be here all summer. I do not think any member should hold up the debate or filibuster solely out of pique, if it is pique, or solely because he disagrees with the principle of the bill.
In the United Kingdom, second reading is done within a day and all questions are put. How long does it take you to state your principles? Do you have to state them ad infinitum, like the hon. member for St. John's West? 1 do not think so. I am in agreement with using 75c and I welcome the opportunity to get this legislation through.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring the parliamentary secretary back from this trip to Fantasy Island.


Mr. Nowlan:: He didn't take the "Love Boat", he used a scow.


Walter David Baker: This is very important. In his last utterance he talked about the importance of the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is quite clear; it is a very easy principle. It is a desire and an attempt by the Government of Canada to borrow $12 billion.
The minister comes to this Parliament and asks for permission to borrow $12 billion. However, he has not recognized the purpose of this Parliament. Its purpose is not to put a stamp automatically, like a clerk, on a requisition for $12 billion. The purpose of this Parliament is to ask the ministry why it needs the $12 billion.
When an official of the Department of Finance is reported publicly as saying that there may be no need for the full $12 billion, the government should be satisfied and should carry on its business with something less, at least for a time. The Parliament of Canada is then entitled to ask how much less. Why did the government choose the figure of $12 billion in those circumstances?
Sometimes in these debates two things happen. Sometimes the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) or his parliamentary secretary, and now we have a Minister of State, Finance (Mr. Bussieres), stand in their place during the course of the debate and tell Parliament why they need the money, or what is happening to the economic situation in the country that will require them to need the money. Sometimes they do that and sometimes they don't.
This is one of the occasions on which the government, for one reason or another, which I think is in keeping with exactly the same theory on the operation of government as we saw when they promised a bill on freedom of information-and we don't see it-comes to Parliament and says: "Parliament, you are the handmaidens of the government, we do not have to tell you anything, we will do what we please; give us the bill".
That is the issue in this debate, but the background of that issue is important because we face an unusual government. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the beginning of the Thirty-first Parliament when the Liberal party was in opposition. The then financial critic, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), moved that the issue with respect to interest rates be the subject of examination by a parliamentary committee. The government of the day, the government of
June 9, 1980

which I had the honour to be president of the privy council, agreed that this would be a good thing. Then when we were in opposition, the first motion we brought forward under Standing Order 43 called upon the government opposite to do precisely what they said they wanted us to do. And they said no.
We heard during the election campaign that this 18 cents tax on gasoline was dreadful. Some people would agree with that, others would not. There is still revenue to be raised in the country. But in any event, hon. members opposite were returned to office. They were returned on a condition that their oil price would be less than ours. Mr. Speaker, the ink was not dry on their commissions as cabinet ministers signed by the Governor General before we began to hear noises suggesting that their promise, their commitment, meant nothing at all.
Then, Mr. Speaker, they floated an idea on a principle which was stolen from the Hon. Robert Lome Stanfield with respect to the indexation of income tax; that was his proposal made by him during the course of an election campaign, and it was stolen and adopted in the course of that great conversion by John Turner before he flew the coop-


An hon. Member:: Do you want him back?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member from Newfoundland over there asks whether we want him back. I can say this: you fellows could certainly use him back; at least he understood the House of Commons from the point of view of a minister of finance coming to this chamber and coming clean with the members sitting here, which is something the present Minister of Finance has yet to understand.
In any event, what is happening now is that this commitment made by the government is being changed. They are now beginning to raise taxes. They are raising taxes through the back door. They are raising taxes on the backs of the poor and the disadvantaged. That is something I never heard anything about in the course of the election campaign. They gave the impression that if they were returned to office everything would be roses, we would wallow in prosperity. Instead, we are wallowing in unemployment and we are wallowing in a lack of candour with the House of Commons as to what direction the country is going to take.
I can say now, on behalf of this party, that if the Minister of Finance, who is in the House, will tell us upon what date he proposes to bring in his budget, we will end this debate now. We would allow that bill to proceed and there would be no point dealing with the closure motion. But he is not going to do that. He is not going to do that at all. What has he done? One thing he stole from our budget, which I thought was a sound item, was the proposal regarding the small business development bond. People are writing to us asking when they are going to bring it in. Not a whisper; no advantage to small businessmen. Farmers have been denied the advantageous capital gains measure which was in our budget. All these things have been denied while the Minister of Finance is out
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
behind the international curtain in Paris attending this conference and that conference.
The cost of the oil import equalization program has now risen to $3.32 billion from $3.1 billion. This means we shall be faced with a deficit of $14 billion. And we are asked to approve a blank cheque for that government, that spendthrift, wastrel government. No, Mr. Speaker, no blank cheque.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: When my friend-and he is my friend-the government House leader talks about improving the rules of the House of Commons and about shortened speeches, I say this to him: I will agree to shorten speeches, but not for nothing. I will agree to shorten speeches in return for something very important to us and to all members of this Parliament, even the silent Liberals who get up and down like trained seals to support a government which even they must have doubt about, given the breaches of promises. I want some power given to this Parliament. I want this Parliament and future Parliaments to cease to be handmaidens of the government. As the member of a government I prepared a program which would have done precisely that and, at the same time, shorten speeches. We are now some 90 days into this session and though the government House leader talks about improving our rules and shortening our procedures, streamlining them and so on, has the House committee on Procedure and Organization met? No, it has not. Parliamentary reform to that party over there, at least as they have demonstrated it, is not intended to improve the lot of private members or to make government more accountable to Parliament; it is to make Parliament more convenient for the government of the day.


Mr. Gourd:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would like to say that the opposition House leader (Mr. Baker) referred to the ninetieth day. 1 want to point out to the House that it is the forty-first day of the session.


Walter David Baker: 1 thank the hon. member very much. It just seems like 90 days bearing in mind the legislative wasteland we have had to deal with so far and the lack of answers we have received. But that is the position we are in. It does not lie in the hands of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to say that the legislation we put through last Friday, co-operating with the government, is unimportant.


David Michael Collenette: 1 did not say that.


Walter David Baker: He did. He called them small bills, little bills, unimportant bills. "Small change" he just called it. If farm improvement legislation and small business legislation can be described as small bills, I think the parliamentary secretary had better look to his priorities with respect to the problems of this country.

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in today is, to my mind, a demonstration of what appears to be the consensus of this House that speeches need not extend beyond a limit of ten minutes. I trust that if this matter does come before the committee to which the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) referred within the next few days we can start from the basis of that consensus rather than work from the premise that certain members of the House need extended time in order to put a few ideas before the House and before the public.
I am particularly concerned that the hon. member would stand in his place and suggest he has such a deal for the government today. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) would stand before this House and give him but a date, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton would be prepared to allow this bill to go forward. 1 was listening rather attentively before the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton rose to speak because it has been my experience in this House that you cannot listen to just one person opposite to determine what it is hon. members opposite are really after. If you do that, you find yourself running a fool's errand. If you give in first on one item, then you find there is one more thing they want and after that just one more thing. I would not stand in my place and support a government which would give in to that kind of pressure-I am almost willing to say blackmail. This government has been elected to govern this nation and not to give in to the power play tactics of members of an opposition who refuse to support bills or who support them so that they can buy something for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Daudlin:: To get back to my point, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said that if we would but give him that date, he would assure us that his party would no longer stop this bill. That says two things. It confirms what the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary before me said, and that was that the opposition is systematically stoppping this bill from going forward for no other reason but simply to stop it. That should not be allowed to continue. The hon. member said, "Give us a date". The former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), said, "Give me the date, and we will be prepared to allow this bill to pass". However, then he had second thoughts about that and said that in addition to the date he was concerned about what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was doing about oil prices. Already we see the hint that if we were to give a date, hon. members opposite would not be satisfied with that and we would have to give in to something else. I am sure hon. members in the New Democratic Party would then want to jump on the same horse, and they would raise their particular pet peeve.
The people I have the joy to represent, the people of Essex-Kent, and others sent this government to Ottawa to conduct the affairs of this nation as best it saw possible. The people of Essex-Kent thought that all men and women sent to this House were honourable and capable of sitting down and negotiating what is required so that things could happen in this House. The people sent us here believing that men and women of good will can sit down and negotiate to a conclusion which benefits the nation. When I go home, people ask why we sit and listen to people talking on a bill hour after hour seemingly with no direction. Why is it that there seems to be no particular relevance in the debates? Why is it that we seem to hear the same things being said again and again?
I can tell from the look on your face, Mr. Speaker, that you have gone through the speeches and said to yourself: "I have seen this before. Surely this is nothing new. My goodness, surely some other hon. member has said this before". When we go through the speeches, we find that that is exactly what is going on. It is deja vu. We have seen it all before, and that kind of thing should not be allowed.
If we were limited to ten minute speeches like we are today, and if we were forced to come to the issues before us and the principles of bills and tried to divorce ourselves from repeating what has gone on before, we would find that a debate could be completed in a day and all the new ideas could have been brought forward. That is the kind of thing I think we should be moving toward.
During his short intervention the hon. member for St. John's West spoke about rumours and rumours fueling rumours. It is interesting to hear that because one is forced to reflect on the source of those rumours. We hear opposition members in this place day after day saying not that some minister or some hon. member but some mysterious person from the bureaucracy has been floating some kind of an idea. Some servant of the public has said such and such and "Is that not a terrible thing, and does that not mean that the government is going in certain directions?" I have a great deal of respect for this House, and what we should do first is listen to what the ministers of the Crown are saying in this House. That is the direction which is being given in terms of where the government of the day is going. We should not be going to The Globe and Mail on the fifth page to determine whether some idea is being floated or whether there is a rumour. We should be sitting in the House, listening and determining from that what the direction of the government is, and we should be debating it.
Hon. members opposite talk about the government not pressing forward by giving them a budget in the time frame they would like. It is interesting, is it not, that we had an election on February 18 and that we were back in this House on April 3? However, that is not good enough. Immediately the opposition says we have to do better. They forget the election of May 22 and coming back to this House on October 8. We had to wait until December for a budget.
June 9, 1980

189!


An hon. Member:: We had to uncook the books.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Hon. members opposite forget those things when they say we are not doing well enough. We have done better than they, we continue to do better, and it does not take much of an effort to do better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member not like to correct his statement? We were not back on April 3. It was April 14.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. The hon. member will forgive a lapse. I was back in Ottawa on the third wishing we had already resumed, and I am certain I saw the hon. member in the halls on the same day. It has been suggested that we are rushing on to closure. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) pointed out that the previous House leader had taken some pains in a previous debate in December to indicate the difference between the application of Standing Order 75c and the closure rules which also exist. I think it is important that the people across Canada understand that distinction, but I ask hon. members opposite to do more than pay lip service to the fact that there is in existence that kind of a set of rules. They started today by admitting rather belatedly, and I think rather sheepishly, that while they were in government they said there is a distinction and a difference. When their own speeches are brought to their attention they have to admit that, but they still stand in their places and talk again about closure. If anyone has to come clean, it is hon. members opposite. 1 ask that they abide by the rules. If they want the rules changed, let us sit down and change them; but until we do change them let us use them effectively and do what we are here to do, and that is to see that the best interests of Canada are served.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Daudlin). I note in passing that off the floor the hon. gentleman in a way is a personal friend of mine, but on the floor obviously and necessarily he is a political adversary, since we live in an adversary system.
The hon. gentleman talks about reform, but the procedure committee has not yet been structured. I have been on the procedure committee and that committee has tried to reform this House in a meaningful way for many years. There is a fear on the part of members of the opposition with regard to so-called reform coming from the government opposite. In the last number of years the government has had only a brief three months' experience in opposition. Our fear is exemplified by what is going on in the House today. Our fear is that reform will be chloroform to the rights and privileges of members of the opposition whose only real medium and vehicle for opposi-
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
tion is rhetoric and the ability to stand in this House to make the odd speech from time to time.
There can be reform. In some debates the length of speeches should very well be cut down. Reference has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) to the English system. We all know that the mechanics of the rules of procedure of the unitary system in England are fundamentally different from those of the House of Commons of Canada. Canada stretches some 4,000 miles from sea to sea and the analogy of the unitary system does not fit.
Talking of deja vu, 1 cannot imagine any precedent in history that would allow what is going on here today. There is a reason. It was not quite what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, as 1 heard him, that the debate on the whole bill might very well stop. Certainly as far as this party is concerned, the debate on the motion would stop if the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) brought into the House of Commons a budget, so that members who wanted to speak on the budget debate had an opportunity to do so.


David Michael Collenette: Oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council had a chance to speak. Frankly I was surprised at the list of numbers. 1 was away for a couple of days last week. If I was told that 24 or 35 members in opposition had spoken on this bill, their case might have been a little stronger. But for members opposite to take the Holy Grail now and wrap themselves in a shroud of sanctimonious rhetoric about delay and filibuster is the absolute height of hypocrisy after what they did to the previous government on the mortgage tax deductibility bill. That issue was debated during one election. The public of Canada had given a certain definition of approval for that issue along with other issues. It had been ventilated with the public.
The fundamental reason for a House of Commons, if one wants to go back to England and the days of yore, is to debate the power of the purse, not to pass mortgage deductibility bills and legislative bills. In terms of the analogy of England, it is just sad. The fact of the matter is that they have a wholly different unitary system. They bring in a budget before they try their allocation procedure. They have a five-year or a ten-year plan for financial estimates which is basic and obviously has changes. But the big thing they have in the federal House which we in this country do not have is that in the normal course of events there are changes in government, and the very change in government acts as a governor on what the new government will do. Remembering some of the frustrations of opposition, the new government will not be quite as arrogant or quite as indirect in terms of changing the rules.

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
They appreciate the frustrations and the problems in opposition.
There is a sickness in this country in terms of parliamentary democracy. It was one of the sadnesses of the defeat of February 18, regardless of the fact that some people sit on the right side and some on the left side of the House. 1 am referring to the fact that through our parliamentary institution there was not enough time to educate those who only had days in government. Both of the parliamentary secretaries who spoke today are able parliamentarians. They would be that much more able and competent if they had had a longer time in opposition to understand the real process of government, rather than the brief few days they were in opposition.
The hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd) spoke on a point of order. He mentioned that this House of Commons has only been sitting for 41 days since the last election. The totality of the previous government's term was only 47 days. That is not time enough for parliamentary secretaries, no matter how able or competent, to start to appreciate what real reform should be, especially those members who have only sat in government. We cannot get real reform when a basic blank cheque bill for $12 billion is brought in and there has been no direction from the government treasury benches as to how government fiscal and monetary policies will be utilized and developed from that $12 billion.
I mainly mentioned the parliamentary secretaries who spoke, but the Minister of Finance was here before. How many members opposite came here only in 1974? How many of them appreciate that the total budget of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada up until 1968 was only $12 billion? 1 think the two parliamentary secretaries both were elected in 1974. I am not casting anything on them personally, but they have had no experience in terms of restraint in government spending. Six years later the budget, which had reached $12 billion in the first term of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), was $28 billion. We all know what has been happening ever since. We are being asked for a blank cheque amounting to $1 billion for each month, or, as someone said, in effect it is $1 billion for each of the 12 hours that this debate has lasted.
Obviously the public outside is turned off by a lot of what goes on inside here. There is a crying out for some direction in economic policy, so that their pocketbooks mean a little more at the end of a week than will be the case if inflation and all the other economic problems are not brought under control and there is not some direction from the treasury benches. 1 do not think the public is upset because we have spent 12 hours on a blank cheque for $12 billion. It was almost the exact amount of total federal spending back in 1968, which at that time amounted to $12,200 million. That is why members of the opposition resent this fact.
In a new Parliament there are supposed to be opportunities to reform our procedures. All members know we have archaic methods and outdated rules which must be brought up to date.
One does not start to develop that atmosphere when the government brings in time allocation or closure-call it what you will, we all know what it does; it cuts off debate-in the first major spending program. Quite frankly I am amazed.
If my party had stayed in power longer, I would have counselled my prime minister to bring in allocation many more times on issues of topical interest where the public could give its opinion on the subject matter, whether it was on unemployment or legislative bills. That is where allocation should come in, when debate has been held up by an opposition that goes on and on. One only has to read the debates of the last House to see the repetitive speeches on the mortgage tax deductibility bill. Debate went on for six or eight days. I forget how many hours or how many speakers there were. I would venture to say that both parliamentary secretaries who spoke here today contributed their words of repetition to that debate. The public of Canada had already decided upon that issue, among other reasons, by voting for us in the election held just before.
It is rather ironic that we are debating this matter today, this allocation motion. We all know that the real action today is not in this House, but it involves the House, the people across the country from coast to coast, the spokesmen for the federal government and/or the provincial governments who are at 24 Sussex Drive.
in view of some of the events which occurred outside the House in the last three weeks, I should like to say that there has been some good will. Everyone in the House wanted to ensure that there was a strong No. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that his party would be voting no to this motion tonight. I should like to indicate that the members on my side of the House will be voting no to this motion. There has been some good will, but good will is not built in a new Parliament when a blank cheque for $12 billion is brought in. This cannot be done after only 12 speakers from Her Majesty's loyal opposition and four from the NDP have participated. The government cannot say that is time to cut off debate.
We are heading into the summer recess and the Prime Minister is trying to wrestle and come to grips with the premiers of the provinces in order to resolve fundamental questions. We all know that attitude is important. I gather my time is just about up on this motion, but in closing it is ironic that the Prime Minister sent roses or flowers to the different suites of the premiers as they checked in last night. I give him credit for that; perhaps it will get things off to a good start at 24 Sussex. Hopefully roses and sweet flowers in the suites of the premiers will help; but poison ivy in the House of Commons will not help the attitude, impression, confidence and reciprocation of members. This allocation motion is a dose of poison ivy. It will poison the atmosphere and affect members in their deliberations when we get on with government business. I am certainly glad we are voting no.
June 9, 1980


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, join in this debate on the imposition of Standing Order 75c. I agree wholeheartedly that it should be imposed. I have been in the House, watched this debate go on and listened to what hon. members opposite had to say. In fact, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) just said that there were 12, 13 or 15 members of the opposition who spoke.


John Horton McDermid: Out of 103.


John Leslie Evans: There were 22 members who spoke, two of whom are on the government benches.


An hon. Member:: There were three government members.


John Leslie Evans: Excuse me, there were three. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), myself, and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). That leaves 19 opposition members.
The reason we did not stand in our places and speak on this bill, C-30, was that we wanted to hear what opposition members had to say. In 12 hours of debate we have now heard everything at least three times. About half-way or two-thirds of the way through that debate I stood in my place and for 40 minutes gave answers to questions raised by hon. members opposite. I answered those questions to the best of my ability and with honesty. I am sure hon. members agreed with that because they complimented me on my efforts. We have answered those questions and if there are additional questions I would be willing and have been willing to answer them. In fact, I did answer supplementary questions put to me by hon. members on this particular bill.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we have a new Parliament that has almost one year of backlog material to be dealt with in this House, is this a time to be spending five days, as we have done so far and six after Wednesday, on a bill that is two paragraphs long extending to two pages?


An hon. Member:: Involving $12 billion.


John Leslie Evans: There is the backlog of material that has to be dealt with in this House. These are the bills before this House at this time. If we are required to spend five days of debate on this bill, how long is it going to take us to deal with all these bills?
It is quite clear that a filibuster has been taking place and that it would continue to take place. 1 have been told by hon. members opposite that they have enough speakers to continue for as long as the debate will last.


An hon. Member:: Obviously.


John Leslie Evans: In other words, the government is being forced
into the position of having to impose 75c in order that we can
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
have the kind of debate we are having today, and that is the truth of the matter.
Having regard to the questions that were asked, hon. members opposite have said that if the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance brought down a budget they would discontinue the debate. I have now heard the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants say, of course, that that only applies to not continuing this particular debate on this motion today and did not apply to discontinuing the debate on the bill itself.
I stood in my place last Monday night and gave indications why the Minister of Finance has not yet brought down a budget and why it will be a little while before he is able to bring down a budget. There were two issues. Hon. members opposite know those two issues and, putting all rhetoric aside, have to agree with them.
The first is that you cannot bring down a budget involving revenues and expenditures when one of the major revenue sources and revenue drains facing this government, the energy pricing issue, has not been resolved. If you do not have clear information about those revenues and expenditures, about what will happen to the oil import compensation payments and what is going to happen to revenues that come to the federal government from this area, then a budget is not possible.
The second issue involves the envelope system first conceived by Mr. Andras, who is no longer with us in this House. That system was implemented by hon. members opposite when they were in government. We compliment them for that because we think it is a good system and we are going to continue it. This envelope system requires that ministers understand clearly what are the trade-offs within their various departments, in the envelopes, so as to be able to put forward expenditure plans that reflect the priorities within those envelopes. The ministers are working diligently to see that this is done.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is working diligently to see that an energy pricing package is negotiated with the provinces and agreed to. When those two things are in place we will be able to bring down a budget. It will be a well-thought-out budget which will deal with the priorities this government has, taking into consideration the objections and concerns of the opposition.
The fact of the matter is, and hon. members opposite have to agree, that the federal government has to continue; it cannot cease to exist as of the end of this month. Gentlemen opposite know that the borrowing authority available to this government cannot last forever, that it will run out at the end of this month or the middle of next month. Hon. members opposite would like to debate this. I can tell them that if they pass the bill at second reading it will go to the committee where detailed questions can be asked and detailed answers given. This is not the place or the time for that kind of debate. We are debating the bill in principle. Is it a principle of hon. members opposite to have the government run out of money

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
and cease to exist? I certainly hope that is not the case, but that is what will happen unless Bill C-30 passes.
This bill is necessary or it would not have been brought forward. The bill asks the permission of the House for the government to borrow additional moneys to keep it going during the interim period until a new budget can be brought down, until an energy pricing agreement can be reached, and until the envelope system can be well-thought-out and put into place. That is what the government is asking for and it is reasonable.
The estimates handed down by the previous government and reintroduced by this government, though they do not represent our spending plans, until supplementary estimates are brought in are our spending plans. These estimates clearly indicate what will be done with the $12 billion. The expenditures and revenues are clearly represented in those estimates. If hon. members opposite will read the estimates they will recognize that this is what they were faced with when in government.
The people who watch us daily and who read what is going on in the House of Commons are becoming a little disturbed that progress is not being made with bills that are really not matters involving philosophical differences between parties. Hon. members opposite know that, had the Conservative government been put back in place, this bill would have been introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), or whoever would then have been minister of finance. This bill does not involve philosophical differences but rather is a matter of keeping the government running.
It is time we stopped this fooling around and got down to the business of moving forward with the important issues that have to come before this House. There are many such issues. I just need to hold up this particular package again to indicate the number of issues that need to be debated in this House. These are Commons bills. We have had 12 hours of debate and we will have one more day of debate on Wednesday on this bill that contains two paragraphs. Certainly it refers to $12 billion. If they look at the estimates handed down by the last government hon. members will find that this is $12 billion that they would have requested.
We are proposing this motion under Standing Order 75c in order to get this matter before the committee where specific questions can be asked and detailed answers can be given. In this way we can move on with the business of governing this country and quit this horsing around.


Donald W. Munro: That was a great piece of rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, devoid of any content whatsoever. One of the previous speakers mentioned the fact that we repeat things in this House over and over again. Let me take a local example of the radar at Victoria international airport. We have repeated the facts of this situation over and over again. In spite of that, when we speak to the minister he
says: "Well, isn't there radar at Victoria international airport"? They do not listen.
It is high time we looked at some of the philosophical bases on which this Parliament works. Let me read just a few words in this vein. These are not my words but are taken from a document, the authors of which 1 will deal with in a moment. It is a perfectly respectable report to this House, and the first chapter begins as follows:
Accountability is the working principle of our parliamentary system and a process whose effective functioning is essential to our democratic government.
Those are very fundamental words in respect of this particular debate-accountability, the parliamentary system and democratic government. This particular closure motion brought under Standing Order 75c is a denial in these circumstances of the accountability of the parliamentary system and of democratic government. The government refuses to let us know the reasons it is asking for authority to borrow $12 billion.
* (1630)


John Horton McDermid: It's a nice round figure.


Donald W. Munro: It is a round figure. As the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) mentioned a few minutes ago, it was the entire expenditure of the Libera] government when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) assumed office. The figure has now reached the point where they are talking about $56 billion or $60 billion.
One could reflect on just what this amount of money means. Attempts have been made in this House to define billions of dollars. I have worked out one way. If one were to stack one thousand dollar bills one on top of another until one reached $1 billion, the stack would be higher than the Peace Tower. That is merely $1 billion. Twelve of these stacks one on top of the other would amount to a stack which would be 3,800 feet high.


Roger Simmons: How about dimes?


Donald W. Munro: Such a stack would probably amount to a little more than one kilometer. That is a lot of one thousand dollar bills. Without a proper debate, a proper explanation or a budget, that is what we in this House are being asked to approve.
That quotation I gave was taken from the Lambert report that was tabled in this House in March, 1979, and it goes on to say at page 370:
Parliament has three tasks to perform, to legislate, to grant supply and authorize the levying of taxes, and, ultimately, to support or replace the Ministry.
As part of its granting of supply:
Parliament's responsibility... is the continuous scrutiny that it is empowered to maintain over the government's implementation of the measures to which Parliament has given assent.
June 9, 1980

The government is asking us for a blank cheque for $12 billion yet, according to the fundamental philosophy under which this Parliament works, we are expected to undertake continuous scrutiny. How can we scrutinize something about which we do not know? Page 371 of the Lambert report says:
The key to Parliament's role as a body to which accountability is owed for the administration of government has always been the need for Parliament s approval of government expenditure and its power to review that expenditure.
How are we ever going to be able to review that expenditure if we do not know on what it is the $12 billion is to be expended? That is the conundrum here. The government has only to explain the $12 billion. It has not even told us how much of the previous borrowing authority it failed to use. Under the Lambert report in January of this year a special adviser was appointed to advise the government on what action it should take within one year of each of the commission's recommendations.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that in fact his question about how much borrowing authority since March 31, 1980, and prior to March 31, 1980. had been used can be found on the record in Hansard, if the hon. member will just look for it.


Donald W. Munro: I would like to take another extract from the Lambert report, and that is recommendation No. 21.2:
-there be established a committee of the House of Commons to be known as the Standing Committee on Government Finance and the Economy, that the annual fiscal plan presented to Parliament be automatically and permanently referred to this committee, that the committee report to the House on its study of the plan, and, that the government respond formally to the committee's report during a subsequent debate.
To my knowledge, this government has not taken any steps whatever to implement that very important recommendation and establish a committee on government finance and the economy. Nor has it presented an annual fiscal plan. It presented part of a plan in a statement on motions but refuses to produce its full plan. This is the problem which this Parliament faces.
I address through you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) directly and say that he should know that this Parliament cannot willingly, without the imposition of this closure rule, approve a blank cheque for $12 billion for a government which refuses to account for its expenditures, and we on this side of the House will not approve it. Using standards of domestic husbandry, it is evident that patterns of regular deficits signify bad management. When those regular deficits are taken in a governmental context and on a national basis-and not only are they regular deficits, but regularly mounting deficits-then there is cause for concern and alarm.
A former president of the Treasury Board appeared at a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which was brought together to discuss the problems of parliamentary scrutiny over public finance and to suggest ways of
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
altering the balance between the legislature and the executive. Mr. Robert Andras was the Canadian spokesman at that particular meeting. One has cause for great concern because it was he while president of the Treasury Board who saw these deficits mount. They have mounted to such a degree that we are now faced with a net debt-and I hesitate to use the figure because it verges on meaningless-of $55.8 billion in 1979.
The net debt per capita of this country is almost $2,400. Every man, woman and child in this country owes and will have to meet a debt charge of, to be exact, $2,360 in 1979. This is the matter which causes us such grave concern and alarm, and I refer not only to this Parliament but to the people of Canada.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I believe we had one of the more amusing periods in this House this afternoon when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) quite openly embraced the views which had been expressed by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
I could not help but reflect back to one of my very first days, indeed my third day, in this particular chamber, when we were involved in another debate such as this one on exactly the same kind of motion under Standing Order 75c. On that particular day the positions were reversed in that it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who spoke and who was followed by the hon. member for St. John's West, if hon. members would check Hansard. On that day they were talking about the same kind of motion and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to his credit, took exactly the same position as he took today, with one added touch. Today he was able to embrace the views of the hon. member for St. John's West. When the speaking positions were reversed, the result was somewhat different. Then the hon. member for St. John's West was in a position to comment on what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said. The hon. member for St. John's West said it was a lot of trash and nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now 1 know I was right.


Roger Simmons: Now the hon. member should know that he was right. It was not he but the hon. member for St. John's West who changed gears on this one. What the hon. member for St. John's West embraces in June of 1980 he thought then was a lot of trash. That sums up the ludicrous position taken by the Tories in this debate this afternoon. 1 have never heard such blatant hypocrisy as that expressed on this bill this afternoon.
We heard this afternoon from the hon. member for St. John's West. "Old Leather Lungs" himself was bellowing forth about how this was the worst thing that had ever happened in this House. But five or six months ago he sat here

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
and defended this kind of action. Tie went further, Mr. Speaker. If you check the Hansard for December 7 you will find that not only did he want to ram it through in two hours on a Friday afternoon, but he wanted the House to forgo supper hour and have a special Friday night sitting. He could not wait until Monday to get it over with. That Friday afternoon he moved a motion as follows:
That the House sit through the dinner hour and extend the hours of sitting tonight-
That is the kind of rush he was in in those days. How he has changed! What a transformation inside five or six months! He stands here with a straight face and scolds us for taking a full three months to bring in a budget. Is his memory so short that he forgets it was almost seven months before he could bring in that terrible excuse for a budget on December 11 last? He talks about the gag, the guillotine and all the other pretty things he can dream up. Where was his entertaining rhetoric six months ago? Was he silent then? Was he just swallowing or was he doing what he does on most issues-taking whichever side is convenient at the time?


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Roger Simmons: The New Democratic crowd would know all about changing positions, having changed on the constitution and taken both sides-having been for lower interest rates when they were high, and now that they are lower, screaming that they should be higher because of a recession.


An hon. Member:: Oh no.


Roger Simmons: Not all of them, just the spokesman for tinance. He was on the radio two weeks ago lamenting that if interest rates go down too much, it might have some severe economic implications. They sat on both sides of the constitution and on both sides of interest matters. They know all about taking both sides, Mr. Speaker, and they have taken them. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that today 1 have on what 1 call my "Ed Broadbent suit". It is a suit with two inside pockets. In one pocket he carries a speech representing one side of the situation, but if it is not opportune to deliver that speech he just reaches into his other pocket and takes out a speech on the other side of the issue. With only one speech you will notice, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 would remind the hon. member that he should not use the name of an hon. member but rather his riding.


Roger Simmons: 1 apologize, Mr. Speaker. I should have said the "patron saint of instant solutions"-


John Horton McDermid: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 wonder what Mr. Broadbent's two speeches have to do with rule 75c which we are supposedly debating at the present time.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is wondering; he wonders about so many other things. Let us see if we can find something that he can understand.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) coming into the chamber.


Walter David Baker: I think I will leave.


Roger Simmons: He, too, with a straight face talked about the budget. He was leader of a government in the House that could not produce in six months what he condemns us for not producing in three-a budget. He wants a date for the budget and suddenly all his principles go out the window. He talks about trained seals. If he really wants to see some trained seals he should look behind him when we call the vote on this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: I say to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that $12 billion should not come as a surprise to him. If he looks at the revenue and expenditure program contained in the Tory budget he will find that the borrowing requirement was indeed in the order of $12 billion, so this should come as no surprise to him.


Walter David Baker: Eight.


Roger Simmons: The official opposition was prepared to support a borrowing requirement of $12 billion when they were the government. Now they ask why we want $12 billion. I say they should read their own estimates and find out why we want $12 billion.


An hon. Member:: You read them.


Roger Simmons: I am told that when we were debating Bill C-20 in opposition last December, the mortgage bill, we took two or three days-


Walter David Baker: No, you are wrong.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Oh, you went on and on and on.


Walter David Baker: Seven days.


Roger Simmons: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton says we took seven days. The note 1 have before me says two or three. Would the hon. member like to put it on the record?


Walter David Baker: If it is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, I will read what 1 said on that occasion when speaking for the government, as follows:
I happen to be quite a reasonable man.
1 was speaking of myself, Mr. Speaker.
We have already spent seven days discussing this bill.
June 9, 1980

There appeared to be no end in sight. I think the record should be corrected to show that with respect to that bill a mighty filibuster was mounted by the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Because the bill was so bad.


Roger Simmons: I too, am anxious to have the record corrected, Mr. Speaker, in case my figure was wrong. It was only my third day in the House and the debate did not seem to me to have gone on for very long.


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


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about this closure motion. It is not simply a procedural matter in my judgment and 1 do not look upon it as inconsequential. I do not think that Standing Order 75c is simply to be used for the convenience of the government. 1 think it is a bad policy when the government decides to use closure after a limited debate.
1 began by saying closure was never intended to be simply a convenience; it was intended to be used if, as and when a debate had gone on at great length and there was some essential time constriction. Closure was never intended to be used to permit the government to do what it otherwise could not do.
I want to suggest that if the government had brought in its budget and indicated its fiscal intentions, if it had shown what its economic policy was going to be, then we might have expected the government to bring in a bill asking for permission to borrow money in order to facilitate expenditures during periods of slow revenue growth. But that is not the case. This government has been in existence for only 16 weeks. The House has been in session for only eight weeks. We are talking about a piece of major legislation. Just because it is a short bill containing two or three paragraphs does not in any way make it of no consequence. This is major legislation. This is legislation that speaks to the very heart of Parliament. This is legislation that speaks about the right of government to go into the marketplace unfettered and borrow money. This is legislation that is asking Parliament to say to the government that the government has the right, without ever telling Parliament for what use the money is to be put, to go and borrow and to repay in any currency. I repeat, to repay in any currency. This is major legislation.


An hon. Member:: Read the estimates.


Ian Deans: We cannot read the estimates. There is no budget. There is no policy. There is no economic direction. There is no fiscal policy. In fact, there is no responsibility at this point in terms of the government.
During the debate I said that if the government could tell us that it intends to bring in a budget some time in the fall, why does it not just ask for six months of borrowing? Why does the government not come to the House of Commons and ask for
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
permission to go into the marketplace any time between now and October, if you wish-choose a date-and borrow up to 50 per cent of the total amount of the expected requirements for the fiscal year? Then the remainder could be sought after the budget is brought in and Parliament has had an opportunity to pass judgment on the appropriateness of the government's fiscal and monetary intentions. That would make sense.
I can recall a debate not at all unlike this debate, in a minority government in another place, debating the requirements of that government's intentions to borrow, and limiting that government to a period of time that would require it to return to the legislature-in this case the House of Commons-to seek further borrowing approval. This procedure would allow the House of Commons and those who are elected by the people of Canada to pass judgment not only on the appropriateness of the further borrowing, but on the appropriateness to which the borrowing that had taken place was put.
I think that is fiscal responsibility and is not asking too much. I think that every member in this House knows from the debate that has taken place outside among the people of this country that the public are very concerned about the government's unfettered spending, about the government being able to borrow without any evident sense of responsibility and accountability to the House of Commons. I do not delude myself. 1 understand that the House of Commons has very little power over the way in which the government spends money, particularly in a majority government situation. I also understand that there is a requirement on all of us to pass some judgment about the government's expenditures. There is a requirement on all of us to rise in our places and take part in the debate, and to offer suggestions as to how the government should or should not spend the tax dollars of Canadians.
We cannot in good faith hand over money to a government that does not yet know what its own fiscal policy is going to be, what its own budget is going to contain on what its own monetary policy is going to be. We cannot then be asked to hand over to that government before the government itself knows what its requirements will be or what its expenditures are likely to be, or be expected to give the government carte blanche to go into the financial marketplace and borrow anywhere in the world in any currency obligating the people of Canada to repay, before they have had an opportunity to determine whether or not the money will be used appropriately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: In our parliamentary system, just because a political party forms the government does not give it an unfettered right to borrow. It does not give that party the right to proceed without reference to the House of Commons, or the right to expend money without first determining from where the money will come.

June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
Our parliamentary system is based on the House of Commons having the final say. How can we have the final say on the appropriateness of the government's borrowing $12 billion when we have no idea what the government intends to use that $12 billion for? Would that be responsible?


Mr. Dinsdale:: No.


Ian Deans: 1 ask hon. members whether they could tell their constituents how they acted on their behalf. 1 ask the Liberal backbenchers whether they could tell their constituents that they had acted on their behalf, that they kept a check on government expenditures, that they carefully scrutinized what the money was to be used for and then gave the government the authority to borrow. Government members cannot say that. Therefore, government members have no right to ask this House to pass this motion and the subsequent borrowing bill.
1 suggest that the government is moving too hastily on this matter. Instead it should have said that because of oil price negotiations and other extraneous matters a budget cannot be in place before the fall and that i needs to go into the marketplace to borrow from time to time in order to maintain the fiscal affairs of the country. The government should have said that between now and then it will need some borrowing authority from the House of Commons and that this will be asked for quarterly or once every six months until such time as it places before Parliament what its program is going to be. Had the government done that, there would have been no difficulty. It would have passed with very little comment and the government could have gone about its business.
I say to the government that it has no right, that it is outrageous, to ask the House of Commons to give it borrowing powers for an entire year-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please; I regret to interrupt the hon. member.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, it is not out
of pleasure that 1 rise today to make my remarks and comment on this motion introduced by our House leader, but rather because 1 feel it is my duty so the people of Canada will know what is happening, so they will be well informed and will be able to draw their own conclusions about what opposition members have been doing.
Mr. Speaker, on May 21 last, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) brought forward Bill C-30 in this House for first reading. A few days later, on May 27, the Minister of Finance asked that the bill be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Then the former finance minister, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) spoke for 97 minutes. Mr. Speaker, during one hour and 37 minutes, the hon. member for St. John's West addressed this House and the people of Canada or perhaps thought he was addressing the people of Canada with
the verve he is known for, and he spoke again for ten minutes this afternoon. What struck me the most in the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West-one cannot help noticing it-is his fondness for the word "budget."



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment'are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Cultural affairs-Government support for Vancouver Art Gallery; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)-Industry-Proposal for installation of syncrolift in St. John's dockyard; the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Search and rescue-Inquiry why capability on west coast not upgraded.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South) moved:: Thai, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to give individual taxpayers the option of claiming charitable gifts as deductions from taxable income or of deducting 50 per cent of the value of charitable gifts front income tax payable, and amending the present $100 standard tax deduction for medical and charitable purposes to apply only to medical expenses.
He said: The purpose of the motion, Mr. Speaker, that I am bringing before the House today is to help voluntary organizations make a greater contribution to the quality of life in Canada. Specifically, I am urging the government to amend the Income Tax Act; first, to remove the standard $100 deduction for charitable donations and, second, to replace the standard deduction with a 50 per cent tax credit along with the option of continuing to deduct charitable contributions from taxable income if it is in the taxpayer's interest to do so.
June 9, 1980

1 hope to show in this debate that this tax reform, first advocated by the committee of national voluntary organizations, is fiscally sound, beyond partisanship and urgently needed. It is needed because, at this very moment when our expanding society is benefiting from a vast range of services in the voluntary sector, the voluntary sector itself is struggling to survive financially.
There can hardly be a Canadian who is not helped or being helped by one or more of Canada's 45,000 registered charities. There are organizations for the disadvantaged within Canada, the poor, the sick and the needy. There are organizations for all groups, from children to the aged. There are health organizations for research and heart and lung disease, cancer, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, health services for the mentally or physically handicapped. There are religious organizations sustaining and preserving our spiritual values, be they Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic or Buddhist. There are international development organizations providing basic needs to people in the developing countries. There are educational organizations for universities, colleges, adult education, child education, future studies. There are environmental organizations for the preservation and beautification of our air, land, water and cities. There are cultural organizations for native and ethnic groups for art, music and dance. Some voluntary organizations serve national needs, others serve local communities. Many of these needs cannot be met by government or business.
The benefits of voluntary activity extend to the participants, recipients and the community as a whole. For the participant, voluntary activity is a means to become involved in his or her community at a time when other community ties such as the family and the work place are being eroded. Voluntary activity helps a person to develop into a better, happier human being with a greater sense of purpose and understanding.
For the recipient of voluntary activity, a service is provided which might otherwise be unaffordable. It is more likely to be responsive to his or her individual need and more personal than a government or a bureaucracy.
Of course, if individuals are healthier and happier, society as a whole benefits. Through voluntary organizations, the talent, creativity and energy of human society are more fully utilized, with little extra cost. Often voluntary organizations are in the vanguard of social change, as in the case of civil rights, women's liberation, consumer advocacy or environmental protection. There is no way that governments could ever replace the voluntary sector-not without considerable cost in terms of human and financial resources and the loss of initiative and community purpose.
But today voluntary organizations are the victims of inflation and economic restraint which have led to a decline in individual contributions in both real and absolute terms. In 1946, Canadians donated an average of 1.2 per cent of their income to charity; in 1970, an average of only 0.5 per cent of income was donated. I believe this decline is continuing.
Corporate donations have also been declining. A 1975 study
of corporate giving by the Institute of Donations and Public
Charitable Donations
Affairs Research showed that donations had dropped by 15 per cent between 1974 and 1975.
Charities depend on individual contributions in order to maintain their independence from government and remain responsive to community needs. In 1977 an estimated $755 million was donated by individuals to registered charities. The value of the volunteer services which individuals donate effectively doubles the size of this contribution. But the budgets of charitable organizations are being wrecked by inflation. Most are simply not receiving sufficient donations to enable them to maintain the services we have come to expect. The financial crunch has pushed some voluntary organizations into the lottery field where they face tough competition from governments. I think it is deplorable that charitable organizations have to rely on gambling to raise money.
If we want to ensure the economic survival of voluntary organizations, we will have to find a way of encouraging private donations. That brings me to the proposed amendment to the present tax system that would, in my judgment, provide this incentive.
Let us look at the present situation. A charitable donation can be deducted from taxable income up to a maximum of 20 per cent of income. Yet in 1977, only 12.5 per cent of taxpayers filed receipts for deductions.
The deduction of charitable donations from taxable income is an unequal incentive to give for different individuals. It costs taxpayers in higher income brackets less for each dollar donation than it costs taxpayers in lower income brackets. For example, let us assume two individuals give $100 to a registered charity. One person earns $15,000 a year and has a marginal tax rate of 12 per cent. The tax on his last $100 is $12. If he donates the $100, his taxable income is reduced by $100 and his income tax payable is reduced by $12. The $100 donation consequently costs him $88.
The second person earns $25,000 and has a marginal tax rate of 30 per cent. If he donates $100, he reduces his income tax payable by $30. The cost of the $100 donation is therefore $70, as opposed to $88 for the lower income taxpayer. As we look at the whole country, it costs individuals who are taxed at the highest rate only $36 for a $100 donation; it costs those at the lowest rate $94; and those who are too poor to pay taxes at all, $100. The less you earn, the more it costs to make a donation.
The current tax system also provides for a standard deduction of $100 for charitable donations and medical expenses. In 1977, 87.5 per cent of people who paid tax claimed this standard deduction.
When a taxpayer chooses to claim the $100 standard deduction, he or she can do so without filing receipts to prove that a donation was actually made. Because the standard deduction can be claimed with or without making a donation, it provides no incentive to charitable giving. Moreover, it is expensive for the government. In 1977, the federal and provincial govern-

June 9, 1980
Charitable Donations
ments lost $245 million in tax revenue because of the $100 standard deduction.
In 1974, a coalition of national charities set up the committee of national voluntary organizations. It has 108 national members who represent thousands of groups across the country. Under the committee, a task force on tax reform was established to examine ways of enhancing the role and capacity of voluntary organizations by providing an equitable incentive for taxpayers to make donations. In 1978, the committee set up a special project task force which recommended a significant amendment to the Income Tax Act. Called the "give and take" proposal, this recommendation has gained widespread support.
Here is the essence of the proposal. Ninety-eight per cent of taxpayers have a marginal tax rate under 50 per cent. It is these people who provide the bulk of the money for charity. A 50 per cent tax credit would mean that they could donate 50-cent dollars to charity.
For the person with the $15,000 income whose $100 donation costs him $88 now, the tax credit would mean that his donation would cost only $50. For the person with the $25,000 income whose $100 donation costs him $70 now, the tax credit would also mean that his donation would cost only $50. Both persons would receive equal tax benefit regardless of income, and both would have an increased incentive to give.
The tax credit would be set at 50 per cent for three reasons. It gives increased tax benefits to 98 per cent of taxpayers; it provides individuals with the same incentives as are already provided to corporations; and it can be paid for very easily if the government eliminated the standard $100 deduction entirely for both charitable donations and medical expenses.
There is no reason why political donations should receive any more beneficial tax treatment than charitable donations, yet three-quarters of a $100 political donation can be claimed as a tax credit. A $100 donation to a political candidate therefore costs only $25. A $100 donation to a charity costs anywhere from $36 to $100, depending on income. Following the introduction of tax credits for political donations, contributions to political parties quadrupled. A similar incentive should be given to charitable donations.
The option of deducting charitable donations from taxable income would ensure that the 2 per cent of taxpayers whose marginal tax rate is over 50 per cent would not be discouraged from making donations. Although this group is small, their contributions are large-$89 million in 1977. If they were only able to claim a 50 per cent tax credit, the cost to them of their contributions would increase, and their incentive to give would therefore be decreased.
A further incentive for charitable giving could be provided to all taxpayers if the deadline for charitable donations was extended to 60 days beyond the tax year end, as is the case with registered tax shelters. There would then be less of a time lag between the donation and the tax reconciliation.
Because the $100 standard deduction provides no incentive to giving, it should be eliminated-and that proposal is at the
heart of the suggested amendment. Such an amendment would increase the paper burden in Revenue Canada if it had to scrutinize receipts from the 7.7 million taxpayers who now claim the standard deduction. But the burden could be relieved if receipts were required only for donations exceeding $100. Receipts for gifts under $100 could be retained by the taxpayer in case of audit by Revenue Canada. This procedure is followed by the internal revenue service in the United States for charitable donations and is followed in Canada for child care expenses.
The national voluntary organizations' task force on tax reform has calculated what the cost of the proposal would be. With no standard deduction, a 50 per cent federal tax credit, and deductibility for taxpayers with a marginal tax rate over 50 per cent, federal and provincial governments would lose $391 million in tax revenues. In contrast, federal and provincial governments now lose about $484 million in tax revenues because of claims for the standard deduction and deductions for stated charitable donations. The proposed amendment would therefore initially save governments $93 million. According to the task force, "if giving increased at the rate of 10 per cent per year, in approximately four years the government would be at the break-even point according to 1977 figures." So I am putting forward an affordable proposal.
The $391 million cost of the proposal is calculated on the following basis. Four essential cost factors are as follows:
Receipts for $601 million in donations were claimed by taxpayers in 1977. Some $512 million of this was donated by taxpayers whose marginal rate was less than 50 per cent and who would therefore claim the tax credit. The cost of a 50 per cent tax credit on $512 million would be $256 million.
Some $89 million of the $601 million was donated by taxpayers whose marginal rate was over 50 per cent, and who would therefore claim the tax deduction. The cost of the tax deduction on $89 million would be $50 million.
The 7.7 million taxpayers who currently claim the standard deduction are estimated to give an average of $20 each to charity, for a total of $154 million. The cost of a tax credit on $154 million would be $77 million.
The medical deductions which would appear as a result of the end of the standard deduction would cost governments an estimated $8 million.
Adding all these cost factors, the total cost of the proposal is therefore $391 million. But, again, that is $93 million less than the present system costs the government.
Mr. Speaker, the "give and take" proposal for tax reform has received the support of many organizations across Canada. All the major churches are behind it. The international nongovernmental organizations support it. The national and local YMCAs, YWCAs, the Red Cross, Cancer Society and United Way are all in favour. The Canadian Council on Social Development recommends it, as does the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
June 9, 1980

Most recently, support has come from the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child. In its report tabled May 30 the commission calls for the 50 per cent tax credit and the elimination of the standard deduction in order to strengthen the voluntary sector. The needs of the voluntary sector became clear to the international year commissioners when some 4,000 proposals were submitted for projects of benefit to children. Most had to be turned down. In the commission's view, and I quote:
In a country that is in need of new and dynamic ways of addressing social problems, the energy and commitment of its concerned citizens should not have to be expended looking for money. In the long run, a small increase in support to the voluntary sector would bring tremendous dividends to us all.
To sum up, this proposed tax reform would achieve four objectives.
First, it would provide a tax incentive for charitable giving to all taxpayers. Under the present tax system many taxpayers have no incentive at all.
Second, it would make the tax incentive as equitable as possible among all income groups. Currently, higher income taxpayers have a greater incentive than lower income taxpayers.
Third, the tax incentive for charitable giving would not be reduced for any taxpayer. By retaining the option of deducting from taxable income, higher income taxpayers would have the same incentive to give as they do now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman. He may be able to continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Roche: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues; 1 will only be a moment.
Fourth, and most importantly, the increased tax incentives would strengthen voluntary organizations. Surely this goal will commend itself to hon. members on all sides of the House. I ask hon. members to support this motion because in doing so they will be supporting the lifeblood of Canadian society, those volunteer organizations which so deeply enrich the quality of life in Canada.
It is not in our power during private members' hour to change the tax law, but it is in our power to speak with one voice, to communicate our concern to the government and to urge this tax revision at the time of the next budget. Let us together share today in the creation of a small but very important part of that budget. Let us together speak on behalf of the voluntary sector so that our words will be followed by an action that will truly improve the human condition in our society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to speak
Charitable Donations
in this debate. The motion serves to remind us of the vitally important work that is done by the voluntary charitable organizations in Canada. And no doubt members of Parliament could use a reminder that we cannot look to government for everything and that action by voluntary groups still plays a vital role in our national community.
On the issue raised in this motion, there has been fairly extensive public interest. Two important briefs have been submitted to the government in recent years, the most recent being a paper in 1978 from the national voluntary organizations representing most of the larger national charitable groups. The proposals by the NVO are reflected in today's motion.
The NVO was concerned about the level of public support for charitable organizations in Canada. I am sure there is general agreement that providing an incentive for charitable giving is a legitimate field for government action. Whatever we do should be measured against three main objectives. First, the incentive should be an effective one. It does not make sense if the cost of the incentive exceeds the additional amount of giving that results. Second, any tax incentive should provide equitable treatment among taxpayers. Finally, the cost to the treasury should not be unreasonable.
The cost of the motion before us is estimated at more than $500 million in tax revenues forgone by the federal and provincial governments. In effect, it would involve doubling the existing revenue cost of tax incentive support for charitable organizations. At a time when we are worrying about reducing our present federal deficit we should not be thinking about adding another half billion dollars to the combined federal-provincial deficits.
A good part of the cost increase that would be created by this motion would result from the final suggestion in the motion. It proposes that the existing standard $100 deduction, which now applies to charitable donations and allowable medical expenses totalling less than $100, should be continued but apply only to medical expenses. The existing standard deduction in effect is an allowance for charitable donations alone, since a very small percentage of taxpayers have allowable medical expenses that they can claim. Thus, a standard $100 deduction for medical expenses would really mean a new deduction for almost all taxpayers. It would cost a total of about $250 million to federal and provincial treasuries. And it would do nothing to assist charitable organizations, which is the ostensible purpose of the motion before us.
The other main proposal in the motion calls for a system of tax credits for charitable donations. 1 recognize that it proposes, as an available option, the continuation of the present system of deductions from income subject to tax. But this option would be relevant only to a small minority of high-income taxpayers. For most taxpayers, a tax credit system is proposed.
I do not propose to discuss at length the suggested credit rate of 50 per cent. Obviously, such a rate would impose a large additional burden on the treasury. If we were to switch

June 9, 1980
Charitable Donations
to a tax credit system for charitable donations, the credit rate would have to be at a lesser level.
I should like to discuss, however, the relative merits of the two approaches-a tax credit and deductions from income. In practice, one obvious difference between the two results from the existing structure of progressive rates of income tax which increase with higher income groups. With a tax credit, all donors regardless of income level would get back the same proportion of their charitable givings as a credit. With deductions from income, the effective incentive for charitable giving is higher the higher the donor's marginal tax rate. If equity in the tax system is the overriding consideration, the principle of a tax credit would therefore seem to be the choice.
There are some things to be said, however, for the existing system of deducting charitable donations from income. The progressive structure of tax rates means that the incentive for charitable giving is strongest at higher income levels. And since a major function of charity in our society is to redistribute income from the better-off to those who are less well-off, we should recognize that the existing approach of deductions does have a secondary effect of redistributing income.
We should also realize that our existing income tax system represents a combination of both a progressive structure of tax rates and deductions. Successive Parliaments have attempted to mesh these two factors together to produce a fair and workable tax system. 1 suggest that any significant shift away from a deduction system toward a tax credit system will require a reconsideration of the progressive rate schedule to determine whether it is appropriate to a tax credit system, or whether the existing over-all distribution of tax liabilities is fair and equitable to all taxpayers. If a switch from the deduction system to a credit does result in additional tax burdens on middle and higher income taxpayers, it may well be necessary to offset this by readjusting the schedule of tax rates.
In view of the support which this motion gives to the tax credit idea, it is somewhat difficult to understand why it suggests keeping the existing deduction system as an alternative approach. As an option it would be preferable only for taxpayers at the upper end of the income scale, whose marginal tax rates exceed the rate of tax credit. Perhaps the sponsor of the motion had in mind the desirability of attracting larger charitable donations from such taxpayers. We should also consider, however, the increased complexity that would result in income tax returns from presenting optional tax treatment for charitable giving, and the fact that it would be a real option only for the well to do.
In considering government incentives for charitable donations, we need not limit our options to the tax system. There are feasible approaches that involve the expenditure side of the budget rather than the revenue side. One such approach could link government grants to a registered charity to the amount of donations which the charity receives. For example, a $100 gift
to a registered charity would mean a federal grant to the same charity of, say, $25. This would involve some substantial changes in the way we now proceed. The government would be dealing directly with the charitable organization rather than with the taxpayer donor through the income tax return.
Of course, the books of the charity would have to be audited. It would change the way in which donors viewed their gift. Instead of calculating how much it would mean in the way of a tax deduction, they would know that every dollar donated would be augmented by a government grant. This sort of approach need not cost more than the existing tax incentives and would meet, to a large extent, the objectives of national voluntary organizations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). I listened with grea' interest to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans). Of course he is absolutely right that any change in the tax system would require consideration, to use his words, on a whole range of subjects. 1 was disappointed that he did not do it, but I thought for a moment he was about to say that the government would be prepared to support an amended motion if it had not been placed in the alternative. Because he complained that the motion was split in two, I thought he would tell us that the government would consider the motion if it read as follows:
-the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to give individual taxpayers the option of claiming charitable gifts as deductions from taxable income.
That would have been a great step forward and fully within the intent of the hon. member who has given the House this opportunity to discuss such an important matter. I believe the hon. member in the consideration of this motion was attempting to allow the government a choice of options, either of which would be acceptable to the hon. member. Certainly I am disappointed that the government saw fit not to indicate its choice clearly, so that at long last in terms of a tax system we could take the necessary step forward which was advocated by officials within the government to permit growth and versatility in the private voluntary sector to make its impact felt even more in the Canadian community.
I do not want to be partisan-we were partisan a little earlier today-but I cannot fail to remind the hon. member that the costs of which he was complaining, the cost of $500 million, are not large in terms of a whole range of matters that are under the control of the government. Even today those matters could make room available within the tax system to the voluntary sector.
Because the parliamentary secretary is still in the House, I will remind him of a couple of things. I cannot help but recall the question period in the House in which we discussed the movement of Eldorado from Port Hope to northern Ontario contrary to the advice of the board of directors of Eldorado.
June 9, 1980

The costs of that move are immense and totally unnecessary with respect to the viability of the nuclear industry in Canada. There is a great deal of money and room that would be available there.
The whole decentralization program of the government impacts heavily upon the constituency of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken. Billions of dollars will be involved over a period of years in relocation grants and a whole host of other things. If it were abandoned, those funds would be available. Also there is moving Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough. In order to be direct with the House, I have to say that it is becoming more obvious every day-not just to us on this side of the House, but more important, to people outside the House-that perhaps that is one of the least advisable and most questionable decisions the government has made against its employees' wishes and, most important, against good sense.
It does not take into account the $500 million additional load. It does not take into account the incentive and encouragement that could be given for growth in the voluntary sector, a great incentive for those engines, those people who want to help. The tremendous growth that would take place would lessen the load of government and the necessity of government applying its taxpayers' money and its own efforts with respect to services that must be performed within a country that is changing so quickly that sometimes it is alarming to many people.
I am delighted the member brought forth the motion. I am delighted to support it, but I am disappointed that the response was not just a bit more positive. I believe the day has come for the idea he put forward. I will have occasion on another day to argue a motion along the same lines. It is motion No. 53 standing in my name. For the purposes of indicating that there is a great interest in this area, I should like to quote my motion, as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to change the automatic deduction of $100 for medical expenses and charitable donations, to an automatic deduction of $100 for medical expenses, with all charitable donations being deductible from the total income on which tax payable is calculated.
The fact that there are two motions is important. We are very fortunate to have this particular motion debated today. There is a growing interest in the House and in the country in the support, the development and the use of the voluntary sector in Canada.
As Mr. Speaker will recall, because he was a member of the House in the Thirty-first Parliament, we brought forward a motion to establish a select committee of the House of Commons to study and review the place of and help for the voluntary sector. We asked ourselves as a Parliament to have those people come in and tell us their needs, where they fit in the scheme of things, and to encourage the government of that day, and indeed successive governments, that this kind of contribution was necessary. Arising out of this debate I hope there will be at some stage a speaker who will indicate to the House that this still remains a prerogative of government which is considered important, to give a reference to the House
Charitable Donations
of Commons, if it cannot grant this motion, to advance the cause of volunteerism and contribution of the voluntary sector, because it is so important.
All governments must govern, and government parties and those with the hope of forming governments are all talking about restraining growth and expenditures in the public sector. That is reasonable, in my judgment, and should be done, but it leaves the men and women in those communities out there who require a level of service, particularly as those communities become more urbanized and as those factors that make up the communities change, with that need for service. There is a golden opportunity, as that void will inevitably be created by restraint and withdrawal of public service, for an infusion of service from the private sector. It is the voluntary sector, the men and women of good will, who band together to help their fellow men and women who fill that vacuum and provide that service.
Governments cannot be everywhere. As there are differences when we move from one region of the country to another, as we move from the city to the rural area, as we move among groups of young people and senior citizens, and as we tackle more things, or feel we should tackle more in terms of social problems, there is a requirement for a diversity of service. Governments which are monolithic to a great degree, whether provincial, federal or municipal, cannot attack every problem in a way that might meet particular needs.
The interesting thing about the voluntary sector is that it is made up of special interest groups who tackle specific problems within specific communities. As a result there is a flexibility that contrasts with the relatively necessary inflexibility of government. It is worth while supporting the motion and the idea behind the motion in order that society can be even better served.
I do not intend to speak very long because the case was admirably put. I think there was general sympathy for the idea on the part of the spokesman for the government, but 1 wish some member of that government party over there would raise in their caucus the importance of the continuance of the initiative for a study at least by this Parliament of the voluntary sector, its needs, and its place in the community. If that could be done I would applaud the government. I would applaud the government if it continued with that initiative. If there is some member over there who would pledge that he will raise that with the government of the day, then I think the voluntary sector would be grateful. We would be embarking on a course of action to serve a segment of the community which has not been served in quite the same way as the needs of today require it to be served. It is in that spirit that I support my colleague and commend him for bringing forth this motion today on such an important subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I am disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 9, 1980
Charitable Donations
Evans) was not prepared to suggest that the subject matter of the motion now before us be referred to an appropriate committee for further consideration.
1 recognize that the parliamentary secretary found two aspects of the motion before us not to the government's liking. I am inclined to agree with the two criticisms that were made by the hon. member speaking for the government.
Those two criticisms related, first of all, to the fact that by leaving medical expenses as the subject of a $100 deduction for everyone, in view of the fact that medicare takes care of most expenses, it would have the effect of adding $ 100 to the exemption level across the board. Maybe that should be done, except that it conflicts with our tax credit ideas, but if that is to be done, let it be done on its own and not in this way.
The second criticism the parliamentary secretary had about the motion was to the effect that offering the taxpayer an option of either a tax credit equal to 50 per cent of his donation to charity, or the present system of a deduction from taxable income, is a bonanza to those in the upper brackets, and if it should be considered at all it should be on the basis of a tax credit system all the way.
1 say to the parliamentary secretary that I happen to agree with him, but that does not invalidate the fundamental principle the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) is trying to put forward, namely, that contributions to recognized charities should get the same income tax treatment we give to contributions to recognized political parties. This is something that not only has the support of church organizations and voluntary groups throughout our society, but it also makes good sense. This is a case of fair play and equality, and 1 think it should be considered.
From the way the parliamentary secretary started his speech I felt he might get around to that, and actually say that in spite of the shortcomings of the motion the fundamental idea was sound and he would be happy to ask that it be referred for further consideration. It is not the first time we have been disappointed by government responses to private members' motions, but my experience around this place is that if you have a good idea and you put it forward in a private member's motion or a private member's bill, after a while if you stay with it long enough you win. This is an idea, if I may quote the words of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, whose time 1 think has come, and I hope it will receive favourable consideration.
I say again that what 1 am supporting is the basic principle that voluntary contributions made to recognized charities should receive the same income tax treatment we accord to voluntary contributions made to recognized political parties. Because that is my view I commend the hon. member for Edmonton South for bringing the subject before us this afternoon.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too wish to commend the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) for having brought forward this motion. As the two previous speakers have said, it raises a very important issue in this
House. It raises the whole issue of volunteerism, the role of the individual in society and the responsibility of that individual to try to better his or her society by working through it in a non-profit, non-paid way. All of us feel, I believe, that this is the type of activity which deserves commendation, support and understanding, and we should work to promote it.
We have, however, a couple of problems with this bill, and this is in spite of the fact that from the standpoint of the taxpayer the changes being proposed are attractive. They would mean additional tax benefits to the majority of taxpayers. Unfortunately, these additional benefits would cost us, we estimate, in the neighbourhood of $500 million. That is a lot of money and we would have to find a way of raising that type of revenue.
Members opposite have, time and time again in the past, worried about small amounts they felt this government was overspending. Unfortunately we are in a time of tough restraint, and we cannot do everything that we would like. We do not have the money, and we must put our priorities in order. That is why the staggering amount of $500 million is a very sobering and chilling fact.


Dave Nickerson: So is $12 billion.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Twelve billion dollars is very big, and this would be approximately one twenty fourth of that. I believe that there is no disagreement among members of this House as to the value and the importance of helping voluntary, charitable organizations in their work. They deserve our encouragement and support.
The proposals in this motion are similar to the submissions which were made in 1978 by the national voluntary organizations. This brief attracted the interest of the hon. member who moved the motion which is presently before the House. It is important to examine the reasons why this brief was employed, and the principles which it set forth. The goal of this brief was to increase the level of public support for voluntary charitable societies and to improve the degree of equity in the manner in which the tax incentive was being applied. These are two key principles which we must look at-improved incentives for charitable donations to help the volunteer aspect in our society, and increased equity. I would like to turn for a moment to both of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, the motion provides for a possible change under the form of a tax credit to encourage taxpayers to make charitable donations. What would be beneficial in this case would be a tax credit which would be an identical incentive for all donors notwithstanding their income level. Even if their maximum tax rate is 15 per cent or 50 per cent, the taxpayers would take advantage of a tax credit equivalent to the same percentage of charitable donations. The present system which allows the deduction of charitable donations is discriminatory. Consequently, even if the federal treasury could not allow a tax credit of 50 per cent, we should still consider the possibility
June 9, 1980

of granting a reasonable tax credit; that is, we support as a rule the grant of a credit for charitable donations, because it is fairer for all taxpayers. I feel that it will be more difficult to justify the proposal offering a choice to taxpayers, either an income tax credit or the actual income deduction for charitable donations.
The income deduction would be a better choice for taxpayers in higher brackets; for example, if the tax credit were 50 per cent, the income deductions would be better for those having a marginal rate of taxation above 50 per cent. Such a choice, however, would maintain the discrimination for taxpayers with different incomes. It would also complicate income tax deductions since taxpayers would have to determine their charitable donations taking into account the two choices to see which one would be more beneficial.

The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) pointed out the problem when there is both the option of the deduction and the credit. His points were well taken. I do not think that we could support that type of inequitable and complicated tax treatment, even though we want to encourage charities and volunteer work in our society. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton also managed as he stated, in a non-partisan way, to attack this government for a number of its spending programs to which he took exception.
This government has put forward one major spending program in this session. It was less than the amount asked for in the bill. I refer to the GIS supplement. I am very proud of that bill because it was directed to those who are most in need at this time. It also indicates that this government was being responsible in the way in which it funded this bill and the expenses which would be incurred, and that is through a tax increase. This is a responsible government, and I would hope that the hon. member opposite will agree with me.
One of the criticisms of this motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is what to do with the $100 medical expenses which we have at the present time. This deduction covers both charitable donations and allowable medical expenses. For all practical purposes it is applicable only to charitable donations, since relatively few taxpayers have deductible medical expenses because most of us do not have medical expenses of over 3 per cent of our income. The standard $100 deduction for medical expenses amounts to an exemption from taxation for everyone. This deduction costs the federal and provincial treasuries about $250 million per year, and that figure is not related to specific expenses. That is a lot of money. There must be a better way to deal with that $100 standard medical deduction.
Without that added cost, the government could introduce a tax credit for charitable donations with a fairly reasonable rate of credit. If we were to insist on this additional standard $100 deduction and still keep the level of fiscal support for charities at its present level, the rate of tax credit would have to be a great deal less.
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
Finally, 1 would like to raise briefly the broader question of how we might examine other ways to introduce fiscal incentives. They do not necessarily need to be fiscal incentives. They could be public sector incentives for efforts in the private sector in the field of charities and volunteer work. One such example was mentioned by the learned parliamentary secretary. An alternative approach which has the elements of equity, impersonality, an ease of administration is a system of percentage-matching grants. For example, for every $100 of deductions received by a registered charity, the government could provide a grant of $25. In this situation the government would deal directly with the charities. The donor would not be required to report his gifts on his tax return, and he would not receive the tax benefit.
In this situation, donations would be made with the knowledge that they were attracting public support to a level that might be decided upon by this House. This approach would not cost more than the existing tax incentive, and there is the real possibility that it would, to a great extent, meet the objectives of the national voluntary organizations. It is simply another approach to this difficult problem which we might consider which, I believe, has met with the agreement of both parties opposite, in terms of the principle which we are trying to promote.
Certainly we on this side of the House would support such an approach in the sense that what we would want to do is find a way to encourage more volunteerism in our society which can be found in many communities to be at a very high level. It is the type of approach-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard that in relation to Bill C-30, an act to provide for supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 198081, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of second reading stage of the bill; and that at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn,
[Stage Direction]
June 9, 1980
Time Allocation for Bill C-30
every question then necessary in order to dispose of second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When this debate was interrupted at five o'clock, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) had the floor.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted at five o'clock I was pointing out the particular fondness the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has for the word "budget." In my view, his unfailing and profound eagerness to have this government present a budget is inconceivable and exaggerated.

It took five months for the Conservatives, when in power, to convene Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Four.


René Cousineau: It took seven months for them to present a budget, yet now they ask this government for a budget after three months. How serious can they be? I must admit that the Conservatives certainly know the ways and means necessary to remain in opposition for 16 years.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


René Cousineau: Hon. members opposite will have a chance and perhaps will find a solution next February. In the meantime-

Mr. Speaker, other members of Parliament have followed the ex-minister of finance, four from the NDP, two from the Liberals and 16 for the Progressive Conservative Party have discussed this bill. And is it not the member for St. John's West who, last May 28, complained of the fact that on October 23, 1979, when he was minister of finance, he had asked for a similar authorization? How fast he forgets. He did not mention this fact this afternoon. He complained of the fact that the opposition, nine Liberals, seven NDPs and two Conservatives had commented on the measure discussed for four days. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
During this second reading debate on Bill C-30, we have had 11 hours and 47 minutes of discussion and 1 sincerely believe that the speeches and observations of members of the opposition have touched upon all aspects of this bill and that this House could not be apprised of any new fact in my opinion which could be of some use to the Canadian population. For we should be thinking of the Canadian population. I congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) who has put forward this motion pursuant to Standing Order 75c.
Last Friday, 1 heard some members of the opposition use such words as shame, arrogance, closure, and in my opinion they should start getting used to the expression "limit on
debate" and "waste of time". The government has taken its responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, and the Canadian people expect decisions to be made by this government even though members of the opposition do not see it that way.
To let the speeches continue at this point, Mr. Speaker, would be tantamount to shirking our responsibilities because I am told that 27 other Progressive Conservative members had indicated their intention of speaking on this bill. To bring in new facts? No, repetitions. I do not know how many NDP members would want to speak, but if 27 Conservative members were to do so, they would have the right to speak for 40 minutes each and we would have in this House 18 hours of debate, repetitions and filibustering, Mr. Speaker. If that bill is not referred to committee immediately, we will not be able to deal with the other legislation this government wants to bring in for the better being of the people of Canada. We are here to administer the country and that is exactly what we intend to do. The tactics of the opposition, whether the NDP or the Progressive Conservatives, may be considered by some as ways of expressing legitimate criticisms but, for others, nobody can deny that those tactics can -and must be considered tactics of filibustering.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, what are the real intentions of opposition members in prolonging the debate? What objective are they pursuing? If the intent of the opposition, and more particularly members of the Progressive Conservative Party, were to prolong the debate to discuss this bill fully, if the intention of Conservative members were to bring out all the aspects of the bill and examine it under all its facets, that would be very legitimate intention.
But that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, that is not what is happening. After the speech by the former finance minister, the hon. member for St. John's West, what we heard was for a very large part imitations, deja vu and always the same old things. The opposition already cried: Shame, and if the opposition talks about closure, I must say we have no intention of letting ourselves be affected by the blackmailing the former leader of the government engaged in this House this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, 1 will conclude here because time is flying. Let me conclude by saying that it is the duty of the government to organize things and to thwart some. We are not through thwarting them, and organizing the proceedings. The government has the duty to organize the work of this House and to look after the initiatives that are taken here. That is what we are doing now and that is what we intend to do for the next four years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 8.10 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75c have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the
June 9, 1980

Standing Order it is my duty to wind up the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 64, 142, 144, 145, 146, 240, 258, 600, 608, 616, 647, 716, 721 and 741.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the government's estimate of the total value of Iranian interests, ownership, dollars on deposit, etc., in Canada?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: From the information gathered on a regular basis, a satisfactory estimate of the total value of Iranian interests in Canada cannot be made as information with respect to private holdings or indirect holdings is not available.


Mr. Turner: I.	What is Via Rail Canada's policy regarding free rail passes or reduced fares for its employees and their families?

June 9, 1980
Order Paper Questions
2.	Is the policy the same for employees of CN Rail and CP Rail and, if not, what is the policy for CN and CP employees?
3.	Is there any limit on the use of the passes?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Via provides a pass good for free transportation system-wide to employees with one year's service, and to their spouses and dependants.
2.	The policy is different for employees of CN and CP. By agreement with CN and CP managements and unions, such privileges apply only to CN and CP employees who had service prior to March 14, 1979.
3.	The passes for Via employees with less than five years' service permit reservations on the day of travel only. The passes for CN and CP employees permit reservations only one week in advance of the travel date, and then only for an upper berth, or lower berth if accompanied by spouse or child.


Mr. Turner: 1.	Does Via Rail Canada have any trains which either break even or make a profit and, if so, what are the route numbers of the trains and their point of origin and final destination?
2.	Could Via Rail Canada increase the number of profit-making routes if it had up-to-date equipment?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Fully allocated costs exceed the revenues received from customers on all passenger train services operated by Via Rail Canada Inc.
2.	The revenue/cost rates could be improved on most passenger train services if up-to-date equipment was available but it is unlikely that any service could reach a break even or profit position in the foreseeable future on the basis of fully allocated costs and revenue from customers.


Mr. Turner: Are in-station ticket agents and baggage handlers employed by Via Rail Canada or by CN Rail and CP Rail?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: At larger stations where there is sufficient volume of work to justify a position devoted entirely to passenger service, the ticket agent or baggage handler is employed by Via Rail Canada Inc. At smaller stations these services are performed by CN Rail and CP Rail telegraph operators and the charges for this work are paid to the railways under the terms of the operating agreement between Via and CN and CP Rails.


Mr. Turner: I.	How many Light-Rapid-Comfortable (LRC) trainsets are on order from Bombardier-MLW Limited to be delivered to Via Rail Canada?
2.	What docs each trainset consist of in terms of engines, steam units, coaches, club cars, snack cars, bar cars, etc?
3.	Can the trainset be increased in size to allow for additional passenger-carrying capacity?
4.	(a) On what routes will the trainsets be used (b) will they reduce the travelling time of these runs?
5.	On what date does Via Rail Canada expect to pul the trainsets into service?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Twenty-one locomotives and 50 coaches are on order from Bombardier Inc. (formerly Bombardier-MLW Limited) for delivery to Via Rail Canada Inc.
2 and 3. These trainsets can consist of one locomotive and up to five coaches or two locomotives (one at each end in a push pull configuration) and ten cars. As the trains have all electric heating with power supplied to the locomotive there is no need for steam units. Each car has provision for food and beverage service and adjustable seating to permit various interior configurations.
4.	Detailed implementation plans are currently being formulated to ensure that the maximum benefit of this new equipment can be obtained within present operating constraints.
5.	Bombardier Inc. have advised us that train delivery will occur in 1981 and revenue service can be expected to occur in either late 1981 or early 1982.


Mr. Herbert: Did the Minister of State for Economic Development in a speech on September 23, 1979, state that the government is committed to increasing the level of research and development and, if so, in each of the next five years, by what annual percentage is it hoped that the level of research and development can be increased?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, the former minister of state for economic development, the Hon. Robert Rene de Cotret, stated in a speech on September 23, 1979, that the government of the day was committed to increasing the level of research and development in Canada.
In the Speech from the Throne opening the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament on April 14, 1980, the government reaffirmed its commitment to increase Canada's over-all expenditures on research and development to 1.5 per cent of the value of the gross national product.
The government has under review its policies and plans for responding to this commitment which will be undertaken within the context of its broad policies for economic development. The government is not yet in a position to indicate the time frame for achievement. The federal government recognizes that it must consider increasing its own effort but also recognizes that, by international standards, the private sector must increase its commitment to research and development at an even greater rate.
June 9, 1980


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the minimum annual charge for a post office box in a post office station or substation?
2.	Does the cost vary by region or province?
3.	Docs the Post Office attempt to supply boxes to satisfy the demand?
4.	Is a householder, already receiving letter carrier delivery service, entitled to a station post office box?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1. Fees for customers whose residence or place of business is located such that it is eligible to receive letter carrier delivery service, mobile delivery service, suburban service or rural mail delivery service on a frequency of five or six days per week are:
Box	Size	FeeStyle A	Approx. 10 cm X 14 cm X 35 cm	$ 10.00 per yearStyle B	Approx. 15 cm X 14 cm X 35 cm	20.00 per yearStyle C	Approx. 30 cm X 14 cm X 35 cm	30.00 per yearStyle D	Approx. 30 cm X 28 cm X 35 cm	50.00 per yearStyle E	Approx. 60 cm X 28 cm X 35 cm	75.00 per yearBag service	75.00 per yearKeys for lock boxes-50 cents each.	Fees for all other customers are:	Style A	$ 5.00 per yearStyle B	10.00 per yearStyle C	15.00 per yearStyle D	25.00 per yearStyle E	35.00 per yearBag service	35.00 per yearKeys for lock boxes-50 cents each.	2.	No.3.	Every effort is made by Canada Post to ensure that all requests for lock box service are met.4.	A lock box may be rented if the "Application for Post Office box" completed by such a person is approved and the appropriate fee is paid in advance.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1977, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with poultry production?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: None.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Post Office Department?
Order Paper Questions


Aideen Nicholson: Three lawyers (On Strength Justice Department).


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Labour?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Three (On Strength Justice Department).


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1978, what amount was paid by the Department of the Secretary of State to each theatre for the performing arts or resident company in Canada?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: From January 1, 1978, to April 30, 1980, inclusive, the following amounts were paid by the Secretary of State Department to theatres for the performing arts or resident companies in Canada for capital assets:
Adelaide Court, Toronto, Ont.	$ 300,000
Arts Club Theatre, Vancouver, B.C.	400,000
Blythe Centre for the Arts, Blythe, Ont.	76,000
Le Theatre du Bois de Coulonge, Quebec, Que.	105,000
Canadian Puppet Festival, Chester, N.S.	25,000
Caravan Stage Company, Vernon, B.C.	18,000
Citadel Theatre, Edmonton, Alta.	500,000
Entre-Six Dance Company, Montreal, Que.	65,606
Festival Lennoxville, Que.	43,000
Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony Orchestra, Waterloo, Ont.	720,000
Le Centre culturel populaire Le Patriote Inc., Montreal, Que.	380,000
The Grand Theatre, London, Ont.	900,000
Massey Hall, Tofonto, Ont.	5,000,000
Neptune Theatre, Halifax, N.S.	85,000
Theatre Beyond Words, Toronto, Ont.	12,000
Theatre 3, Edmonton, Alta.	150,000
Theatre de la Marjolaine, Eastman, Que.	65,000
Theatre Sans Fil, Montreal, Que.	10,000
Toronto Dance Theatre, Toronto, Ont.	447,125
Toronto Free Theatre, Toronto, Ont.	46,500
Western Canada Theatre Company, Kamloops, B.C.	350,000
Young People's Theatre, Toronto, Ont.	200,000


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of vehicles recorded by the Department of Agriculture at page 12.62, volume 1 of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada, for what reason was the loss of $14,908 unexplained?
2.	What is the explanation for the loss?
3.	On what dates and in what locations did the losses take place?
4.	Did the department undertake procedural or structural changes to ensure that such losses do not recur and, if so, what were they?


Eugene Whelan: I. An explanation of the losses sustained is not required to be reported for the Public Accounts of Canada.
1910

June 9, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Explanation for loss	3. Date	Location1975 Chevrolet pickup truck	Accident	$1,222	Oct. 20/78	Smithers, B.C.1977 Dodge pickup 4X4	Accident	$2,172	Jan. 25/79	Williams Lake, B.C.1975 Valiant 4 dr. Sedan	Accident	$1,001	Jan. 26/79	Nicolet, Que.1975 A MC Matador 4 dr. Sedan	Accident	$1,875	Feb. 24/79	Toronto, Ont.1978 Plymouth 4 dr. Sedan	Accident	$1,155	Feb. 26/79	Montreal, Que.1977 AMC Hornet 4 dr. Sedan	Accident	$1,548	Apr. 05/78	Lethbridge, Alta.1977 AMC Hornet Stationwagon	Accident	$2,350	May 03/78	Kentville, N.S.1976 AMC Hornet Stationwagon	Accident	$1,222	Jan. 04/79	Halifax, N.S.1967 Chevrolet pickup truck	Fire	$2,363	May 01/78	Melfort, Sask.Total	$14,908	
4. No. Departmental procedures to guard against these situations are already in place. Furthermore, all losses are investigated and corrective action undertaken.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 to miscellaneous items recorded by the Department of National Defence in footnote number 9 at page 12.62, Volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada (a) what musical instruments were involved in the theft and in what way does the department make use of them (b) did the department undertake steps to ascertain the present whereabouts of the instruments and, if so, what were they (c) was the thief apprehended (d) in what location did the losses occur?
2.	Did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1.(a) one tenor saxophone one clarinet B Flat two snare drums one timbal set two bongo drum sets one drum major baton
The above instruments are used by authorized bands of the Regular and Reserve Forces.
(6) Yes. On discovery of the loss maintenance and issue records were investigated. It was found that proper records had not been maintained especially in respect of returned equipment from disbanded military bands and their subsequent reissue. Despite a
thorough investigation including direct contact with all Canadian Forces bands, the missing equipment was not located and in the absence of any other explanation was considered either lost or stolen.
(c)	No.
(d)	Ottawa.
2. Yes. Strict compliance with accounting and control procedures is being enforced.
FUNDY NATIONAL PARK-POINT WOLFE RIVER-	[DOT]


Mr. Corbett: Were studies conducted with the intention of constructing a fish ladder at the dam site of the Point Wolfe River in Fundy National Park and is it the intention of Parks Canada to construct such a fish ladder and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: (a) Yes, studies by Parks Canada were conducted in 1974 with the intention of constructing a fish ladder at the dam site of the Point Wolfe River in Fundy National Park.
(b) Parks Canada has decided against constructing this fish ladder because of costs. In 1974 the proposed design would have cost $371,000 for an adequate fish ladder for the Point Wolfe River. Investigations are continuing to attempt to find an appropriate design for a fishway at a substantially lower cost.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 5, consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-19, to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act-Mr. Axworthy-Mr. Blaker in the chair.
On clause 1-
Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin with a question I asked for 20 minutes the other evening. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has had a little more time to gather information. Could the minister tell us what is his projection of the number of unemployed people in the country
June 9, 1980

in the next couple of years? In which months are we likely to see the highest unemployed number, and how many people is that likely to be?


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Chairman, without wanting to indulge the time of the House even more than we already have on this bill, 1 should like to remind the hon. member for Calgary West that he has already asked that question and he has already received an answer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 agree with the minister that I have asked the question in several different ways, but I have not yet received an answer. If one would like to check Hansard, one could find that out. Could the minister tell us how many of the research officials in his department are involved in the business of forecasting in relation to unemployment?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the hon. member for Calgary West has developed a strong mental block about the matter at hand, and perhaps about other matters as well. We tried to indicate to him in committee the other night that the responsibility for forecasting economic conditions in this country was primarily that of the Department of Finance. The Minister of Finance already presented his forecasts to this House in his economic statement several weeks ago. Those are the forecasts upon which the general projections of the government are made. Our own analysis is to examine the particular regional breakdowns and demographic breakdowns which I gave the hon. member the other evening. If he wants to refresh his memory, I would suggest that he follow his own advice and read Hansard.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is difficult to read through the rhetoric and get to the facts. But I suggest that there are no figures in Hansard given by the minister in relationship to the kind of breakdown he just talked about.
1 will switch my focus for a while. The minister has sat through several hours of debate in relationship to this bill. During the course of that debate, members on both sides of the House raised several issues which suggest that the bill in fact may be somewhat weaker than it appears at first glance. I think we should remember that this legislation has been in place for a couple of years now, but one of the issues which has been raised is that the jobs are not truly created jobs. In fact the employment tax credit bill is used by employers to fund jobs which already exist or would have existed in any case. Does the minister have any research on the proportion of jobs he would classify as being created under this legislation versus jobs that would ordinarily exist?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, again to repeat, I think for about the fourth time in this House, when an employer applies for assistance under the tax credit bill he is required to put down exactly the number of workers in his physical establishment at the present time and to indicate the additional workers he actually wishes to hire through the tax credit program. That is a condition of the application.
Employment Tax Credit Act
There is absolutely no way, unless we are somehow to put a stethoscope against the internal workings of every employer's man who makes an application, to determine whether or not in fact in the future he would be hiring those people. But we are satisfied, after some margin and an interim evaluation, that the incrementality of the program is around 60 per cent. So, that is a judgment call. At this point in time there is absolutely no way of establishing firm criteria until we have had far more experience with the program. It has only been in operation for two years.
I can indicate to the hon. member that similar types of programs have been put into effect in other countries, in Europe and in the United States. They have had varying degrees of success, ranging all the way from 20 per cent to around the 60 per cent or 70 per cent level. The best way the hon. member could probably get his answer is if he and his colleagues allow us to pass this bill, so that we can put it in operation and go on further with the experience of the bill to see how it works.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think the minister is suggesting that we give him a blank cheque without examination. To members on this side of the House who value freedom of speech and the freedom of inquiry, that suggestion is totally unacceptable.
Is the minister familiar with a recent report out of the Brookings Institute where similar tax credit programs were examined? If he is familiar with that, could he tell us what their experience was in terms of the measurement of whether or not jobs were truly created?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I will simply tell the member that we do not allow our employment policy to be made by the Americans. Therefore, we do not use American criteria to judge the success of our own program. If he in fact wants to have a debate on American employment programs, I suspect that he should go down there and engage in a congressional committee debate. We use our own evaluation in our own programs that are designed by this Parliament and by this government to suit Canadian conditions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could the minister make a commitment at this time to give us the research study on which some of his answers are based in terms of Canadian experience? Is he prepared to provide that study to the opposition?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to give the study to anybody who would like to have it, as soon as it is finished and completed and after this bill is passed and we have had a chance to do a proper evaluation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is the minister saying that he is prepared to provide the study after the bill is passed? Is that a condition, that we must pass this bill before he will give us the study? Is that what he just said?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Calgary West is really trying to suggest that somehow-we have now been in debate on this bill for an exceptionally long time, which is fine with me. If he is so all-fired interested in getting

June 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
an evaluation, he should know that we can only evaluate a program when it is in operation. The problem right now is that we have suffered an hiatus for several weeks in the operation of that program.
We brought this bill in within two days after Parliament opened, on the grounds that we wanted to give it a high priority so we could maintain the continuity and the momentum the program had built up. We have now gone through close to 12 weeks of debate and discussion on this. Until we are able to put the bill back into effect and get it freely operating again, the evaluation, which was ongoing and scheduled to be completed this coming summer or fall will have to be extended much further because we cannot evaluate what in fact is not there.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman. I am now getting a little confused. The minister said there was a study in progress that was not complete, and now he is suggesting that he cannot study the program unless he gets an extension. Could he clarify that for me?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 would suggest it is not just now that the hon. member is confused, it is almost a permanent condition. It is something 1 guess we will simply have to accept. The fact of the matter is that as a trained social scientist he should know something about longitudinal studies, and realize that one has to have a certain length of time in order to evaluate any public policy. We are saying this particular program has only been in effect for two years. There are certain interim reports that have been used to suggest that it has provided some degree of success in creating jobs, so much so that my predecessor, the hon. member's former colleague, was so all-fired and excited about it he was going to build his entire employment program on the tax credit concept. Obviously in the learned judgment of my predecessor something was happening that was right.
We on our part did not feel that tax credits, solely by themselves, provided the total answer, and that is why we have provided a mixture of programs, which I think is a more proper and effective way of delivering employment programs. If the member wants to use some authority, because he obviously does not trust that which has been given to him from this side of the House, I suggest he go and make the same kind of assessment made by his former colleague and by his own government when they planned their program and announced it on the famous night of December 13, when they suggested the tax credit was going to be the solution to all our unemployment problems.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 wonder if the minister could tell us whether he has read the employment tax credit bill which his predecessor had ready to bring to Parliament just prior to the dissolution of the last Parliament. Has he read that bill?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I have certainly read a great deal of material but I am not in the habit of reading bills of a previous minister. We know the rules of the House. We started
anew. I was not privy to much of the internal assessment. We have certainly assessed the tax credit programs as they were there, and concluded that they play a certain effective role in terms of the over-all production of job-creation programs. The fundamental error and flaw in the approach taken by the previous minister and the previous government were that they were going to rely solely upon the tax credit approach and not provide any direct employment creation that could be targeted to special needs. We felt that was wrong, because the tax credit program tends to have a bias, as we have said in this House, and tends to be more applicable to areas where there is a high degree of manufacturing and it does not apply as well in rural areas particularly where there are areas of high unemployment. That is why we have switched the program.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Once again the minister is confusing me. He says on the one hand he has not read the previous bill and then he makes a statement about what it would and would not do. Could the minister clarify whether he has read that bill or has not read that bill?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, there was not a bill. There was a policy announced at 8.15 on whatever day it was, Wednesday night, because my predecessor did not have quite the same ability to predict the vote outcome as did the House leader on the opposite side at that point in time. Unfortunately he never got the chance to present a bill to this House. All he could present was an approach, and a program, which were based solely and entirely upon the tax credit scheme, the very scheme which the hon. member is now questioning. I think it is unfortunate that he did not have the opportunity in his caucus at that time, or did not have the freedom to question his colleague, the previous minister, on the tax credit approach that the Tories were going to present. What we are simply saying here is that we were the original authors of the tax credit scheme. We think it has a certain value within a total arrangement, a job-creation initiative, but it is not by any means the only answer. That is one of the major differences between them and us.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would undertake to check with his deputy minister? I made the point the other night that the Committee of the Whole involves a different process than debate. The Committee of the Whole stage exists, as does the standing committees of the House, to provide an opportunity to members of Parliament to get detailed information from ministers. I suggest to the minister that the bill does exist and that his deputy would have it; that it is in fact in the form of a tax credit bill, but it is not the same bill we are examining here this evening. In fact there are significant differences, and I would like an undertaking from the minister to have himself briefed on that bill before he appears before us again so we might discuss the differences between that bill and this bill, and we might have a discussion as to whether that bill might do a better job in the creation of jobs than the one we have before us tonight.
I want to ask the minister next, however, whether he has given serious consideration to wage subsidies as opposed to tax
June 9, 1980

credits in terms of creating jobs where jobs are needed. Have you given serious consideration to that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the hon. member's suggestion that somehow there is a great sort of secret solution lying somewhere in the catacombs of the department, 1 would suggest to him that we have examined what has gone on previously and have concluded, as we have said in this House several times, that we believe it is time the entire arrangement and initiatives in the job creation field be reviewed. Our proposal here is simply to extend this tax credit for a further year so we can maintain the momentum of some job-creation in Canada while we attempt to appraise more clearly and realistically what changes are taking place in the economic and industrial structure of Canada. We have announced to the hon. member several times, and we have sent him reports, papers and releases outlining that we are doing that.
We are examining a range of options, including wage subsidies, grants, and training programs. Before we start simply hanging on to sort of panaceas, which seem to be the hon. member's obsession, we want to take a longer-term view of the employment situation in Canada, take a particular look at the question of the demand for new skills, and the changing nature of economic conditions, which the international scene and the resource scene are requiring. We can then determine a program upon which the government can base a whole set of initiatives, rather than coming at it in a piecemeal, ad hoc fashion.
I would simply say to the hon. member that the range of options he is interested in is being examined. We have indicated to him and to other members of this House that we have presented a paper on employment to this House. There is a parliamentary committee which has now been formed that will also be examining the range of solutions and will reach its own conclusions. They will be mixed with the reports being done by my own department, and out of that we hope to be able to come forward with a proper package of answers that are not sort of off-the-cuff, sort of instant answers, but ones that will serve the long term. That is my intention, and I intend to hold that intention.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the minister's description of the last nine years of Liberal policy in this field as a panacea, rather than as an attempt to get at the structural unemployment which exists. If he is sincere I applaud this long-range effort. Let me get to a few other specific questions which have arisen in the course of the debate on this bill to this point.
The hon. member for Athabasca at one point brought the minister's attention to a situation in which an employer put in a job request, and in the normal, natural course of events an employee of Manpower and Immigration would go out and attempt to talk him into participation in the tax credit program. The minister has now had about four weeks to examine that situation. I wonder if he could tell us what he has found
Employment Tax Credit Act
out, and whether he has found any similar situations in Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did ask my department to check into the conditions raised by the hon. member for Athabasca. I can only say, if that was the statement made by our official, it was clearly a misinterpretation. We have not had other cases of that kind, because we do provide a very clear examination, and I intend to write the hon. member for Athabasca setting out that particular case. We have not had other reported cases of a similar kind.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Does the minister have an estimate for the number of proportion of firms in Canada that are in a position to partake in this program and get the full tax credit?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the past record shows that all employers in this country who want to provide incremental employment are eligible as long as they can demonstrate that they are providing a certain fitness. We do not accept applications from people who are just starting up in business. They must have a track record of some 12 months in operation, and it is available to any other employer. I would like to point out that in a survey it was indicated that some 92 per cent of the employers were very satisfied with the program and would like to see it continue.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Could the minister tell us how many jobs have been created in the two years of experience of this program? What is the dispersion of those jobs, that is, now many in Quebec, how many in Ontario, and how many in the rest of the country?


Lloyd Axworthy: Again, Mr. Chairman, ! would like to say that if the hon. member will refer to the second reading debate in Hansard, he will find all the answers to those questions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I read what the parliamentary secretary said about that. I think that the total was 45,000 jobs of which 7,500 were created outside the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, that is, 7,500 jobs for eight provinces, the territories and the Yukon. Is the minister satisfied with that dispersion pattern as it relates to unemployment figures in this country?


Lloyd Axworthy: No, Mr. Chairman, and that is why we brought in additional job-creation programs, so that we would not have to rely solely upon the tax credit approach which has more general application in the areas which I mentioned just 15 minutes ago, the areas which have higher industrialization. That is the reason why we brought in additional job-creation programs which we announced one week ago tonight.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In that same report from the parliamentary secretary which he gave during his contribution to the debate, he suggested that approximately 38 per cent of these jobs went to women. In this program which was announced in this House a week ago today, there were 12,200 jobs created for women, out of a total, depending on which set of numbers one uses, of

June 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
31,000, 81,000 or 192,000 jobs. But certainly considerably less than half the jobs in this new job-creation program were created for women.
It seems to me that the combination of the employment tax credit program and the program which was announced in this House one week ago perpetuates the disadvantage which women face in the employment market in Canada. They represent approximately 45 per cent of the unemployed, and the sum total of the programs advanced by this minister contributes to that imbalance. They get less than their proportion of the share. 1 wonder if the minister is reconsidering any of those programs to make sure that women get their fair share of the jobs that he is creating.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, as we have seen in the past, the hon. member is not quite accurate in his use of the statistics. If he looks at the number of jobs created for women through the two programs announced and those programs which are ongoing such as Canada Works and the summer employment training programs, he will notice that over 40 per cent of the places being provided for are for women. In particular, we initiated special programs to provide for a breakdown of those barriers which inhibit the participation of women in the labour force, such as the program to provide incentives to employers in non-traditional work and in the community services employment program which will not only employ large percentages of women but will also provide support services in the child care field which will enable more women to come into the work place.
As I indicated when I announced those programs, if they prove successful, and because we are working on the basis of one half fiscal year, we will add additional funds if they seem to be the answer to that very important problem. In addition, I have also indicated to this House that we plan to take steps in the area of affirmative action, in the area of unemployment and others, to make it easier for women in the work place and to reduce the barriers. As soon as we have the opportunity to bring those matters before cabinet, caucus and Parliament, they will be introduced. I would remind the hon. member that we have been here for only three months, and we have already accomplished far more than his colleagues in their nine months in office.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by reminding the minister of some questions which we asked last week when this debate began. We tried to get from the minister the estimates which his department has made of the number and percentage of Canadians who will be unemployed in 1980. Since that discussion last week, the U.S. figures have come out. They indicate what most people knew and what I think President Carter had admitted, and that is that the United States is now in a major recession. The unemployment rate, and I am taking it from memory, was the highest ever since World War II, at 7 per cent. One million people joined the ranks of the unemployed in the last month in that country. The United States is our biggest customer as we are their biggest customer, and their recession will obviously be mirrored and
followed in Canada. Could the minister give the estimates of his department, or any other agency or department within the government, as to the prospects for the coming year in Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, that is about the same kind of question which the hon. member for Calgary West asked. The answers are going to be about the same. The first is that, in the statement presented to this House, the Minister of Finance gave the kind of forecast that we could expect within the range of fallibility, that is as primitive as economic forecasting obviously appears to be, that we could, depending upon all of the mixtures in international and domestic conditions, expect the employment rate to be somewhat above 8 per cent in the next year. This conforms to the predictions and projections made by the previous minister of finance in his late, unlamented budget. That is guesstimating.
As we well know, the ability to project those figures into the future is a very uncertain ability. But if the U.S. economy continues in its very severe recessionary pattern, then we can expect to have certain impacts in this country that we will have to try to offset, which is what we are trying to do now in the initiatives taken by a variety of departments in this government.


David Orlikow: When the Minister of Finance made his speech some weeks ago, the extent of the depth of the U.S. recession had not become evident. The estimates of the Economic Council, the Conference Board in Canada and several economic analyses had predicted that the rate of unemployment which has been running at 7.5 per cent of the labour force would rise in 1980 to 8.3 per cent. Just last week Wood Gundy predicted that unemployment would rise to 9 per cent. I suggest to the minister that if we are facing that kind of problem then all the programs proposed by his government will do very little to deal with the severity of the situation.
However, I want to raise a different aspect of the problem. Whether the rate be 8.3 per cent or 9 per cent for the country as a whole, what we have seen for many years in this country is that the rate varies a great deal from province to province and from region to region. The province of Manitoba, which the minister and I both represent, has a relatively low rate of unemployment. But certain groups, particularly our native people, have unemployment rates, not of 8 per cent or 9 per cent, but at least, for part of the year, running anywhere from 50 per cent to 90 per cent.
The question I want to ask the minister is about the new objectives and the new attempts to be made by the government in the next year or two, to deal with the ever-increasing and more serious problem of groups of people with special problems whose numbers are growing at probably twice the rate of the population as a whole. The age group is getting younger and most of them are not equipped by our education or manpower training programs to find jobs on the reserves or in the urban communities. They are moving in greater numbers
June 9, 1980

to these urban communities and, through no fault of their own, become almost a permanent burden. What new programs, if any, will be available for these people?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 certainly share the concern of the hon. member for Winnipeg North about the problems faced by native people in this country. In the job-creation programs announced a week ago, we took special care to highlight the initiatives which are particularly directed toward assisting native people.
Let me mention two of those initiatives, Mr. Chairman, which I think point the future direction of this government. One is the substantial additional amount of money put into native training. I believe one of the major opportunities in Canada at the present time is the jobs that will occur as a result of resource projects, particularly in western Canada. Up to this time, unfortunately, native people have not benefited from job-creation programs, primarily because of their lack of skills. The whole point of the programs is to find a variety of ways of upgrading and initiating skill training for native people in those areas.
Since the announcement of the programs I have had a variety and a multitude of representations from native organizations in western Canada. They have made suggestions about how the funds can be used to set up new training programs to begin developing skills for their people in the bands and non-status communities, so that they can ride the momentum created by the resource projects.
I would say, therefore, that there already is a major new initiative and, if it is successful, then we can expand upon it and work in co-operation with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to develop further training opportunities for native people.
The second initiative is the LEDA program, Local Economic Development Assistance, which is designed to provide for communities-in large part native communities-the means to build and establish long-term economic development so that they will not continually have to rely upon short-term jobs. We have been able to set things in motion in their communities to ensure longer-term economic activity.
We have the opportunity to put ten, 15 or 20 of these projects in place within the next six months or a year. If the moneys are taken up and results begin to show by the development of community economic organizations across the country, then we will be in a position to provide further finances and ensure their development in the longer term.
These are the initiatives taken through my department. I know that my colleagues in DREE and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also have major projects to assist native people. DREE contributes close to $30 million per year to the Northlands agreement which is almost exclusively used for native people. There are many other initiatives and some of them are being reviewed. There is a task force and a parliamentary committee, so in part it is up to them to suggest the kinds of initiatives that the hon. member
Employment Tax Credit Act
would like to see, and based on some of the experiments and new programs that we are trying.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, last week when we were debating this bill the minister said that his department was spending more than $800 million per year on manpower training. The people who lack basic skills come to a large extent from the native communities or our new non-English or non-French-speaking immigrants. For a number of years the amounts allocated for manpower training have been cut. These are the funds used by the department to purchase places in our community colleges and technical institutions. I think the minister agrees that a major effort ought to be made to break the cycle of poverty and lack of education so prevalent in some communities, rather than increasing the funding for this kind of program. A great many of these people simply cannot qualify for the programs offered by the community colleges.
The minister referred to the success of the program operating as a result of the agreement between the federal government and the province of Manitoba through the Northlands agreement. Manitoba's success in training native people to become teachers is an amazing, fascinating story. It must be understood, however, that many native and immigrant people do not have the qualifications on paper that are necessary to enter the community colleges. Instead of an increase in programs aimed at these disadvantaged groups, there have been cutbacks. I would ask the minister whether we can look forward to an increase in that kind of spending?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, normally we have to look at the over-all training program, but we are in a position now to renegotiate the adult occupational training programs with the provinces. This is to be reviewed this year and we will have a chance to sit down with each of the provincial governments-I have already met with each of the ministers on a preliminary basis-to discuss with them whether the mixture of institutional training programs versus industrial training programs should be altered. As the hon. member knows, the provinces supply the training places, which we buy from them, in their community colleges and institutions.
I have already met with the ministers of manpower and labour in each of the provinces and indicated that we would like to review the formula for funding to see if we are getting the most effective use of our money.
Beyond that, we should consider working with native organizations so that they can establish their own training programs at their own institutions. Saskatchewan has made a proposal to this effect and there is some discussion about it in Alberta. I have met with native organizations in those provinces to discuss how our new native training programs can be used to help finance those intiatives. It all comes back to the proposal put forward by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that native organizations should have more autonomy in the economic field and make decisions for themselves. Through our native training programs we hope to be able to encourage and facilitate that development so that they will have more to say about the kind of training that would suit

June 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
their purposes. That is one of the directions in which we are moving in our discussions with native organizations across the country.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, there is no one who believes more than I that one of the main reasons native people have not progressed as far as they should has been the paternalistic and dictatorial attitude of governments which are almost exclusively white. For more than a hundred years they have told native people what to do to get the meagre assistance which has been available to them.
To the extent that the native people will continue to live in their own communities, let native organizations have control over the kind of training that is carried out and meets the needs of those communities.
1 can only talk from personal observation about Winnipeg- I am sure my colleagues from Regina can talk about Regina- but what we are seeing in Western Canada is a very marked movement, which has gone on for a number of years now, and which is continuing at an accelerating pace, of native people into our cities. When the native people come to our cities and they start to look for work, they are going to have to meet the standards of the employers, whether it be in the public or the private sector.
I believe it is the right of our native people, like any other Canadian citizen, to decide and to choose where to live. But the native people are choosing to move to the urban centres. I feel it is very important that we make it possible for them to get the training, to get the education and to acquire the skills which will permit them to get adequate and reasonably wellpaying jobs in the cities. Without that these people cannot find housing or have any kind of a living except getting the bare necessities through welfare.
I am sure the minister knows of this situation from personal observation as well as I. In our community colleges and in other training institutions in those cities, in those provinces where there is this movement into the city, I hope to see a major effort different than it has been up to now, to try to bring these people into the main stream of our life so that they can live as other people in our provinces do. I do not believe that we have seen that up to the present time.


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions for the minister. I happened to be around when the government of the day passed this legislation. I felt it would be appropriate legislation giving incentive to employers to find new jobs. But it is rather disappointing, to say the least, that when one starts looking at the figures, I think out of the $100 million that goes into this program, probably about .01 per cent comes back to Nova Scotia. That would be about $1 million. If one looks at the southern end of the province having 10 per cent of Nova Scotia's jobs created, it comes to about $100,000.
Before expanding on that point, perhaps the minister could tell me whether there is a difficulty in the southern end of
Nova Scotia or in these areas of using this program to create jobs. When this employment tax credit bill was created, 1 spoke favourably and I hoped that the people in the area would benefit. I have encouraged companies in my region to go into it, but apparently they are not taking it up. Has the minister any given reasons why, in southern Nova Scotia, they cannot seem to create jobs, and lasting jobs?
I ask the minister if there is a different rate for different areas of the province in Nova Scotia, or is it all one rate job creation? I would ask also what that rate would be in the southern end of the province. Is it $2, it is in some areas of Quebec, or is it less than that as a job incentive tax credit?
These are a couple of concerns. Would the minister have any response as to why this program does not seem to go over in high unemployment areas, such as the southern end of Nova Scotia?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I suggest one reason why the program did not enjoy success over the past year was that we lacked the competent and effective services of the present member for South West Nova who would provide the kind of educational and distributional material for which she is so well known in her riding. We probably suffered for her absence in getting the program accepted during that period of time.
As I have said in the past, the tax credit program is not a program that is necessarily applicable in all regions of the country on equal rates. It does depend on the existence of a body of employers who have the initiative and the ability to take up the program.
In some areas of the country where economic conditions are not prosperous, where there is high unemployment, obviously the tax credit is not particularly appropriate. That is why we decided that rather than again relying solely upon the tax credit as the only job-creation measure, we would reintroduce direct job creation, such as the Canada Development Program, which I can assure the hon. member will have a much larger degree of investment in that part of Nova Scotia than she would have had under the previous government's program.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I was around when the amendments were made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We were supposed to be saving about $1 billion and reinvesting it into employment programs. One of the reasons why we could come up with this employment tax credit was that it had an appeal not only to corporations and companies to give the incentive to create, but it was supposed to create jobs. I think that some of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act took away millions and millions of dollars from the southern end of the province and created lots of confusion as to the amount of the numbers of weeks because of the variable entrance requirements last year. Then I look at a program like this. I think there were 65 jobs created in 1979 to 1980 in two manpower offices in my riding.
We can talk about other programs, but this happens to be very effective in some areas of the country. Maybe it is effective in areas that do not have high unemployment. I still cannot understand why we are not getting people in the area to
June 9, 1980

extend this concept to these areas, for example, mine. It seems to me they should be willing to take on a tax incentive because they should be looking for the tax breaks. Is it because we just do not have the money to create jobs? Is it the chicken and the egg, and one is not there?
Concerning the additional jobs created, and I think of the many people who were unemployed last winter because of the amendments and because of the variable entrance requirements by which, come October, they needed 17 weeks, come November they needed 18 weeks, and come December they needed 19 weeks, these variable entrance requirements could not create jobs. They were not going to create jobs at that time. The employment programs that have been brought out in the past are all reflective on economic statistical regions within Nova Scotia. If you happen to have an area that is lumped in with a very highly developed area, your area is still not going to receive any benefits, and will be penalized for being in a highly developed area.
I have already asked this evening whether the amount paid to the employer as a tax incentive is different throughout Nova Scotia. Is it dependent upon these economic regions? Does the minister have any information available? And could he come up with it tonight whether Nova Scotia gets a uniform rate or is it tied into the economic regions?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should understand that the application of the employment tax credit is not allocated according to constituency or according to any allocation based upon statistical regions. It is a national program that is available to any employer throughout Canada. There is no stipulation that only so many jobs or so much of the allocation can go to a particular region. It depends upon the take up of that region.
I would indicate to the hon. member that, while I cannot give her a breakdown in terms of individual constituencies, within the province of Nova Scotia itself, in the last fiscal year, close to 1,000 jobs were created with the employment tax credit program, which is a substantial investment by this government. In terms of the actual rate of salaries in Nova Scotia, the salaries paid to workers under the employment tax credit program averaged about SI66 per week, which is above the minimum wage in this case.
Those statistical breakdowns I can give the hon. member. If she would like, we can try to refine it even further. I suppose we could back to the computer tapes and try even closer to determine her riding. She should not make the mistake of assuming that this program is in any way dependent upon the statistical regions that are used by unemployment insurance. The two are quite unrelated.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, the only brochure 1 have available right now is the one for Quebec. I notice that in Quebec there are three hourly rates. I am just wondering if that has something to do with economic regions and their
Employment Tax Credit Act
development in those areas. That is why 1 was wondering about the province of Nova Scotia.
My information is there were 644 jobs created in Nova Scotia. If there were 1,000 as the minister says, and only 65 out of 1,000 in my area, that means a lot less than 10 per cent of the jobs were created in the southern end of the province in those two manpower offices. Perhaps the minister might be able to provide me with that information. If we continue at another time, I might be able to get that information from him.
I cannot stress to the minister how important these economic regions seem to be, not only to manpower and employment areas in Nova Scotia, but for development purposes and DREE purposes. If you are locked in to a very highly economic region, you are going to be penalized.
An area like Truro, Nova Scotia, which is economically well off, is in an economic zone and tied into an area that does not have low unemployment. An area such as the town of Truro will benefit by a high unemployment rate because of the average of it and therefore will not be penalized. The only area aside from the Halifax area that 1 can see that was penalized would be the southern end of Nova Scotia because it was locked in with Lunenburg, which is a highly developed area, one of the best-off areas in the province of Nova Scotia.
When you come to employment programs, we waited for many years for a community employment strategy program to come into the area. It was designated to come in a number of years ago. However, we went into economic regions and it went to other areas where there was a higher unemployment rate. We got into Canada Works or Young Canada Works, and again we were penalized by an economic region that was too high. I am wondering if the same applies to this employment tax credit. I will be very upset if it does, because at the time the amendments were passed to the unemployment insurance, one of the reasons the $1 billion supposedly being redistributed was to create jobs elsewhere. This was one of the programs that was approved for spending. Yet if I only see 65 jobs and there is a failure rate in those 65, perhaps over a long term, what do we do with the $100,000 that came back, if it is 10 per cent to that area to create jobs out of the totals of millions that we lost because of those? I am just wondering if at some future time I might be able to find out if this hourly rate is different throughout the province of Nova Scotia and is it dependent on economic regions?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the hon. member's mind at ease. The rate is entirely the same for the province of Nova Scotia. It is a $2 rate. Just to ease her concerns further, I would like to indicate to her that the $2 rate also applies to certain regions in Quebec, with the exception of the Montreal-Hull area. It is also excluded in the southern Ontario area, plus southern British Columbia and southern Alberta which are at the $1.50 rate. The rest of the country is at $1.75. That is why the hon. member finds there are three rates in the province of Quebec upon which this is allocated.
1918

June 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Again, it would be wrong for the hon. member to assume that programs such as the employment tax credit and other programs that were announced are entirely and totally related to the regions established under the unemployment insurance program. As the hon. member knows, having been a member of the House when the debates were on regarding the changes to that act, there was agreement in this House by all parties that there had to be a variable entrance requirement at that time. It had to be gauged by finer-tuned economic regions in order to ensure that there would not be an enormous overrun in the costs of unemployment insurance.
When she asks, for example, about the community development strategy, we have restored the community development strategy. That is not related to economic regions. It is related to the initiative of the member of Parliament in that area developing a project with the local people and, if she will bring it forward to me, we can get it off the ground. They are not in any way geared at the present time to economic regions. They are geared more to the ability of different communities to work with the local businessmen, local communities, local municipal councils-


Mr. Kempling:: Speak to the Chair. We would like to hear what you say. We do not like to look at your back.


Lloyd Axworthy: Why don't you open your ears if you want to hear? Those kinds of initiatives are really being taken on the grounds there has to be some basis in the Unemployment Insurance Act for establishing regions that most of the job programs are not related to those economic regions. They are related either to the constituency itself or will be applied on a broader regional basis or on a national basis.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I realize the employment strategy programs the minister brought in last week and plans to discuss later, but I did not think there was any particular program whereby the member of Parliament alone could get at certain specific funds unless it was a greater package that was distributed to economic regions. I am not going to get into that because I plan to discuss that at another time and place when we do that bill.
I am discussing an employment tax credit that does not seem to benefit a high unemployment area which is not recognizable. Therefore, out of that $1 billion saving and the agreement of this government to proceed with that program, it seems there should be another return to that area, and jobs are not being created by such a program.
I reiterate that an area such as the southern end, rural and fishing, with all the economic benefits of the 200-mile zone and access to the fish, cannot seem to use this program. We can talk about the initiatives of a member of Parliament. That is fine. But there must be other reasons why this program is not being effectively used. It does not seem to be meeting this.
I am curious to know what they are.
I am not against the idea of the tax incentive, but there must be reasons why we cannot seem to do this. Is it our manpower
offices, that they have not got the capacity or the ability, or is it that the program does not apply to this region?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would simply suggest to the hon. member that probably there is no one in this House better able to give that answer than herself. She would be much closer and would have the access to the employers and the people in that community. I would very much welcome it if she were able to provide some kind of survey or assessment as to why there is not a take-up in that riding. I would be very pleased to hear the hon. member's representations with regard to that.
We do advertise the program-it is advertised through the manpower and employment offices-but it is the employers who are required to take the initiative in applying; there is nothing the federal government can do to force people to apply. But in cases where a tax credit is not taken up we provide an alternative by way of other direct job-creation measures. That is where our philosophy is substantially different from that of the Conservatives who relied almost exclusively upon a tax credit at the expense of direct job-creation programs which they cancelled.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Chairman, the minister alluded earlier to the question I raised when I spoke on this bill when it first came to the House. I suggested there were abuses. The minister indicated that he had checked with regard to that aspect. How did he carry out this check in other centres, and what means did he use?


Lloyd Axworthy: As I explained, there is a built-in check already in the program. When an employer applies for a tax credit he must establish base line data in terms of present employment structure. He must file a declaration that the job to be produced will be an additional job. Such a statement is signed by the employer. I am not going to contest the integrity of several thousand small businessmen across the country who apply under this project.
We did check in the particular instance the hon. member gave. He implied that one of our officials suggested to employers in his area that they simply use the tax credit as a way of providing a replacement for an ordinary employment vacancy. We were told that this was not the case; it was a misinterpretation.
I take the hon. member's comments with a great deal of seriousness because they do raise an important issue. But at this point the fail-safe method we use is to ask the employer to tell us what his base line data is, and that is monitored. He must, then, produce additional employees. We simply do not absorb any part of their salaries unless they show they have additional workers. Second, they have to indicate that these are incremental workers, workers they would not hire under normal circumstances in their job programs. That is the extent to which we are able to apply checks and balances at the present moment.
June 9, 1980

If the hon. member has suggestions to make as to how we could introduce further checks without embroiling the employer in a great deal of red tape 1 should be pleased to hear them. When the program was first introduced it was not taken up with a great deal of frequency. One of the reasons for that, from the point of view of the employers, was that there were too many forms to fill in and too many restrictions. So we loosened the restrictions-and I have certainly had enough comments and representations from members of the Conservative party about trusting small businessmen, cutting through red tape and loosening restrictions. Well, we did that, and the program has taken off and is being used on a wide basis. Now the hon. member is suggesting that we reintroduce a whole variety of supervision measures and restrictions. We would want to see more evidence of abuses before being prepared to listen to his suggestions.


Jack Wendele Shields: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman. I am not suggesting that the minister change the program. What 1 am attempting to do is draw attention to what I feel to be very serious drawbacks to the program. The minister mentioned that the scheme is being monitored, and I would like to know what tools he is using to monitor the program. 1 would suggest that a very simple method of monitoring a program of this nature would be to check previous company payrolls and make periodic inspections of the payroll. This would indicate whether new jobs had been created or whether jobs are just being refilled.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, that is what is being done. As I have said, a base line number of employees is provided. If the firm's employment does not exceed that number, the Department of National Revenue will carry out an audit and the firm will simply not get the tax credit.


Jack Wendele Shields: I would also point out that the manpower offices in the various regions employ people to solicit businessmen and make them aware of the program. One might look at it in this light-that whoever is doing this job is really trying to make the employer aware of the program and, possibly through being over-zealous or possibly because clear direction from the top is lacking, he is put in the position of trying to "sell" this program. Are there, in fact, employees in each manpower office who are responsible for just the tax credit program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Before we go much further, I would point out that the hon. member is making fairly serious charges about the administration of the program. We did check in the employment offices in his riding and there was a clear response that none of our employees had offered the kind of inducement the hon. member has suggested. So I would ask the hon. member to give specific instances in which what he suggests took place. If he does, I shall be able to investigate them. However, before he builds a general case I believe he should provide us with documented evidence upon which such a case could be built.
Employment Tax Credit Act


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Chairman, when an employee of the department of manpower approaches a businessman, whether in my riding or his riding, or in the riding of South West Nova and suggests that this program can be used to an employer's advantage-because this is still a job which is being created although, since business is expanding, it is a job which would have been created anyway-it might be difficult to say no. A businessman signs an affidavit that he is creating a new job. It is a new job in the sense that the business is expanding, but it is not a new job created because of the tax incentive program. That is the point I am trying to get across.
Take an area like Fort McMurray, which is a high growth centre, an employer who may have had an employee base line of 25 employees in the food industry, the hotel industry, or whatever, puts in an application to Manpower saying he wishes to engage new employees. But this is a high-growth area, remember, and the business would be expanding anyway. This is what I see as causing the problem. It applies to Edmonton, to Calgary, to the whole of Alberta, and particularly to Fort McMurray in my riding.


Lloyd Axworthy: We come back, then, to a fundamental dilemma. We do rely on the co-operation of the private sector to make this program work. I have often heard members on the other side extol the virtues of the private sector. It is the businessmen, they say, who should be the engineers of the job-creation program. If this is to be accepted as a premise we are bound to rely upon their integrity because there is no foolproof way for any government to say to an employer "We don't think the job you have added under our program is one you might not have added anyway." There is no way of measuring this without peering into the mind and guessing the intention of the businessman. It is simply not possible to do this unless we have been able to devise a way of placing a spectroscope against their heads and deciding whether that is really what they have in mind.
We have suggested that even in high-growth areas like Fort McMurray there is still a large number of people who are unemployed. As the hon. member well knows, there are all kinds of people moving into high-growth areas like Alberta with the expectation that they are going to be on the great streets of golden dreams. They get there and find they do not have the skills required for the jobs available. There is unemployment in those areas, and often people go into the service industry.
I think perhaps one indicator we have-and I am the first to concede that we will want to evaluate the program as it continues to determine whether in fact it is the ultimate proof-is that about 50 per cent of the employees hired under the employment tax credit continue in the work force or in their jobs afterwards. It shows that there is a certain sticking effect. We might interpret that and say that perhaps it shows that these people were going to be hired in any event, but the fact is that we do know we are creating 100 per cent additional jobs. What percentage of those are actually new jobs is hard to

June 9, 1980
Adjournment Debate
say, but we have estimated 60 per cent according to our best estimates. However, give us a chance to continue the program a little longer. We may have better defined answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the attention of all hon. members who are in the House on a matter of some concern to the city from which I come, the city of Vancouver in the province of British Columbia. I address my remarks especially to government members because in the city of Vancouver we desperately need-1 was going to say we need a new art gallery, but really we need an art gallery which would do credit not just to the city of Vancouver and the surrounding neighbourhood but to the whole of the province of British Columbia.
The reason I would like to take hon. members into my confidence is that, unlike any other city, at least as far back as I can remember-and I have looked into it-the people within the province of British Columbia went out and raised over $4'A million from 15,000 subscribers to help build a new art gallery. In fact it was to help move the art gallery from the old, inadequate premises into a courthouse which is going to be abandoned and which is an historic building.
This is a community which went out and raised the money first and then went to the province, to the city, and now to the federal government. While the party I represent was the Government of Canada, we agreed to match the $4!6 million which was pledged by the 15,000 people who raised it, and that money-and 1 want all hon. members to pay very close attention to this-is conditional upon the federal government's coming through.
This is not the first time a city has received funding from the federal government. In a letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun by Duncan Campbell, the president of the Vancouver art gallery, he pointed out that the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts received a $3.4 million grant and that the Art Gallery of Ontario received a $6 million grant. There have been other grants made. This is not something the city of Vancouver is asking for which has not been done in other places.
What we have had recently is a not very satisfactory but, in fact, a rather unseemly situation. The Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) says that, "If only you terrible Tories had not tinkered with Loto Canada, there would be lots of money for the art gallery." 1 have to say, with great respect, that whatever was done with Loto has nothing to do with the principle involved here.
The other day when I asked a question in this House, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), formerly a secretary of state, indicated-and it is recorded in Hansard-how very much he wanted this to go ahead, but then he went on and said that somehow or other the former government, which was committed to get the money, had blown it by daring to alter the Loto arrangements. Look, it is just not fair and it is just not reasonable.
The art gallery in Vancouver will be the art gallery for British Columbia against a backdrop, by the way, of a situation where we cannot even exhibit all of the works of Emily Carr because there is just not a place for them. The time has come for this, and I must appeal to members on the government side to give us a break and speak directly to the Secretary of State on this matter. It is just not good enough to go out there and say that because of changes in Loto there will be no money for art galleries in western Canada. That is just not good enough.
I underline the fact that we are not asking for something we have not gone out and made a real effort to match in terms of funds. If any of the members opposite come from cities or communities which would go out and raise over $4 million from 15,000 people, 1 would be very surprised.
Because this must be concluded by the end of this month, we have already received a very ominous letter dated May 9 from Mr. McGann, the Executive Director of the Vancouver Foundation, saying that the $250,000 pledged by the Vancouver Foundation-if the government cannot make up its mind soon-will have to be withdrawan. It will happen with other donations. I ask members on the government side to listen to my plea. Surely to goodness a community which has the gumption, determination and interest to put that amount of money up from the private sector should be given a break. We are not asking for something that has not been done in other places, but we are asking for something on one condition-we went out and raised the money first. That has been done in other places.
In other places the federal government has been asked for up front money. In this case the local community has put the money up front. I know there are many issues which cross partisan lines, but I am glad to see that there are a number of members on the government side tonight and 1 ask them to take this matter up immediately in caucus. Caucus will be on Wednesday morning. 1 ask hon. members to give use a break on this matter and raise the matter there. It is something that is needed in British Columbia, it is something that is appropriate, and it is something on which our own people have already made very significant pledges.
June 9, 1980

1 hope there will be no more talk about the fact that unless the new government can work out a whole new deal on Loto, there will be no money for an art gallery in Vancouver for the province of British Columbia. I am sure hon. members, knowing the situation, would not want that response. I ask the indulgence of hon. members to plead my case when the appropriate time comes on Wednesday morning.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) had all my sympathy until he implied that only western Canada or British Columbia were being victimized by this program. I want to tell him right now very, very strongly-as strongly as I can-that such is not the case. Indeed the hon. member, and any one of his ilk, will do no justice to the people of Canada by attempting to put one province of Canada against the rest of Canada.
in his remarks on Friday the hon. member for Vancouver South seemed to suggest that only he and members of his party are interested in this problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, if the former Conservative government had been more concerned with this matter, this debate would not even have been necessary. In fact it was for just such worthy projects as the Vancouver art gallery-and I admit that it is a very worthy project-that the federal government intended to use Loto Canada revenues. Of course, that was before the former Conservative government made its unfortunate decision to throw away Loto Canada, thus depriving both the sports and cultural community of a considerably large amount of available funds.
Had the previous Conservative government not made its sweetheart deal with the provinces-


John Allen Fraser: That is a ridiculous, cheap answer.


Ursula Appolloni: If the hon. member wants to listen he has to do me the courtesy of keeping quiet.


John Allen Fraser: I have listened to all I want to hear.


Ursula Appolloni: It is estimated that 30 per cent of the total net revenues from Loto Canada would have been allocated to arts and culture on an annual basis. At that time Loto Canada estimated this amount at $30 million. Even if we take a more conservative, perish the word, figure, forecasting increased competition in the lottery field, the yield to arts and culture would still be estimated at being no less than $19.5 million per year.
Under the agreement negotiated by the previous Conservative government only $12 million would have been allocated to arts and culture; that is much less money to undertake the projects which both the arts community and the federal government want to sec undertaken.
On Friday the hon. member for Vancouver South raised the spectre of blackmail. This is most emphatically not the case.


John Allen Fraser: It's what they are saying back home, lady.
Adjournment Debate


Ursula Appolloni: If the hon. member cannot control himself 1 do not think he wants information, he just wants to make some more brownie points. It is emphatically not a question of blackmail, but of a government attempting to do whatever can be done to overcome the difficulties inherited from its immediate predecessor.
We are approaching the issue of arts and culture funding, including the Vancouver art gallery project, with the highest sense of concern and, indeed, urgency. I must erpphasize that there are many projects from all across the entire country well worthy of government support. The government must do its best to fund these worth-while projects within the very limited amounts of money available for this purpose. Due largely to the previous Conservative government, there is unfortunately very much less money available for this purpose than we would have wished.


INDUSTRY-PROPOSAL FOR INSTALLATION OFSYNCROLIFT IN ST. JOHN S DOCKYARD
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise in connection with a question I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) last Thursday about the proposal for the installation of a syncrolift at St. John's dockyard in St. John's. 1 never expected I would have to mention this project again in this House, but it has to be mentioned because it appears that someone on the other side wants to sabotage this economic development project that is scheduled to go ahead in my district of St. John's West, or was scheduled to go ahead until this government returned to power last February 18.
Put very shortly, there was a dockyard built in St. John's, Newfoundland, back in the 1920s by the government of Newfoundland, which had very little money and very little prospect, as an act of faith in the marine industry in Newfoundland. That dockyard is still basically the dockyard that is there today in Newfoundland. It was taken over by the Government of Canada in 1949. The Government of Canada gave it to CN to operate and it has been operating the dockyard ever since.
It has one graving dock. That graving dock can take three or four ships, but once those ships are on the dock it can take no more until they are repaired and discharged. That is the nature of a graving dock. The yard in the last couple of years has had the opportunity of greatly increasing its business from foreign fishing fleets, particularly the fishing fleet of the U.S.S.R. To do that business it needs a syncrolift. A syncrolift is simply a mechanical device to lift ships out of the water and put them down in a berth on dry land. This would be a three-berth syncrolift so they could do three vessels of up to 3,600 tons in each one of those berths using the syncrolift, while other vessels were being done in the drydock.
The dockyard was losing money until several years ago. It is now making money, and with the traffic that is offering now, with the syncrolift it could be a real winner. It would increase employment from 330 men and women, now employed, by

June 9, 1980
Adjournment Debate
150. It would employ some 50 people during the construction period.
When I was first elected in October, 1976, I brought this to the attention of the government and I worked with the dockyard to make its case with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On December 29, 1978, it was announced by Mr. Jack Horner, the then minister, and by Don Jamieson, the then Newfoundland minister, that the government was going to go ahead and provide the funds for this syncrolift, which was estimated then to cost $15 million.
The syncrolift was to be operated by CN which would enter into a lease and repay 65 per cent of the funds over a period of 15 years, 20 years or 25 years, whatever the period was. CN would guarantee that it would pay 65 per cent of the cost, and the remainder of the cost would be in the form of a grant from the Government of Canada. That is very slim assistance compared to other dockyards in Canada.
The shipyard in Halifax is getting an 80 per cent grant from the Government of Canada, and a 20 per cent from its provincial government, which amounts to a 100 per cent grant. Halifax has to pay nothing back on a $43 million expansion. I could go on and mention shipyards and dockyards in Quebec and British Columbia which are getting much more generous treatment. Nevertheless, that is fine, and there is no reason why this should not go ahead.
When my party took office we went ahead and appointed consulting engineers. They began work on the plans and specifications. The project was approved by Treasury Board and all the necessary steps were taken. About two months ago the consulting engineers reported that the site is feasible and the project is feasible. Since that time we have had the tremendous prospect of the Hibernia oil fields and the gas prospects off Newfoundland.
This dockyard is within 175 miles of this great potential, the Hibernia oil fields. It will be a real money maker as years go on. But the consulting engineers recorded that the costs had now gone to $23.4 million. CN has shaved off $2.4 million in costs and brought it down to, 1 believe, $20.7 million. In 1980 dollars, the $15 million estimated cost of 1978 is $18.5 million. This in effect would be several million dollars more than the original estimate.
It is not the fault of the dockyard that we have had inflation over the last two years. We know whose fault that is. Now the word is that the government does not know whether it will go ahead with this project. It does not know whether the project should go ahead because of this $2 million cost overrun. The minister who represents Newfoundland, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), should be fighting for this project. It is an economic development project for his own province. Instead of doing that, he goes to Newfoundland and says that he does not know whether this project is going to go ahead or not this year. The Telegram of May 29 quotes the Minister of National Revenue as saying:
Right now government is in the process of redoing the list of projects that need to be done. The syncrolift is just one of a number of projects around the province-
The minister said that construction at Wabush airport in his district had been held up while the Conservatives were in power in Ottawa. What does the construction of an airport facility in Labrador have to do with economic development funds to be spent in St. John's, Newfoundland? At least the minister's predecessor from Newfoundland, Don Jamieson, fought for the whole province. He did not go to cabinet meetings to fight only for his own district. He did not screw projects that were not in his district. He did not put the blocks to projects which were in districts of members from other parties. I hope that the Minister of National Revenue will not do what he appears to want to do, squash this project in some little manoeuvre so that he can get some extra money from Treasury Board for Wabush airport in Newfoundland, which is not even an economic development project.
When I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about this, he confirmed that the government is committed to the balanced development of every part of Canada, including the province of Newfoundland. If this government opposite is dedicated to the balanced development of every part of Canada, it will see that this project in the St. John's dockyard will go ahead. It is one of the few feasible or viable economic development projects in Newfoundland that has come up in the last five years.
If the project does not go ahead, there is only one reason, and it is political; the Liberal minister from this province is trying to put the knife in a project in a district which is held by a Conservative. That is the only possible reason, unless CN, for some reason, goes back on its bargain. If CN does go back on its bargain, then I say, "Call in private enterprise and let's turn the dockyard over to private enterprise". It is a money maker, and it will make a fortune for whoever owns and operates this facility in the future.
The project might not cost the Government of Canada a cent because there is also a provision in the agreement that it will share the profits of the dockyard if they exceed $300,000 a year during the term of the agreement. They might well get the whole 100 per cent of their investment back. I am calling on the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to prove to the people of St. John's West and St. John's East, the people who work in that dockyard, the unions, the government of Newfoundland, the port associations and all the other associations, that there is not a body in Newfoundland opposing this project, although the shipyard in Marystown has sometimes expressed dismay, but the project has no connection with that town. That is every association in St. John's.
I want the minister to assure them that this kind of gross politics is not going to interfere with the economic development program of his department. This was part of the federal economic stimulation program to aid the Canadian shipbuilding and repair industry. It is a good project. The civil servants
June 9, 1980

in the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are all supportive of it. Every civil servant I have spoken to supports it. If it does not go ahead it will only be because of political interference of the most demeaning type.
If I am ever in a position again to represent my province in the Government of Canada, I hope that I will never stoop so low as to try to stop a project in another member's district that is so deserving-or even undeserving-after it has been started and is on its way. I would ask the minister to make a quick decision so that this project can get under way this year.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have this opportunity to try to enlighten the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and bring him up to date on this project. The St. John's dockyard, as he knows, is a federal government dockyard operated by Canadian National. It came under federal ownership at the time of the union of Newfoundland with Canada. I know I do not have to tell the hon. member these things. As he knows, in response to CN's representations that the facility could not be operated effectively in its present state, a federal interdepartmental examination of the matter concluded that there is a need for a more effective drydocking system and also identified newly emerging market opportunities to which the hon. member referred, that could enhance operations if exploited properly.
From this emerged a plan for a marine elevator type of drydocking facility that could lift vessels weighing up to approximately 4,000 tonnes out of the water and transfer them to one of three working areas onshore. The number of working areas planned for St. John's was limited, by design, to three, so that no excess capacity would exist that might cause a shift of business from Marystown shipyard, which is owned by the province.
As the hon. member knows, both the Liberal and Conservative governments approved the plan whereby the Department of Public Works would construct the facility at a cost not to exceed $15 million in terms of 1978 dollars, and lease it to CN for a 25-year term at a rate that would reflect recovery of 65 per cent of the capital plus interest at the Crown corporation borrowing rate. CN accepted the proposal and Treasury Board authorized the Department of Public Works to fund and proceed with the initial engineering work.
The initial engineering work is now complete but reflects a situation where the estimated cost, at $23.4 million in terms of 1980 dollars, is much more than the $2 million difference to which the hon. member referred. Of course, in terms of 1980 dollars it exceeds the limit previously agreed by CN and by the government. Consequently the project is now under review by both parties, and alternative ways to bring costs within agreed limits are under examination.
The hon. member speaks of sabotage and political interference. To my mind this is just a responsible way for a government to look at a problem and try and make a decision.
Adjournment Debate
I am sure, from the remarks of the minister in reply to the hon. member's questions in the House and from the notes and the information that I have gathered, that this question is being considered very seriously by this responsible government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I want to recognize the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) next. First, however, I would extend the apologies of the Chair because I permitted hon. members a bit of leeway. Perhaps the hon. member will recognize that between himself and the parliamentary secretary who will reply there are now only five minutes remaining before the adjournment.


SEARCH AND RESCUE-INQUIRY WHY CAPABILITY ON WEST COAST NOT UPGRADED
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, on May 5 I put a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) to find out why, in light of the tragic sinking of a vessel off the west coast of British Columbia with the loss of 30 lives, his department refused to upgrade search and rescue capabilities on the west coast, and why there was a cutback on programs that had been promised. I also asked the minister if he could explain why he was not prepared to submit to the House two reports which he held from the Department of National Defence and the Ministry of Transport that analysed and made recommendations concerning this accident. His answer was basically that improvements had been made. Although they were not to my liking, undoubtedly they were unfolding as they should.
I would now challenge that minister to show that improvements have occurred over the last few years and that his department can deliver a rescue platform to the site of an emergency any sooner than they were able to do ten years ago. In fact, on the central coast of B.C. it still takes from three and a half to Five and a half hours to place a rescue helicopter in that area, no matter whether it comes from Comox in Canada or Sitka in the United States. Nine out of ten times the rescue helicopters tend to come from Sitka.
I would also challenge the minister to show that he has not in fact cut back on improvements promised. First, five helicopters, CHI 13s and CHI BAs, were committed to go to CFB Comox. Would he confirm that these helicopters were assigned to this facility?
Next is the SARCUP program which is the helicopter upgrading program. Fourteen helicopters, CHI 13s and CHI BAs, were to be upgraded. Could the minister confirm that he has not cut back on that program and that he now intends only to upgrade 11 of those 14 helicopters?
Could the minister further assure us that the original automatic hover equipment that was to be used to provide automatic hovering references to stabilize the aircraft when hovering over heavy seas to pick something or somebody out the water, that he has not now substituted a less sophisticated, less expensive and less effective system?

June 9, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Could the minister state yes or no whether he intends to release to the public or to this House the MOT and the DND reports which refer to the Lee Wang Zinl If the answer is no, could the minister explain why the public should not be entitled to the information contained in those reports?
Finally, I understand the minister will be submitting for approval to the cabinet the national SAR plan, if it is essentially updated from 1979-80, which never did reach the cabinet. It would extend, presumably, to the year 1985. When we examine that data, the data sheets in this report for Campbell River, Johnstone Straits, Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Islands, Vancouver Island West and the North Pacific, we find that there is only one piece of primary search and rescue equipment in that entire area. It is a 44-foot self-righting lifeboat that goes 12 miles an hour which covers 350 miles of the west coast and presumably 200 miles out to sea. This is clearly inadequate. In spite of that report, in spite of dramatic increases in population, it underestimates private and commercial activity. It does not give any mention of aircraft flights and increased traffic volumes and the government still cannot, with any degree of reliability, provide a rescue vessel in that area. This situation has not been changed for years.
I would ask the minister to release those reports. I would urge him to commit the necessary resources to distribute the helicopters at Comox along the coast of B.C. so they can be effectively deployed. I would urge him to upgrade the national SAR plan to provide immediate resources to the central and northern coasts of B.C. and, at the same time, to approve expenditure of funds for immediate use to prevent the crippling and time consuming process of bouncing important programs back and forth between cabinet, Treasury Board, and the departments over and over again.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, in his reply on May 5, 1980, the minister stated that our search and rescue program has been improved in recent years, and we are continuing to improve it.
Under the search and rescue capability update program, 11 Canadian forces helicopters will undergo modifications to upgrade their capability for search and rescue operations. The modifications to the helicopters, six Labradors and five Voya-geurs, include the installation of external long-range fuel tanks, rescue hoists, new radar and improved communications equipment. These improvements will extend the range of the
aircraft and will enable them to fly search and rescue missions in adverse weather, day or night, throughout the 200-mile offshore limit.
The improvement program, to be completed by June, 1984, is part of a two-phase program. The first phase which began in 1978 consisted of improvements in the navigation avionics, communications and the installation of high-powered search lights.
A significant improvement in Canada's search and rescue capabilities is its participation with the United States and France in an international search and rescue satellite program called SARSAT. The first launch is scheduled for mid-1982.
Also, an interdepartmental working group has been formed under the auspices of the Interdepartmental Committee on Search and Rescue to ensure availability of reliable emergency locator transmitters, ELTs, by recommending methods for accelerating the reintroduction of existing ELTs into the general aviation category and to identify plans for the technological improvement of locater transmitters including their wider use and compatibility with SARSAT.
On this subject, I would refer the hon. member to the appendix of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of December 4, 1979.
As regards reports on the sinking of the Lee Wang Zin, I can assure the hon. member that the recommendations in those reports which we are able to act upon will be implemented. Also, the minister explained in his letter of May 27, 1980, to the hon. member the nature of such investigations and why they are normally not made public. The minister also expressed his willingness to discuss the matter further with the hon. member.
As far as National Defence is concerned, everything is being done to improve the search and rescue capability of the rescue co-ordination centres, including the one on the west coast. I regret I do not have time to read the very long list of success stories carried out under the search and rescue program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Tuesday, June 10, 1980