1980-06-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity certainly to drivers of many Ford Motor Company products in this country.
In view of disturbing information that the Ford Motor Company has known since 1971 that some automatic transmissions lurch into reverse from park, that at least six complaints a month have been received by Ford about these slipping transmissions, that there have been altogether 291 recorded cases-including 41 injuries and four deaths in Canada-and in view of the fact that the Ministry of Transport has been investigating these incidents since 1977, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the government immediately introduce legislation which would empower the Government of Canada to recall the 1.5 million Canadian vehicles with the alleged defective transmissions, and not wait for the results of inquiries in the United States.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* ' * *


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), I move:
That this House commends the Minister of Veterans Affairs on the assurances he gave to the Royal Canadian Legion at its Dominion Convention in Penticton, British Columbia, on Monday of this week, that he would soon be bringing in legislation respecting veterans and their survivors, and this House urges the minister to do so before the end of this month.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canadians, who used to eat one meal a day outside their homes, are now eating two or more meals a day away from home, and in view of the fact that the federal government has imposed a 12 per cent federal sales tax on food service equipment, a tax which is inevitably passed along to the consumer in higher prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to remove the sales tax, an action which would allow the consumer to save money on meals eaten in commercial establishments, and an action which could slow down the rise in the consumer price index.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is in the chamber. I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That by reason of the importance of the Government of Canada giving leadership in the field of employee retraining, the President of the Treasury Board make a statement in the House prior to the summer adjournment on the proposals of the Government of Canada for retraining programs for its public servants.


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

June 13, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OHO) CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN NEGOTIATION WITH PROVINCES TO IMPROVE DAY-CARE PROGRAM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the fact that 2,500 children in metro Toronto alone are on day-care waiting lists, and in light of the fact that provincial day-care funds are dwindling dramatically, causing real, everyday problems to working mothers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That the government assume its responsibility to working mothers in this country by immediately undertaking discussions with social services ministers in the provinces to renegotiate the Canada Assistance Plan so that day-care will cease to be a luxury-priced item and will become available and affordable to all working mothers in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENERGY TAX CREDIT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Since public transportation is very limited and not available to many Canadians who travel to work from rural to urban areas in the Atlantic provinces, and since contemplated oil price increases will result in substantially increased costs for these people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Minister of Finance be directed to implement the energy tax credit proposals contained in the December 11 budget to assist Canadians earning less than $21,000 per year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Saskatchewan's provincial government recently approved Regina's first French school, and classes are scheduled to start next fall at Dr. Martin Leboldus High School in South Regina. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang):
That the House give unanimous support to this initiative which encourages the flourishing of the two official languages.


Madam Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to the native peoples of Canada.
Considering the fact that the native peoples of Canada will only be involved at what we consider to be a third-tier level at the first ministers' conference in the joint work on the topic of Canada's native peoples and the constitution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That provision be made for the native peoples of Canada to make official representations to federal and provincial ministers and their officials during the July 7 to July 25 session or the August 25 to August 29 session as posted in the Prime Minister's proposed agenda for constitutional reform.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
June 13, 1980

Since the collapse of the west coast salmon gillnet fisheries appears evident because of recent federal closures of the Fraser River and Rivers Inlet for chinook Fishing, and since British Columbia gillnetters cannot afford the harsh economic realities imposed by prolonged closures for conservation purposes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That the Government of Canada initiate early discussions with representatives of the fishermen to investigate how gillnetters might be compensated for their income losses and/or to consider some other long-term insurance type solution designed to eliminate or minimize the financial instability in the industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that there are many armed forces personnel and their families in Calgary and other centres who are eligible for welfare supplements, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. Gass):
That this House direct the Minister of National Defence to appoint a task force outside the chain of command to examine military pay and benefits in relation to the cost of living in various communities to which armed forces personnel and their families are posted.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion would require unanimous consent before it could be put to the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On June 7, in Luxembourg, the North Atlantic Assembly voted on a draft resolution "condemning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a violation of Afghanistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity and of the right of the Afghan people to self-determination".
The resolution went on to call for a strengthening of the NATO alliance. The NDP member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Oral Questions
Sargeant) and Liberal Senator Royce Frith, members of the Canadian delegation, abstained from this vote. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House condemns the NDP member for Selkirk-Interlake and Liberal Senator Royce Frith, and urges that they be removed immediately from the North Atlantic Assembly parliamentarians' group.


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


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the somewhat elusive Minister of Finance. On Tuesday we heard bad news about increasing unemployment figures and today, as the minister knows, we have a cost of living increase announced of 1.2 per cent in May. That is a year over year increase of 9.4 per cent and an annualized rate of 14.4 per cent. But even more alarming is that the underlying rate of inflation, when we remove food and energy costs from the index, was also up 1.2 per cent, which is a year over year rate of 9.1 per cent, the highest since 1976.
Given this burgeoning inflation rate, would the minister now advise the taxpayers of Canada and the House that the government definitely and unequivocally is not going to remove indexing from the personal income tax system, as the Minister of Finance said was a probability several weeks ago and as his assistant said had a 50-50 chance? In view of this burgeoning inflation rate, will the minister now make it clear that the government is not going to attempt to take advantage of inflation to get additional revenues in an unfair manner from the people of Canada, and that this is definitely ruled out?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, while the statistics on inflation are serious and have to be taken into account, I doubt whether the term "burgeoning" is justified. 1 am sure the hon. gentleman would not have described his forecast of inflation which he made last December for 1980 as burgeoning.
However, that aside, 1 am delighted the hon. member raised the question of indexation and the possible removal of indexation from the income tax system, particularly his use of the word "probability".


John Carnell Crosbie: That was your word.

June 13, 1980
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman says that "probability" was my word. I want to assure the House that it was not my word. I was asked by a newspaper reporter from Le Devoir whether I was considering the removal of indexation as a possible revenue measure. After he had brought to my attention the statistics which the hon. gentleman obligingly provided in his budget papers, showing that over the years there had been a revenue loss of some $5 billion to $8 billion as a result of indexation, what I said to the newspaper reporter was that, yes, that was one of the possibilities, side by side with other revenue measures which had to be considered in preparing the budget. That was the beginning, and that is the situation at the present time. It is a matter that obviously will be considered.
I understand the hon. gentleman himself stated that he had considered it at one time, and maybe he would permit me to do the same thing.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I made it very clear that I considered and rejected the removal of indexing in the income tax system. It was rejected.
I remind the minister that his deputy minister of finance, Mr. Stewart, in addressing a Senate committee on May 27 said that the forecast of last December was now going to be exceeded, so the likelihood is a rate in excess of 11 per cent. In view of these alarming figures, will the minister now tell this House that he is no longer considering the de-indexation of the personal income tax system, that he is not going to take advantage of the inflation that the government is permitting in this way, and that it is ruled out even though the Liberal member for Mercier has stated in the 74-page policy document of the Liberal party "that Canadians are undertaxed compared with people in many countries"? Even though Liberal members of Parliament believe they are undertaxed, will he rule out indexing and attacking lower income taxpayers in that manner?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman himself agreed with the analysis that Canadians were undertaxed, in view of the massive tax increase which was contained in his December budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Otherwise he would not have levied such very heavy taxes. I do not complain about the necessity for additional revenues. I believe that if we in this country are to make any progress in reducing the deficit, and if we are going to introduce any additional necessary programs, there may be a requirement for additional revenues. I have never concealed that.
The hon. member says that he considered de-indexation and had rejected it. I presume that he declared his rejection after he had prepared his budget, not before, and I will await the budget before finalizing my opinion on revenue sources.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the minister is the only person in the House who is like Wynken, Blynken and Nod all at the same time: he can do it all together. The specific question he has been asked is whether he would now tell the Canadian public that he will no longer contemplate the deindexation of the personal income tax system. That is the question.
Let me remind the minister that in the election campaign leading up to February 18, the Prime Minister and the people who campaigned with him never once mentioned to the Canadian people that they are undertaxed. They said they were being overtaxed. They never mentioned there was any need for government revenues being increased. So will the minister now confirm to the House that they will stick to their pre-election position and there will be no taxation increases, and that indexing is ruled out for now and forever as long as this government is in power?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is creating, for his own purposes, a fictitious Liberal platform.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I happen to have been chairman of that platform committee and I know what was said with respect to taxation and new programs. For example, we said that if we were to introduce the guaranteed income supplement, we would bring in new taxes. The Prime Minister stated in the campaign that he would likely secure those taxes from the corporate sector. That is exactly what happened. But there was no pledge that there would be no tax increases under a new Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Another flip-flop.


FINANCE
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has he noted that the shares of the Royal Bank set a 1980 high yesterday, and that John Mitchell of Greenshields attributes the strength to lower interest rates, which he predicts will increase the bank's domestic profit by as much as 40 per cent in the fiscal year 1981 if present interest levels are maintained, raising profit to more than $10 a share in fiscal year 1981 compared with $7.40 a share in the current year?
If the minister is aware of that, is he also aware of the fact that the Royal Bank last lowered its prime interest rate one month ago today, when it went down to 13.75 per cent, and notwithstanding the bank rate having now gone down to 11.29 per cent as compared to the then 14.17 per cent, the Royal Bank prime rate has not come down nor have the prime rates of the other major banks?
June 13, 1980

If the minister has noted these facts, would he tell us whether he has inquired as to why prime rates are not coming down in a more direct relationship to the bank rate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to find some difficulty in accepting the notion of decreasing interest rates. The fact of the matter is that in the last number of weeks there has been what one might call a phenomenal decrease in interest rates, in the bank rate and in other rates in this country. I regard that as a most welcome development. The hon. member asked me to relate the bank rate to the prime rate. He knows that from time to time there are lags in these adjustments.


John Carnell Crosbie: Quite a lag.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But the trend is downward. That is the important thing. The rates now are much lower than the high rates I inherited from his government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed again to the Minister of Finance. He must know that the only meaningful interest rates for consumers in Canada are the prime rates and the rates they are paying on their mortgages and consumer loans, not the bank rate to which the Minister of Finance is referring.
Has the minister inquired from the chartered banks why, in fact, their prime rate structure has been static? It has not gone down over the last month; it has been static at 13.75 per cent, notwithstanding the bank rate drops in Canada and the rather sensational prime rate drops in the United States where prime rates are now lower than they are in Canada, whereas during the Clark years prime rates in the United States were higher. He knows that, because he is grinning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity last night to spend several hours at a meeting with the Canadian Bankers' Association.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: That is where you get your answers.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We know whose side you are on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I discussed these and other questions with members of the banking fraternity. I want to assure the hon. member that the same vigilance this government has exercised with respect to establishing policies to bring about a decline in the bank rate also will be applied to the prime rate.


Mr. Andre:: At least blush when you say that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance is-when?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The hon. member has been served it every day in the House in the way of lower rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MONITORING OF INTEREST RATES CHARGED BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance concerning the food he has been feeding us for the past two months. It follows directly on the questions of my socialist friend from York-Peel, the ones he picked up from us yesterday concerning the problem of the rates being charged to consumers.
If the minister is serious in the answer he gave to the hon. member for York-Peel, when he said he will be vigilant in following the interest rates charged to consumers, the prime rates and the rates charged to small businessmen, could he please answer the question I put to him yesterday? Why have the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance specifically rejected proposals from this party which have been forwarded to him and which I am sure he has seen? They would give the minister the power and ability under the new Bank Act to monitor interest rates charged consumers and small businessmen by the chartered banks. They would give the government responsibility for assessing whether they are reasonable and whether excess profits are being made by the banks, in light of economic conditions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would be prepared to wait until the banking bill has come out of committee before raising these questions in the House.


Bob Rae: He has rejected them in committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I wanted to raise a point of order, I would have a valid basis against the hon. member in raising questions which are presently under discussion in committee.


John Carnell Crosbie: What a joke.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to tell the hon. member that all the amendments he has proposed with respect to Financial disclosure-and I would gather this is part of his over-all series of amendments-are still under consideration by myself.


INDUSTRY
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister is no surprise.


Miss MacDonald:: The poor consumer.

June 13, 1980
Oral Questions


Bob Rae: I look forward with interest to hearing what the minister has to say. My question to the minister follows the questions and answers that have been going across the floor of this House for over a month to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering the fact that Canadian cars are being sold in the United States with large rebates being offered by the three large car makers, and considering the fact that the consumer price index figures issued today show that the lack of such rebates in Canada is putting serious pressure on the consumer price index, can the minister tell the House what his attitude is regarding those rebates, when the three large car makers are offering them in the United States on Canadian cars and not in Canada, and when we have signed a deal on pricing?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, to assist the hon. member with this very important question, and to follow up what I said in the House the other day, I had my officials contact the heads of the motor vehicle manufacturers to raise the question of rebates for cars in Canada with them.
They said that the market situation, as they saw it, did not lead to their deciding to offer these rebates directly to consumers. They have available, however, dealer incentive programs which, in their view, make available to Canadian consumers equivalent opportunities to the rebate programs in the United States.


An hon. Member:: Could you believe it?


FINANCE
Bob Rae: A further supplementary question, Madam Speaker. We have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce accepting the word of the three car makers, and we have the Minister of Finance consorting with the Canadian Bankers' Association. We know who they are with.
I should like to put a final supplementary to the Minister of Finance. The fact of the matter is that consumer demand has been falling dramatically, that real disposable income has been falling dramatically, and yet we have this persistent and consistent pressure on the price side.
In light of these conditions, and in light of the fact that corporate profits have been so high and some bank profits have been so high, will the minister reconsider the historic rejection by the Liberal party of a proposal from us that the government establish a fair prices commission so that we can get at the root of what is causing this inflationary spiral even when demand is falling?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has referred to my consorting with the bankers. One of the bank's presidents told me last night how much he enjoyed the luncheon he had with the hon. member recently.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is blushing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to the very important question of policy raised by the hon. member, it is a matter that, if decided upon, would be announced to this House in a formal way.


TRANSPORT
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the disturbing news that many Ford Motor Company products have slipping transmissions which lurch into reverse from park, and that there has been a total of 291 recorded cases in Canada, with 41 serious injuries and four deaths, could the minister tell the House why there are no regulations on the books right now that would enable the federal government to force the recall of automobiles which are known to have defective parts?
Will the minister give the House an undertaking that the government will consider enacting legislation which would empower him and his department and the Government of Canada to recall automobiles with defective parts?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, there is in the law authority to issue a notice of defect. I also indicated before that the department can inquire, can inform and can do all kinds of things around the phenomenon of recall.
As I said specifically, however, the department does not have the authority to recall; that is very clear. Why? Simply because the system as it exists has been sufficient in possibly 99.9 per cent of cases to obtain the result which is contemplated. So as I said yesterday, in instances of this kind I, personally, do not believe that the legal process should be used to reach an objective which can be reached through other means less dramatic than the legal one. But this is a subject for debate, obviously.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: What is most disturbing about this case, Madam Speaker, is that the federal Department of Transport has been investigating these incidents since 1977. I and other consumers would be interested in knowing what other cases might be under investigation by the depart-
June 13, 1980

ment regarding defective brakes as we heard about in the Volkswagen Rabbit case, faulty transmissions, and so on.
In the meantime, I should like to know what advice the government can give to the great number of concerned Ford drivers in Canada until the government makes up its mind what to do about recalling these vehicles. Is any kind of an information kit being issued, for example, in conjunction with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am interested in the subject, obviously and passionately. I shall have a kit developed myself and I shall send a copy to the hon. member. Communiques to that effect come across my desk regularly. This was the case in the Volkswagen brake incident. I will package something and send a copy to my hon. friend.


DEVELOPMENT OF OIL SANDS PLANTS IN ALBERTA-OIL PRICING AGREEMENT
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In reply to my question yesterday about a possible one-year delay in construction of the two massive oil sands plants in northeastern Alberta because of lack of an oil pricing agreement, the minister said:
We are not the ones preventing those plants from proceeding. I am afraid the hon. member has the wrong information.
I would suggest that perhaps the hon. minister has the wrong information. Is it not true that the companies developing those massive oil sands plants must have a firm agreement on pricing before they can proceed, and that they do not have that from the federal government at the present time?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that there is a firm pricing agreement. This is going to expire July 1, but there has been one in operation for the last few years. As recently as two weeks ago Alberta Gas Trunk Line and Petro-Canada announced an intention to build a third oil sands plant without waiting for a firm oil pricing agreement. They decided they wanted to proceed. They have confidence in this government, and the government of Alberta, that we will provide ample funds for them to have a financially viable operation. This is the view of both governments and it is shared by the entrepreneurs concerned.
They need, and are waiting for, formal authorization from the government of Alberta and from the various boards and agencies of that government. Various fiscal incentives have been asked for from this government over the years, and they have been granted. What is lacking at the present time is the form of authorization from the government of Alberta. The hon. member knows that that kind of answer has not been forthcoming in the last year from the government of Alberta, not from this government.
Oral Questions


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stand in this House and say that he has a firm agreement with Alsands on pricing, and that he has a firm agreement with Imperial Oil on pricing? Will he stand in this House and say "We have signed and we have a firm pricing agreement"? He should know that is not true, and that $12 billion in investment is ready to be put in place.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jack Wendele Shields: I will leave that one, Madam Speaker.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member is more interested in making a speech than asking a question.


Harvie Andre: You invoked force majeure.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked about the failure to recall Ford cars since there have been four deaths in this country, 41 injuries and, I believe, nearly 300 accidents. If I heard the minister correctly in the House today and through the media yesterday he said that his department has some power to do something.
As his department has known about the problems for a few years, and since it has some power, does the minister not agree that the government has some responsibility to compensate people who have been injured as a result of these accidents, and some responsibility for the people who have died as a result of them, at least equal responsibility with the Ford Motor Company which manufactures the cars in our country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I would emphasize that the safety authorities in the United States have reached what is called a "tentative finding." This tentative finding must now go through the process of public hearing. In other words, up to now the possibility of the fault has been studied in both Canada and the United States but there is no conclusive evidence. Ford still disagrees with the tentative finding made in the United States.
In this case, in a number of occurences, it is claimed that an accident can be imputed to slippage of the transmission, but there is no proof that this is so. The figures have been added up and they indicate that there is the possibility of such a fault. But, I repeat, it is not a proven fact.


LEGAL OPINION ON RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT FOR COMPENSATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of
2078

June 13, 1980
Oral Questions
Justice. It concerns the failure of the government to recall any Ford cars despite the fact that four people have died and 41 have been injured as the result of faulty transmissions.
The Minister of Transport has said that the government does have some power to act, but it has failed to act despite the fact there is thought to be a problem. He is satisfied that there are no conclusive findings on the problem in the United States. I would point out that I am referring to cars which are made in Canada.
Has the Minister of Justice sought a legal opinion on this matter and, if he has not, will he seek a legal opinion to determine whether or not the government is equally responsible with Ford Motor Company if any deaths or injuries occur due to faulty transmissions, in light of the fact that the government has the power to put a stop to this matter and recall the cars, that it has known of this problem for a number of years and that this problem is causing undue hardship to a number of Canadians?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have not received a request from anybody on this matter to this day. I will certainly examine the question. I believe this responsibility comes under the administration of federal laws in the area of transport safety, that is under the Minister of Transport. I will discuss this matter with the minister. But I have not received a request from anybody regarding a criminal offence.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, yesterday it was implied in the House and in the committee on agriculture that the Minister of Agriculture showed favouritism toward Quebec in the administration of assistance programs aimed at several types of agriculture. Could the minister tell the House whether it is true that the stabilization program has assisted potato growers of Quebec?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, wherever the stabilization program is used, it will be of some help. But there is no guarantee that it will be a profit-making apparatus. It is a program which, if used, would allow these growers to stay in business.


OIL-POLICY ON RATIONING
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Several weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister a question regarding the energy future of Canada and what the government's position was on the matter. I would like to rephrase the question and ask the Minister of Energy whether or not he understands, considering decreasing domestic oil supplies, the insecurity and instability of foreign imports and an inadequate and insufficient conservation and substitution program, that his policy is one of rationing and committing this country to rationing?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not understand, for the very simple reason that that is not our policy. Our policy is to reach as quickly as possible a level where we will not be reliant on imported oil. This policy implies increased supply, better conservation programs and a whole series of policies to encourage Canadians to move off oil to alternative fuels.
I have already announced a policy, for instance, whereby refineries will upgrade oil in this country and whereby there will be greater access to natural gas. There will be savings of well over 100,000 barrels per day alone through the measures I have already announced. Our purpose is to achieve complete autonomy for Canada as soon as possible. There is a whole array of measures already in operation, and I hope to be able to announce further measures once an oil pricing agreement is reached, which I hope will be soon.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I understand very well the implications and the understandings. The inadequacy of the time-frames involved in all these measures to enable us to reach a goal where we will not require rationing, in fact, implies that the government has a rationing policy.
Does the minister understand the possible political frustrations and the frustrations among interested groups when rationing, no matter what form it takes, becomes necessary because of the short-term needs of oil in this country?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is no rational policy- rationing policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Pardon me, Madam Speaker, I was thinking of the former Conservative budget.


Harvie Andre: After that first statement, your nose shrunk by two inches.


Marc Lalonde: Coming to the present government, there is no rationing policy under consideration. As the hon. member knows, the Energy Supplies Allocation Board is working on measures, as are all other countries which are members of the International Energy Agency, to enable us to cope with a
June 13, 1980

situation which might arise out of an international crisis and which would create very serious problems for all western industrialized countries.
However, these measures are aimed at a very serious crisis of an international nature, and rationing is not a matter which is under consideration by this government.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, who during the early weeks of 1980 expressed himself as being completely and totally opposed to the excise tax as it was originally proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West. However, since he has been appointed to his high office, he has indicated that he would review the imposition of that excise tax.
Is the minister prepared to take some positive action to rescind that excise tax because of its oppressive, depressive nature and in light of today's announcement on continuing high inflation costs?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, my opinions about that tax have not changed very much. I am currently having very detailed discussions with my colleagues in cabinet.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, in light of the comment made by the Minister of Agriculture, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Earlier, the Minister of Finance indicated that he, too, would review the imposition of that harsh, excessive tax as it is applied to the Canadian wine industry. Is the minister now prepared to say whether or not that review has been completed? The fact that the tax has been imposed is an indication that the review has been completed and of the disdain which the government holds for the Canadian wine industry and Canadian grape growers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the representations which have been made by members of the government party, by the hon. member and by representatives of the wine growers, are still under consideration. It was certainly not my intention, in reintroducing the proposals of my predecessor, to place an undue burden upon the grape growers. 1 would be very concerned if any undue burden did occur. I can assure the hon. member that I am still considering the matter.
Oral Questions


STUDENT AID PROGRAMS
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State plan to act on representations made by the National Union of Students and other student bodies that students be given the opportunity to provide a more satisfactory input into the review of student aid programs?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for Kitchener for raising this question. It is obviously a question of great interest not only to university students in his home area of Kitchener-Waterloo, but also to university students right across this country.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, Francis.


Francis Fox: Perhaps, to set the record straight, I should start off by saying that the previous Conservative government and the Council of Ministers of Education did not provide for any student representation or even any student input into that very important federal-provincial task force looking at student aid policies in this country.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Francis Fox: I had the opportunity of meeting with representatives of the National Union of Students on May 14 this year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: I would very much like to answer this question, because it is of great interest to student groups across the country.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Francis Fox: It is obviously not of interest to the previous Conservative government or to the present members of the opposition. As a result of this meeting with representatives of the National Union of Students on May 14, I decided to raise the matter once again with the Council of Ministers of Education. I met with the chairman of the Council of Ministers of Education in Victoria on May 27 last to discuss this matter more fully.


An hon. Member:: Come on.


John Carnell Crosbie: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like ask hon. members to allow the minister to answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 13, 1980
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: I realize, Madam Speaker, that it is very embarrassing to the previous Conservative government to recognize its lack of interest in matters concerning student groups in this country.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I also have to call the minister to order. I would like him to answer the question.


Walter David Baker: You have over-pled your case.


Francis Fox: I will be pleased to answer the question. Madam Speaker. As a result of this meeting with the chairman of the Council of Ministers of Education, the one-stage, no input process established by the previous Conservative government will be replaced by a second stage whereby the discussion paper to be produced by the joint federal-provincial task force will be made available to student groups, the National Union of Students in particular, in order that they may have meaningful input before any decisions are taken on matters of great concern.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Show a little respect for Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. All questions deserve an answer if the minister so chooses to give one. A question has been asked. We must have the answer, but I would ask the minister to be brief and to conclude.


An hon. Member:: This is an abuse of the House.


Francis Fox: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My conclusion is that there will, indeed, be meaningful student input into the process following the publication of the discussion paper which will be made available to student groups in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Francis Fox: Unlike members opposite, who speak a lot about freedom of information but were not willing to make these discussion papers available.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether the minister has concluded his answer. I will ask if he has, and if he has then I will proceed to another hon. member.


Francis Fox: Yes, Madam Speaker.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister of Canada, regarding the desperate housing situation on Indian reserves. In view of the fact that funds are urgently needed to build over 13,000 new homes that are backlogged, and that 24 per cent of the present homes on reserves are badly in need of repair, as well as the $12,000 per unit subsidy that is completely inadequate to meet current construction costs, will the Prime Minister assure us that additional funds will be allocated for reserve housing, as requested in an urgent memo recently to his cabinet?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to take notice of the question and research that document to which the hon. member refers.


EMPLOYMENT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My second question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the appalling and disgraceful state of housing on Indian reserves, will the minister explain why housing construction projects are no longer eligible for LEAP funding, since this program was essential to build housing as well as to provide training and employment opportunities for people on reserves? Will the minister also explain why no program has been initiated to fill this void?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, I would say that a program has been initiated. In this House just two weeks ago we announced a program of Canada Development Projects across Canada which will have special additional funds allocated for native employment.
As we indicated in the opening statement in announcing that project, if other federal departments want to put up capital moneys, then certainly the labour component of those projects will be paid for under the Canada Development Projects. These funds are certainly available to any group on a reserve to initiate a housing program under that arrangement.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the
June 13, 1980

fact that Friday last he had the opportunity to meet with the leader of the Liberal party of Quebec, who is also the former president of the No committee, I imagine they discussed the list of subjects to be raised during the federal-provincial conference in September. Yesterday the leader of the QLP said that the list was nothing more than a draft which would have to be completely remade, devoid as it is of such fundamental elements as the linguistic and cultural duality of Canada and the existence of a distinct society in Quebec. Given those remarks, does the Prime Minister intend to accept the invitation the leader of the QLP made to him yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in his question the hon. member for Joliette said that he thinks the leader of the Quebec Liberal party and I discussed that list of priorities.
I can assure him that we discussed neither the list nor the statement of principles. I think the hon. member is making a mistake when he says Mr. Ryan stated that the list was just a draft. I rather think Mr. Ryan referred to the statement of principles. I, for one, do not contest such a description. I proposed it as such to the provincial premiers. It was a view of the federal government which I thought would have the support of a majority of Canadians but it certainly contains matters which are subject to discussion and amendment. That is why we gave ourselves several weeks during which the Minister of Justice and his colleagues will attempt to improve the draft.
As for linguistic duality, I think it is clearly recognized in that statement of principles and I would very much like to have the support of the hon. member for Joliette in that regard.


INQUIRY WHETHER PEPIN-ROBARTS RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
Roch La Salle: Since Mr. Ryan also admits that he has drawn inspiration from the Pepin-Robarts report, I do not understand how the Minister of Transport can remain silent, considering the apathy shown by the Prime Minister. However, taking the report into account the Liberal party leader has stated that he could not follow the Prime Minister of Canada since he wanted to base his constitutional reform solely on one peoples. Would the Prime Minister tell us today whether he intends to take seriously the recommendations of the Pepin-Robarts report, the comments made by the leader of the Liberal party of Quebec, the former president of the No committee, and refrain from making Canadians believe that he has a mandate following the results of the referendum on the matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to the Pepin-Robarts report. The analytical and historic parts of the report indicate quite well, I think, the concept of duality in Canada. We have tried
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
to recognize that concept in the statement of principles to which the hon. member refers. We have spoken of the meeting of the French and English fact in Canada. We have also spoken about the linguistic duality. As for the term "people", unless I am mistaken, the Pepin-Robarts report nor any other rejects the concept of people. We must use a term to describe the inhabitants of Canada. Would the hon. member rather speak of the Canadian nation? Or would the concept of people be more acceptable? He should indicate a term to say that a population is living and wants to continue to live in this country. This is, as I said, what was decided by a majority in the Quebec referendum. The referendum did not deal with one term or another, but surely it indicated the will of Quebeckers to be part of a living whole in Canada and that normally there would be no objection to refer to them as a people.


EMPLOYMENT
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the recent labour force survey there was a notification that 68,000 jobs had been lost from the Canadian economy in the last month.
Can the minister tell the House from what sectors those jobs were lost, manufacturing or resource industries, what kinds of occupations, and what regions of the country were most affected by the job loss?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 would say to the hon. member that if he had read the second page of the statistical survey, he would have found the answer there. What they did point out was the jobs were lost primarily in the goods producing service industries, and were primarily in the province of Ontario. That is on page 3 or 4 of the labour force survey that was issued two days ago.


POINT OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a point of order, but I feel I must in view of what occurred just a few moments ago in the question period when the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) directed a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox). The hon. member can deny it if he wishes, and if he does I will have to accept what he says, but that was obviously a planted question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 13, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker


Walter David Baker: Subject to his denial, I say that was a planted question. The minister had his music with him for the answer. That was bad enough, but, Madam Speaker, you have admonished the opposition, and we accept the admonishment because it is correct, for abusing the question period by giving long preambles to questions and motions under Standing Order 43. We accept that because the proper way for the question period to be handled is with as much crispness as possible.
It is important, if this question period is to mean anything, that answers not carry on the way the answer of the Secretary of State did. It went on long before there was any disruption or calls for order from this side of the House. When it goes on so long that it is not even a neighbour to crispness in its characterization, the Chair must intervene. Otherwise, question period will slowly and irrevocably deteriorate to a point beyond which it has already deteriorated.
We are prepared to accept your views or rulings, Madam Speaker, with respect to crispness in our questions, but when the Secretary of State went on and on and on in his answer beyond what could be considered a normal length for an answer, an answer that was abusive, political and all the rest of it as well as being too long, then we have to rise. Our only defence to that kind of process before an intervention by the Chair is to shout "Order", just as the defence to too long a preamble to a question or Standing Order 43 motion is to shout "Order" from the government side.
Madam Speaker, you need some assistance from the House with respect to this matter. I say to you now, as the House leader of the opposition, that we are prepared to do our best to assist you by undertaking that we will keep our preambles short. However, there is a quid pro quo in this House of Commons. We need some kind of assurance from the Chair, the government House leader and certainly from ministers of the Crown, who are supposed to be knowledgeable about the rules of this House and should not abuse them, that they in turn will help improve the quality of the question period.
If the Chair needs assistance, I want to say it will have that assistance from the opposition. It is important that some kind of undertaking come from the government House leader so that the spontaneity of the question period will not be lost. I say that with great seriousness. It is important that you intervene, Madam Speaker, and when you do you will have support for that intervention from this side of the House with respect to those matters for which we are normally responsible, namely the asking of questions.
I felt I had to rise and say that to you, Madam Speaker. If the hon. member for Kitchener tells me that his question was spontaneous, that he had not in fact consulted with respect to the question, naturally I will accept that. However, even if that is so, the answer was far too long. In fact, Madam Speaker, if you review the question, you will see that it could have been answered-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: It could have been
answered-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: That question could have been answered by a simple yes or no, with a short explanation. I think there has been an abuse today. The practice has to stop.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised by the intervention of the opposition House leader. All the more so because if the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) did take some time to answer- and I shall come back to the nature of the answer he has given to the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang)-it is because he was constantly being interrupted not by the shouts of the opposition but by the screams of some members opposite. I could see the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) who was behaving like a madman, Madam Speaker, and who was screaming to prevent the Secretary of State from giving a coherent answer. I find this not only childish but very disrespectful of this institution. That is the sad and poor image we project because of the irresponsible attitude of the hon. member for Calgary Centre with his uncontrolled screams.
I was present, I watched him. I see that the hon. member is here and I will tell him to his face: his attitude has been irresponsible and degrading to this institution and I find that deplorable. Madam Speaker, I could single out several other members but I do not sit in the House to supply the gossip column of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) who is absent. Be that as it may, I feel that basically the official opposition House leader is right to look forward to an oral question period which as a whole would unfold in a more orderly fashion, but I would not like him to put the blame on government members only.
It happens very frequently that members from his side ask questions with very long preambles and very long argument. It also happens that they get from this side some rather short answers. I admit also that occasionally members of the government give some rather long answers, but the questions are so long that it is sometimes inviting to give a complete answer and use more time for that purpose.
I come to the point he raised, namely the question put by the hon. member for Kitchener. The House leader of the official opposition seems to suggest that it is not customary-and I do not know if there was indeed prior consultation between the hon. member and the Secretary of State-to give a minister notice of a question. On the contrary, that happens quite regularly and should be done more often, and even opposition members do it.
June 13, 1980

Often, when a question is rather complicated, opposition members think, very appropriately, of giving notice of the question so as to get a full and detailed answer, because there are still some members in this House, Madam Speaker, who really want complete information and answers instead of trying to score political points and create an impression. And I cannot accept nor understand the remark made by my hon. colleague to the effect that it is most unusual that a member, from either side of the House, should give a minister prior notice of a question he intends to ask.
On the contrary, I think that this shows intelligence and respect not only for this institution, but also for the minister. I am not saying that this should be done in every case. This is not what I am suggesting. What I do suggest, however, is that it is not normal to complain, that this happens occasionally, regardless of what actually occurred in this instance, which I do not know.
The point which I want to emphasize, Madam Speaker, is that nothing whatever ought to be considered out of order with respect to the attitude evidenced by the hon. member for Kitchener when he addressed his question to the minister. Moreover, there was nothing irregular as far as the answer provided by the Secretary of State is concerned. The only irregularity arose from the fact that because of the obstinate and continued catcalls at that very moment, it was just about impossible for a minister to provide a normal reply which could at least be heard, and that is what I find unacceptable.
If anything is to be retained from the contribution made by the House leader of the official opposition, it should be that those who are asked questions should at least be given a chance to reply and be heard. I was sitting next to the Secretary of State and I could hardly hear him because of the catcalls from the other side. In particular, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, was stridently objecting to the length of the reply given by the Secretary of State.
To conclude. Madam Speaker, on the matter of principle, and regardless of what happened today, I agree with the House leader of the official opposition that opposition members should make their questions much shorter. I also agree that, on this side of the House, unless the subject is really tricky or calls for more explanations, we should try, as you yourself have suggested on a few occasions since the beginning of this session, to give replies which are shorter or more ad rent, to use a legal expression. However, I would not want to see a most legitimate complaint used as an opportunity to criticize the attitude evidenced this morning either by the hon. member for Kitchener or by the Secretary of State, who made outstanding efforts in order to be heard amidst the noise and shouts coming from the Progressive Conservative benches.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to add to the length of the discussion about the question and answer which have been alluded to. However, I should like to say that underlying the discussion we are now having is to be found the basic cause of the difficulty now affecting our question period. I feel my colleagues are right in expecting that members of our party should get in four or five questions a day. Most days, we get only three. It is not your fault, Madam Speaker. Your arithmetic is dead on; we get the right proportion. The reason we do not get the four or five we think we should get is that not very many questions are asked during the question period, and this is because the preambles to many of the questions are too long and the answers are far too long. It is not only the case of the reply given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) this morning. I think Your Honour will find, if you check Hansard tomorrow, that the Secretary of State spent more time while he was on his feet telling us what the Tories had not done than in answering the question about what were the Liberals going to do. I do not think that is a correct use of the time.
We had no objection in our corner of the House, Madam Speaker, when you remonstrated with one of our members a few days ago on the ground that the preamble to his question was too long. 1 join with the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) in saying that you have our support if you try to cut down the length of preambles and the length of answers so that more members not only in our party but in all parties can get a chance to ask their questions in the question period.


Harvie Andre: In view of the fact that the government House leader has brought my name into the discussion, Madam Speaker, I should like to make one or two observations. First, I observe that the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), who triggered this discussion has not had the courtesy to stay here and listen to it.
The government House leader directed his criticisms at me. He is correct in saying members should not shout. My comment is that I was emulating his colleagues, including the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) and innumerable other members of the government party, who frequently and consistently since this session started have resorted to shouting "Order" across the chamber whenever they are dissatisfied with the nature of a question, apparently with some success.
Today there was a clear abuse. Obviously, the Secretary of State had made some adjustment in the programs respecting student loans and, quite obviously, he wanted to make those public. So he had his backbencher from Kitchener (Mr. Lang) put the question and this gave him the opportunity to make a speech in the House in the guise of answering the question, outlining the things he had done which, in his view, were so much superior to what had been done by this party. The answer given by the Secretary of State today should most properly have been made either by press release or by way of a

June 13, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
statement on motions if it were necessary for it to be given in the House.
If there is to be this kind of abuse from that minister, of all people, and if we are to continue to hear "Order" shouted at us from the other side when we seek information in questions, it is understandable and natural that there should be reciprocation in kind. I hope it does not deteriorate to that. I underline the point made by my House leader, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and by the House leader for the New Democratic Party that it is far better both for the House, and for the country which watches our debates, if we shorten our questions and our answers. But I have to say that, given the nature of this chamber where we face each other two sword-lengths apart, if members over there shout "Order" at us we will respond in kind; we will shout "Order" back. If they refuse to answer questions or if they abuse the question period, you can expect that we will respond in kind. That would be only natural and if we were to do anything else we would be failing in our responsibility as an opposition to keep the government in check.


Peter Joseph Lang: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the House leader for the official opposition that I am fully capable of making up my own questions. I do not accept his accusation of abusing the rules of this House. I will ask him to try them on to see whether they fit for him or for his party. I would also point out that it is not the hon. gentleman's position to judge whether a question is appropriate or not, or whether it is too long or not. That is for Madam Speaker to decide and I believe she is doing a fine job of carrying out that responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Joseph Lang: I should also like to reply to the accusation that I made a speech when asking this question. My question was three and a half lines long and contained 40 words. I would hardly regard that as a speech.


Walter David Baker: We did not say that. It was the minister who made a speech.


John Carnell Crosbie: We know you cannot make a speech!


Peter Joseph Lang: I think that is all 1 have to say on the subject. That is all it merits.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, 1 would not have risen in this debate had the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) not mentioned my name. I want to tell him that the Secretary of State, who had to leave for an important engagement, would have liked to stay. He asked me to replace him in the House for this period of time because he had a very important appointment.
But what surprises me most, Madam Speaker, is that the hon. member for Calgary Centre who did get caught in the
act, today behaved like a child who gets caught and fights back saying that it is not his fault, it is because others are doing the same thing that he is doing it himself. I do not find that attitude to be very serious or very parliamentary. It is obvious the hon. member for Calgary Centre abused what is called the minimum decorum to be kept in this House. If unfortunately, on certain occasions, other members do the same thing, that does not justify at all the behaviour of the hon. member for Calgary Centre today.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to make a lengthy contribution to this discussion unless I am goaded. We all realize that government backbenchers have the right to ask questions and that the Speaker controls that so that it is not too often and does not interfere too much with the opposition's primary responsibility in the question period. We also realize that government members presumably usually check with the minister so that the minister knows he is going to be asked a question on a certain subject and will not appear like a dumb-dumb or a dingbat when he is asked a question by somebody on his own side. The hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) did not deny the proposition that he had informed the minister that he was going to ask that particular question.


Mr. Corbin:: You guys do it all the time.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is nothing wrong with that. I am not saying there is anything wrong about that, but the minister then abused the question period by trying to make a five or six minute speech in reply to a tame, pussycat question from his own member. That is an abuse of the question period.


Peter Joseph Lang: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


John Carnell Crosbie: I am already up on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have already heard the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang). I know what his arguments are, and I think at this point 1 would like to cut off the discussion and make a few remarks for the benefit of the House.
Hon. members realize, of course, that whether questions are planted or not is not for me to judge. My view is that all questions are legitimate unless they require very lengthy statistics. In that case I would say they should be put on the order paper. In my view, all questions are legitimate whether they come from one side of the House or the other. I will make a passing remark about the question of the hon. member for Kitchener: it was short.
I think the answer was the matter which was put mostly into question by some hon. members. Some answers might be longer than others, and it is not for me to judge whether a question is properly answered with a "yes" or a "no".
In the particular case this morning I was trying to listen to the answer the minister was giving to the question of the hon.
June 13, 1980

member for Kitchener. At one point I could not even understand whether he was answering the question or going into debate. I could see that hon. members to my left were quite disturbed about what was going on, but I really could not follow the answer, so I called the House to order because I felt that the Chair had to know what was going on. The minister proceeded with answering the question. I called the minister to order also when I was able to realize that he himself was going into debate. Then 1 felt he should be allowed to proceed to the end of his answer, but even at the end I had to ask him whether he had really finished answering the question; I could not hear because of the noise in the House.
These things happen. I know hon. members like to protest when they feel that their privileges are being encroached upon, and 1 listened carefully to what I could hear. I do not really think that today we went beyond what is acceptable. The hon. minister jibed hon. members on the other side of the House, but this happens both ways, when questions are asked and when answers are given, and I allow a certain amount of that, politics being what it is.
I accept the remarks of the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker), and I am happy that I will have the co-operation of hon. members on his side of the House as to preambles. I will try to check that answers from the other side are not too long and are not used in a way which is improper in question period.
I apply instant justice here. When looking into the record I might find that instant justice might have been applied in different ways at different times; but it is instant justice, and if after looking into the record I feel that I have been perhaps a little too lenient on one side or the other, I try to check that the next day. That is the only thing I can do.
I welcome the feelings which have been expressed by hon. members about the question period. I would like to recognize many more members, and I am happy that I will have co-operation with regard to preambles. I will try to look after the answers. 1 would even like to suggest in some cases, especially toward the end of the question period, that perhaps there not be supplementaries because supplementaries are not always supplementary. Hon. members will agree with me on that. Perhaps toward the end of the question period I could use my prerogative. It is my prerogative, but I try to go along with custom because I respect custom. I think custom is very important and sometimes more important than rules.
However, if hon. members agree, toward the end of the question period I might not allow as many supplementaries as I have in the past, in order to allow more members to ask questions.
I accept the remarks of the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton and those of all the other members as well.
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant PRIVILEGE


MR. SARGEANT-NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION SESSION-REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF S O. 43 MOTION BY HON. MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG-ASSIN1BOINE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a motion moved under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). In his motion the hon. member called for my condemnation and my removal from the NATO Parliamentary Association because he does not like the way I voted on a resolution brought forward at a plenary session in Luxembourg last Saturday.
1 might point out that the hon. member misled the House a bit in saying that this motion referred only to the Afghanistan situation. It referred to many other situations besides the Afghanistan situation. I might also point out that the entire Canadian delegation felt that the resolution should have referred only to Afghanistan and left out the pot-pourri of other things that it contained. It it had done so, I could easily have supported it.
I do not really feel it is necessary that I explain my vote, but in this case I will very briefly. Because I strongly supported the Afghanistan clause in the resolution, I could not vote against it. However, because I am morally opposed to clauses in the resolution which effectively call for an escalation of the arms race, I could not vote in favour, so I abstained.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that Canada is still a democratic country; it is my understanding that all 15 member states of the North Atlantic Assembly are democratic countries; and it is my understanding that in a democratic country freedom of expression, whether by voice or by vote, is a basic right. Although I personally disagreed with the way some of my colleagues voted in Luxembourg, I recognize and respect their right to vote as they please, and 1 do not ask for their condemnation.
If I were to follow in the same vein as the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, I would ask that he be censured because he seems to have no respect for or belief in the tenets of democracy. However, I respect his right to freedom of speech, so I will ask, respectfully, only that he withdraw his motion.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, any member is entitled to move whatever motion he feels fit to move in this House. Your Honour accepted my motion and asked for unanimous consent, which request was turned down.
The hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) has highlighted the deep divisions within the NDP over NATO and NORAD and over the buying of the new fighter aircraft. The hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake mentioned the arms build-up motion which he could not support. Clause 5 of the

June 13, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Paproski
motion says "to pursue arms control negotiations". It does not call for an arms build-up alone. It also calls for arms control negotiations, and I feel very strongly about Canadian members of Parliament and senators going to NATO and NORAD and voting against NATO and NORAD. They do not want us in NATO and NORAD. They have made that point very clearly over the years.
The hon. member talks about the democratic process. I can express my opinion, and I express my strongly held opinion, one which has been expressed by many Canadians, that with regard to NATO and NORAD the New Democratic Party has a lack of concern about the defence of Canada at a time when there is an arms build-up and invasions. Since Russia is invading Afghanistan, this is not a time to be pulling out of NATO or NORAD or to abstain from voting when we go to Brussels or Luxembourg NATO meetings. There is nothing in the resolution which would say that the hon. member should not vote, because it covers both conditions, arms control and arms build-up, and my motion was accepted. I question whether the hon. member has the right to a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: We have here a difference of opinion between two members regarding deliberations which took place in a body other than this Parliament. The motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) might have been on the border of not being quite in order, but these motions come in so rapidly and they are spontaneous, so perhaps under scrutiny-I do not recall the exact terms of the motion-it might be found to be out of order. I am making those reservations with all the risks that that entails. Therefore, the remarks which the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) made would have been out of order also, but because 1 cannot judge instantly and without a closer examination of the motion whether the motion under Standing Order 43 put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine is really in order, I have to accept the remarks made by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake.
However, this is basically a difference of opinion between the two hon. members, and therefore it is not a matter of privilege.


MR. MILLER-NOTICE OF QUESTION TO BE RAISED
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, last night I indicated I might be rising on a question of privilege today and I sent you written notice of it. However, the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) is not here today, so with your permission I would like to request that I be permitted to raise this matter when both the hon. member and myself are in the House.


POINT OF ORDER
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski). In reply to his point of order I stated yesterday that I would convey his representations to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). 1 would like to make a very short statement for the record so as to straighten out the facts.
On October 5, 1978, the federal government and all of the provinces, with the exception of Nova Scotia, signed a memorandum of understanding whereby, inter alia, the federal government would restrict its lottery market products to a retail price of $10 and up, and the provinces would limit themselves to products retailed at $9 and below. That memorandum was signed by Iona Campagnolo on behalf of the federal government and by Reuben Baetz on behalf of the provinces.
So the hon. member for Edmonton North who was questioning an answer given by the Prime Minister in this House and saying that no agreement was signed will note that the facts which I have just stated indicate that the Prime Minister was right. 1 wanted that to be on the record today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to provide the House today with details of the government's assistance programs for farmers who have been hard hit by drought conditions in western Canada. My colleague, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, was supposed to be making a statement at the same time in western Canada. He has probably already made it by now as we in the House were delayed by this long point of
June 13, 1980

order which took so much time. Of course, the House is as unpredictable as the weather for the farmers.
The current dry conditions do indeed constitute a serious situation for some producers, and the government well recognizes that fact. We recognize that the producers most affected by the combined effects of a dry fall last year, a winter with little snowfall and this dry, hot spring, are the livestock producers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Our programs address immediate problems being encountered by this group. The main problems are a lack of feed for the livestock, such as reserves of hay in the two provinces, an almost complete lack of pasture growth for grazing livestock in some areas, and some problems with water supplies.
I believe that these programs, which will be cost-shared on a 50-50 basis with the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, will solve some of these problems. The federal government's share will be $7 million.
Let me detail the programs, Madam Speaker. First of all, a cost-sharing program with the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan for feed assistance and livestock transport has been instituted. In most cases, feed will be transported to dry areas to maintain livestock. In other cases, it might be more appropriate to move livestock from these dry areas to other regions in which feed and forage is available in ample quantity. The program recognizes both of these aspects of assistance.
While the program as a whole will concentrate on these transportation and feed assistance concerns, some money will also be directed to the development of water supplies where emergency conditions have developed.
The transportation and feed assistance programs are centred in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but part of the over-all program provides for the allocation of $1 million for similar activities in northwestern Ontario and the interior of British Columbia. Drought is also affecting these areas. Also, there will be $1 million for similar programs for the native people on Indian reserves.
Let me say that these measures have developed through the combined efforts of both federal and provincial officials. The federal task force on drought, which I ordered to be formed during the dry conditions in 1977, was instrumental in presenting me with specific recommendations on how best to handle current drought conditions. We activated this group and asked the provincial governments to participate in early May.
While livestock producers are suffering the most, cereal producers are also waiting for rain. But with some exceptions in some areas of the prairies, the cereal group could still provide reasonable yields with rain in the next short while.
So far as cereal producers are concerned, there exists already government mechanisms to assure them of their livelihood should the summer continue hot and dry. They are protected under our crop insurance plan or under the terms of the Western Grain Stabilization Act. About 80,000 farmers have purchased $1.5 billion in crop insurance protection this year. The federal government shares equally the $146 million in premium costs with participating producers. It is a 50-50
Agricultural Drought
cost-sharing program and the provinces administer these programs. The stabilization act also provides income protection should poor crop yields result in reduced cash flow. About 124,000 grain producers are enrolled in that program.
Let me say that the government views the measures 1 have just detailed as being short-term in effect. No one can provide the rain that is really needed. But federal and provincial officials are continuing carefully to monitor the entire moisture situation in western Canada, and they will be making recommendations to us as the summer progresses. We do not consider the program I have just announced as being the total program. If conditions were to change, we will have to reconsider it, and that is what I mean by saying that we will be watching the situation carefully so as to assess the needs of these people. That is as briefly as I can put it.
I want to acknowledge also the co-operation of my colleagues, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and other colleagues in the cabinet, as well as the co-operation we had from the provincial governments concerned.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to the minister's statement this morning. I think it would be safe to say that we on this side of the House would view the scope of the minister's statement as being too narrow in its parameters. The statement itself is not detailed enough. We hope that during the question period which will follow we will be able to receive from the minister more details of this matter.
The minister has dealt with two very important issues: one is feed assistance and the other is livestock transportation. But there are many other areas which are of grave concern in western Canada; for example, the problems of small communities which have already faced water rationing, a subject which has not been addressed by the minister at all.
There is one other point I should like to make at this time. In terms of the situation in the prairies, the minister is correct in the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The situation is extremely serious in those two provinces. Coming from the province of Manitoba, I suppose I can speak with some authority. They are probably experiencing the worst crop year since the depression. The hay crop is just non-existent.
I suppose we would have to call into question whether or not $14 million will be enough. The minister indicated that there may be more money coming. It is something we will pursue with him when we get into a question and answer session. The germination of the seed is very, very poor in Manitoba, and unfortunately there is no relief in sight.
Last night I mentioned in the Standing Committee on Agriculture that at the present time farmers are starting to plough up the crops and to apply for crop insurance. For example, the temperature on Wednesday was plus 36 degrees

June 13, 1980
Agricultural Drought
Celsius, with winds gusting to 50 miles per hour and the humidity around 20 per cent. That is not the kind of weather in which one could expect to grow crops.
The Alberta situation has changed rather dramatically over the past few weeks in terms of the grain crop, but in terms of the hay crop it is still very serious. The minister's statement does not really address the Alberta situation regarding hay. Rain early in the spring is required to produce a hay crop. I have talked with my colleagues in the Elouse of Commons from Alberta and with farmers in that province. They have indicated that they will be faced with some real problems in terms of adequate hay to winter their cattle this coming year. The majority of cattle are produced in that province, so the minister may want to take another look at the situation pertaining to hay.
We on this side of the House criticized the government for its lack of urgency. That was documented on May 30 in the motion of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). Up to this point when the minister has finally made his statement, 1 think our feelings can be characterized by restating the motion of that day. It read as follows:
That this House deeply regrets the government's lack of response in the House of Commons to concern about the disastrous western agricultural drought and the related forest fire emergency and calls on the government to abandon its secretive approach and consult with MPs of all parties in an open and forthright manner.
Since that time we have had a number of discussions in the agriculture committee on this question. Now the minister has come forward with a statement, but certainly it is not too soon. At the present time some cattle are being sold in western Canada. There is grave concern among some small prairie towns about the fact that they may not have enough water to last through the summer if they do not receive any more rain than they have up to the present time.
I should like to make some suggestions which the minister might take under advisement. First, we should ensure that a backhaul of hay is installed from eastern to western Canada in terms of the cattle trucks and rail vehicles being used. In other words, if cattle are being brought from western to eastern Canada there should be a backhaul of hay. The tractor-trailers and trucks should be full of hay when they are heading back to the prairies. The government should ensure this happens, and I hope the suggestion is taken under advisement.
The next point I should like to mention was not touched upon in the minister's statement. I am referring to the fact that perhaps this is the first time since the feed grain policy was instituted that the policy may work in reverse to the intended method for which it was brought in. It was to supply the domestic market first, that domestic market being eastern Canada, Quebec, the maritimes and parts of British Columbia. This year that domestic market will be in western Canada. It is incumbent upon the government to ensure the Canadian Wheat Board has enough stock of barley on hand in the prairies. I know in southern Manitoba that that is not the case. One can talk to a number of elevator companies in southern Manitoba to find out that the stocks of barley just are not there. The track record of the Canadian Wheat Board respecting the availability of supplies of barley must be a very, very top priority. The question of pelletizing grain screenings, especially at Thunder Bay and also Vancouver, to be brought back to the prairies should be looked into. This is a perfect source of cattle feed.
The minister should also consider the drilling of deep wells for water. Dug-outs certainly have been the primary source of water supply in western Canada, but they are almost empty. Unless water is trucked in, which of course is very expensive, the drilling of deep wells should be looked at very, very soon. Also the minister should look at the possible use of federal-provincial wildlife preserves for grazing cattle.
As I mentioned, the statement of the minister is welcome. In my opinion it is a bit too narrow in its scope, there is not enough detail as to what the government intends to do, but nevertheless it is better than nothing and will give farmers some assurance that the governments in effect are working together. Perhaps that is the most important point, that the governments are working together to try to solve this problem.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). We expected this statement a little over a week ago, but I am pleased to see that it has finally come. I am not totally pleased with the contents of the message, but at least we see some action is beginning to take form.
I view the drought situation which is occurring as something that will require complete rethinking on the part of the Department of Agriculture. In a sense, we are no longer dealing with farms that we are trying to keep profitable. Profitable farming is not an alternative under conditions such as we are now faced with. We are forced to go back to a situation of simple survival. Less rain has fallen on the eastern part of Saskatchewan, approximately two-thirds or three-quarters of Saskatchewan, all of Manitoba and northwestern Ontario, than has ever been the case in the 80-some years that recorded meteorological data has been available. It is not just the worst drought since the thirties; it is the worst drought which has existed in that very large part of western Canada since man started keeping records. It is an emergency situation. There have been three months without any moisture in some areas. In a great many areas there has been about two-tenths to three-tenths of an inch spread over the area in the form of slight precipitation.
Under those conditions we are wise to give top priority to water supplies. Man must survive this drought first. There must be water supplies to the towns and villages and also the farms. We must ensure that the program of 1977, where all small water sources were pumped dry and piped into larger dug-outs so that there would be some storage to get us through the winter, is put in place, especially as we approach winter.
I think that this feed movement program recognizes the needs of dairy producers. Provincial programs in conjunction with the federal drought task force have properly given top
June 13, 1980

priority to the movement of forage to dairymen. It is fortunate that dairymen will have a cost of production formula based on costs. In Saskatchewan at least, the cost of production formula has yielded an increase of 1.5 cents per litre to help offset the extra expense of buying and importing hay. At least three or four truckloads of hay go back into Saskatchewan on wheat pool trucks that have hauled cattle east.
However, having said that, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that the announcement has no provision for guarantees on feed grain supplies being held within our area. This is in part due to the implementation of an open market feed grain policy a number of years ago. We were told then that the open market would supply all domestic needs and the Wheat Board was instructed to concentrate on the export market for feed grains. They have been trying to do this but now there is a conflict of interest between the livestock producers of western Canada and the grain marketing institutions.
It is good business for the open market to get as much feed grain as it can in order to put upward pressure on the domestic price. When supplies are available, buyers are not so likely to bid the price up so the domestic market has been attempting to drain the area. Because the Wheat Board has not been given the jurisdiction to supply the domestic market first, it is intent upon selling as much feed grain into the world market as it can. Livestock producers may be at a disadvantage because of that inappropriate policy which was decided on some years ago.
As yet no announcement has been made about increasing the initial price of feed grains so that farmers who produce both grain and livestock will not be encouraged to sell before the end of the crop year, July 31, in order to take advantage of the higher prices for this crop year. The same argument applies to holding seed on farms. There would be less incentive to put it on the market before the end of July if an announcement were made soon that initial prices will remain at the same level for the next crop year.
The announcement makes no mention of the sense of urgency that exists regarding the market price of cattle. Cattle prices in the west are more depressed than in other parts of the country because of the emergency situation there. Stabilization pay-outs are available for some products but thdy are not normally available for cattle. If a normal stabilization program were to be put into place for cattle, it would not apply to those producers experiencing losses of 40 cents or 50 cents per pound through being unable to pick their marketing time.
Urgent consideration should be given to these needs and I hope the government will hold a watching brief on the situation and act accordingly.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a couple of brief questions. Regarding the supplies of feed grain maintained on the prairies, in my constituency tons of feed barley would ordinarily be available to farmers at the Netherhill elevator. In the surrounding area there are three feed lots, one that uses 20,000
Agricultural Drought
bushels per week, the other one using 5,000 bushels per week-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The procedure is for members to ask questions at this point. Statements have been made and now hon. members are permitted questions. I should like the hon. member to put his question.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I should like to ask the minister what provisions have been made through the Canadian Wheat Board to guarantee a supply of grain to farmers in western Canada at this time?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is having meetings in Winnipeg today with the Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission. They have made a survey of the grains that are available but I do not know their findings yet. I hope we will be able to report early in the week.
We are told unofficially that there are adequate supplies on the prairies for domestic livestock emergency feeding programs. 1 do not think we can say at this time whether we are going to make offers to farmers or whether we are going to decide that none of it can be shipped out of the area without properly compensating grain producers. All these things have to be taken into consideration when the decision is made.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions regarding the amount of assistance. It was suggested that there be a 50-50 division of the money, $7 million each. Out of that is to come $1 million for B.C. and Ontario and $1 million for Indian reserves, which leaves $5 million. It was my understanding that the Saskatchewan-


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


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Is there enough money to cover that sharing, because Saskatchewan has already paid out $15 million?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand this is an estimate made by Saskatchewan. As I said earlier, this is our proposal at this time. We will monitor it very closely and if necessary will go back to the treasury and scrape up some more money. If the rains come-and you can bet your bottom dollar, Mr. Speaker, as can everyone in the House, that I am praying that the rains do come-it is going to mean better crops and that we will spend less money.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) made some representations about Alberta but the Alberta minister has stated that they do not have emergency conditions as such. Newspaper reports made it appear as if no aid would be given for transportation in Alberta. That is not the fact, Mr. Speaker; arrangements will be made with Alberta.


Jack Burnett Murta: I should like to ask the minister how his department and the provincial governments arrived at what I expect will be an amount of $14 million. It is a 50-50 share, so each side is giving $7 million. Is the minister prepared to table

June 13, 1980
Agricultural Drought
a breakdown of the costs in the Elouse? He must have had some guidelines in order to arrive at the $14 million figure. Could he inform the House what they are and is he prepared to table the documents showing that, Mr. Speaker?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have instructions to table the working documents and make them public. It was a joint operation between federal and provincial officials who made the estimates.
The hon. member made representations about wells. I would point out that they are included in the program to supply water to municipalities. It is not just restricted to the farming communities but takes in the whole community, wherever need exists.
The PFRA is one of the most capable bodies in the world. Its engineers have maps showing all the water available, sweet and sour, how deep the wells are, etc. This kind of program is also being worked out with the provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. It being one o'clock 1 do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, we were on statements by ministers, but I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not present.


An hon. Member:: The parliamentary secretary is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I put before hon. members the suggestion that we consider other matters and revert to statements by ministers, if that appears to be appropriate?


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy) is willing to answer questions in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), if that is appropriate to hon. members opposite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if that is the wish of the House I certainly would not object. I would point out that the rules say that questions under this order can be addressed only to the minister who made the statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair understands from the comments made that I may put the question to the House as to whether or not there is unanimous consent that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture will now handle the questions.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I have two questions that I wanted to put to the minister. Because of the importance of his statement, I shall put them to the parliamentary secretary in the hope that he will seek further advice.
Did the minister or the department have any discussions with the Department of Finance as to an income averaging trust account regarding the sale of cattle at depressed prices because of the drought? I refer to an income averaging trust account similar to the one proposed by hon. members on this side, which would deal with the sale of cattle at depressed prices. Also, has the minister or the cabinet given any consideration to returning PFRA to its rightful place in the Department of Agriculture?
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it must be understood that the statement made this morning by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) followed a study conducted by a task force made up of Agriculture Canada officials and their counterparts from the western provinces. As far as the matter raised by the hon. member is concerned, that is if a study has been made of short or medium-term livestock sales, I am convinced that the officials of Agriculture Canada, jointly with their provincial counterparts, have looked fully into this problem. Now, would the hon. member be so kind as to repeat his other question, because I have forgotten what it was?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked was: due to the need to sell cattle now, although farmers really do not wish to sell because it will disrupt their income and they will be giving away portions of their sales to the tax department, has the minister considered setting up an income averaging trust so that the sales of those cattle would be taxed over an average period rather than in the year of the sale?
[ Translation]


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that there is income stabilization insurance for the western provinces as well as for the rest of Canada, and that a great many western farmers benefited from the crop insurance plan to which the Department of Agriculture and the federal government contribute to a large extent. I think that the first thing that had to be done was to estimate the extent and value of drought related damages out west. As for the loss of livestock sales, I think that, if necessary, the agricultural stabilization board can look into the matter during this year.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this area of questioning with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy). I am concerned about the need to provide some averaging of income in situations such as the one we are now in where a farmer may be required to unload two or three years of livestock inventory all in one year,
June 13, 1980

and that does create some real tax problems with which the current act does not adequately deal. But I am more concerned with what I consider to be an even greater loss in that the farmers are selling these cattle into an extremely depressed market and in a great many cases into a market which is even more depressed on a regional basis.
I ask the minister, through the parliamentary secretary, whether his department is able to move rapidly to put the agricultural products board into a position to purchase feeder and breeding stock that is offered in the west for resale in other parts of Canada in an attempt to keep the price from collapsing totally, in the three prairie provinces in particular.


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, as I just said to the hon. member of the opposition, the Department of Agriculture's first concern was to establish the extent of drought related damages. Naturally-as 1 said a moment ago-the Department of Agriculture through the agricultural stabilization board, can always take action, but as we all know we must wait a full year because it is difficult to estimate immediately the value of losses in the sale of livestock. I think that the aim of the study initiated by senior officials of the Department of Agriculture, in co-operation with provincial departments, is to establish exactly how much damage the drought has caused out west. [English]


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the losses incurred will occur in this year's market cycle, very specifically to a few producers in a short period of a year's total run of cattle. The legislation that he refers to, the stabilization act itself, will not provide any real assistance to those people who have been forced to sell at the extremely low price.
We started the year on feeder cattle at 90 cents. We are now in the 50 cents range, and it is only those people who have been forced to sell because of the drought who will be taking that 40 to 50 cents loss. A one or two cents payout at the end of the year will not do anything for them. The act does provide another option in that the agricultural products board can go in and start purchasing these distressed cattle in an attempt to hold up the market. That would provide more real stabilization to the people who are directly affected by this drought. 1 suggest that the minister and the department should be looking very carefully at immediately trying to put that program in place.
[ Translation]


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, I do take note of the recommendations of the hon. member, and I will submit them to the minister and the Department of Agriculture.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is in reference to page 3 of the document which was read into Hansard by the Minister of Agriculture this morning. The minister said that
Agricultural Drought
"some money will also be directed to the development of water supplies where emergency conditions have developed". Could the parliamentary secretary indicate the amounts of money that have been allocated or set aside for this particular program? If he cannot, could he give some indication to the House as to how the government arrived at whatever figure he may present to the House?


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, once again, as the minister pointed out this morning, the program is worth some $7 million shared equally between the federal government and the provinces, and out of the $7 million of the Department of Agriculture, $1 million will go to help Indian reservations and another $1 million will be shared with ARDA.
I cannot say at this time whether funds were earmarked specifically for water supply, except that the $7 million I mentioned earlier is certainly going to help provide western producers affected by the drought with water, fodder or grain.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, this is my last intervention concerning this matter. I assume that the $14 million in total arrived at was based on the amount of money that could be provided by the federal government. In other words, if it provided $7 million, the provincial governments would provide approximately $3.5 million each.
If the drought that we have talked about this morning and for the last few minutes continues, I certainly hope that the government will realize that that amount of money is going to fall short of doing anything to stop the wholesale slaughter of cattle in western Canada, which will ultimately reflect a substantially higher price in terms of beef to the consumer in the coming year. It is imperative that the government, if it has not already done so, makes sure that there is more money set aside-through Treasury Board, I assume-so that the problem can be attacked in a much more meaningful way. I view this program as just the tip of the iceberg. I certainly hope that the government has more money involved for back-up in future.


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to say to hon. members opposite that the program announced this morning by the Minister of Agriculture was prepared, as I said, in close co-operation with the officials of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Agriculture Canada. So I think it is quite normal that for the time being we should work with the paper produced by those officials of the two provinces and the federal government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) have a question?


John Carnell Crosbie: He has already had a question.

June 13, 1980
Order Paper Questions


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The period allotted for questions on statements by ministers has been extended to a considerable degree. I hear someone indicating that the hon. member for Prince Albert may have already had a question.


Walter David Baker: He has had two questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, 1 think we should move on to the next item of business.

[ Translation]


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maskinonge) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-599, to change the name of the electoral district of Berthier-Maskinonge.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Antonio Yanakis: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the new division of the electoral map which came into effect for the election of May 22, 1979, part of the Lanaudiere territory, which includes the municipalities of Lanoraie, Lavaltrie, Ste. Melanie, Saint-Ambroise-de-Kildare, St. Marcelline de Kildare, Saint-Alphonse-de-Rodriguez, Ste. Beatrix and St. Come, was linked up to the constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge. In order to identify better this area, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the House to allow me to change the name of the Berthier-Maskinonge riding, which will be known from now on as the Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere riding.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 153, 223, 271, 321, 582, 629, 641,643, 751, 816, 822, 847 and 854.


Mr. Cossitt: What is a list of all grants made under the ARDA program since October 31, 1972 up to the time the program was phased out, to municipalities within the former constituency of Leeds and the present constituency of Leeds-Grenville and what was the total amount granted under the program?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The response for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: the information requested is not readily available by federal electoral district or by municipality, the program being cost-shared with and implemented by the province of Ontario. However, departmental records provide the following details on ARDA assistance in the counties of Leeds and Grenville during the period from April 1, 1972, to March 31, 1979.
1. Capital Grants for Farm Development	Leeds Grenville	S 84,353 55,2782. Farm Enlargement Program	Leeds Grenville	1,114,255 553,1503. Industry Incentives	Leeds-Hall Orchards Ltd. Burnbrae Farms Ltd. Forfar Dairy Plum Hollow Cheese	11,650 100,000 18,000 17,525	147,175Grenville-Jamaica Mfg. Co. Kemptville Creameries Satellite Truss	72,072 117,500 30,000	
219,572
4.	Municipal Outlet Drainage
Leeds and Grenville	325,000
5. Provincial Parks-Murphy's Point Park-Leeds	418,974


[Stage Direction]
(Figures are cost-shareable 50-50 between federal-provincial governments.)
Mr. Herbert: By province, what has been the response to the Job Experience and Training (JET) program?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The number of placements made under the program was 51,429 distributed by province as follows:
Newfoundland	1,494
Prince Edward Island	440
Nova Scotia	2,299
New Brunswick	2,030
Quebec	16,077
Ontario	16,913
Manitoba	1,527
Saskatchewan	1,656
Alberta-Northwest Territories	2,213
British Columbia-Yukon	6,780
Total	51,429
Agreements could be signed under the Job Experience and Training Program (JET) between September 15, 1978, and
June 13, 1980

May 31, 1979. Employers were allowed, however, to hire new employees to replace employees who left after May 31, 1979, provided that there were at least 15 weeks of employment remaining on the agreement.


Mr. Herbert: Is a building presently being renovated in Charlottetown, P.E.I., for occupancy by the Department of Veterans Affairs and, if so, which building and what is the estimated cost of the renovation work?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, the Dominion Public Building is presently being renovated in Charlottetown, P.E.I. for interim occupancy by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The estimated cost of the renovation work is $150,000.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the government recognize dance, opera, music, theatre, literature, the visual arts, film and photography as art forms of federal interest?
2.	Does the government intend to make the crafts and architecture significant areas of federal concern?
3.	Did the government of the province of Quebec make formal representations in the past three years with the objective of reducing or eliminating federal financial support for any of the art forms mentioned?


David Michael Collenette: 1 am informed by the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment as follows: In so far as the Secretary of State is concerned:
1.	The government does recognize those cultural disciplines mentioned as art forms of federal interest, as evidenced by the many programs of the federal government and its agencies dedicated to those forms of artistic expression.
2.	The government is currently reviewing its role in the cultural life of the nation and will be examining, among many other aspects of artistic and cultural activity, architecture and crafts.
3.	The government of the province of Quebec has not made formal representations to reduce or eliminate federal financial support for any of the arts forms mentioned in part 1 of the question.
However, a general statement concerning the recovery and control of all funds designated for arts may be found in the Quebec government cultural policy paper published in 1978: La politique quebecoise du developpement culturel vol. I., page 37 and seq. state: "On the basis of these points a final decision can be made. We must draw up and promote a cultural policy which will be "quebecois". We must reappropriate the means that enable a culture to endure and to grow. Many of these means are for the moment in other hands, and left to other political authorities, and their repatriation is indispensable if we are to wipe out what we have labelled here the provinciali-zation of our culture, retreat into our original folk culture.
What do we expect from the Quebec of tomorrow? That it will assume complete responsibility, and consequently provide
Order Paper Questions
the means, for ensuring that every citizen of Quebec has "bread and books", the basic material and cultural minimum." In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned:
1 and 3. See Secretary of State's reply.
2. Yes, in regard to architecture, Parks Canada Policy states that: "structures which embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural and engineering type exceptionally valuable for the study of a style or method of construction of its period or which are examples of the work of a master builder, designer, engineer or architect", and which are identified by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and approved by the Minister of the Environment as being places of national significance, will be commemorated. (*Catalogue No. R62-109/1979)


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Does the Department of Employment and Immigration operate an Agricultural job placement program and, if so, how long has it been in effect?
2.	How many employment centres are responsible for administering the program and where is each employment centre located?
3.	For each employment centre located in Ontario, how many (a) applications for farm employment were received (b) Canadians were placed in farm employment (c) non-Canadians were placed in farm employment, for the fiscal year ended March 31 (i) 1978 (ii) 1979?


Dennis Dawson: 1. Yes, the Canada Farm Labour Pool Program. It was established in 1974 and provides for the operation of employment service agencies which cater specifically to the needs of the agricultural sector, augmenting the services provided by Canada Employment Centres.
2. There are 63 Canada Farm Labour Pools across Canada, supplemented by seven branch offices and 30 seasonal suboffices. They are located at the following points:
Main Offices	Branch Offices Seasonal Sub-Offices
British Columbia
Abbotsford	Chilliwack
Cloverdale
Richmond
Armstrong
Duncan	Courtenay
Kelowna	Omaya
Rutland
Vernon
Winfield
Penticton	Keremeos
Oliver
Osoyoos
Summerland
Victoria
Alberta
Brooks
Calgary
Camrose
Drumheller
Edmonton
Grande Prairie
Lethbridge	Taber
Red Deer

Order Paper Questions
Main Offices	Branch Offices Seasonal Sub-Offices	3. The following data are reported by fiscal year.
Vegreville
Wetaskiwin
Saskatchewan
Moose Jaw North Battleford
Swift Current
Chesterville
Cobourg
Bowmanville
Brighton
(a)
Employment Applications (see note below)
(b)
Placements (Canadian Residents)
Prince Albert	Tisdale	Location	1977-78	1978-79	1977-78	1978-79Weyburn	Athens	268	285	219	236Yorkton	Aylmer	3,707	2,123	1,980	1,973Belleville	425	269	213	226Cayuga	332	348	397	490Chatham	5,286	5,146	6,541	6,153Brandon	Chesterville	159	145	116	131Dauphin	Cobourg	1,989	2,024	1,643	1,824Portage La Prairie	Delhi	10,434	6,556	6,171	5,770Selkirk	Leamington	5,102	5,292	3,549	5.138Steinbach	Port Perry	490	377	554	632Winkler	St. Catharines	3,743	3,381	5,075	3,837St. Eugene	394	348	211	388Ontario	Stittsville	411	465	383	515Tillsonburg	4,874	4,728	2,779	3,630Aylmer	West Lome	Walkerton	1,541	1,592	1,051	996St. Thomas	Ontario	39,155	33,079	30,882	31,939Belleville	Chatham	Blenheim	Note: The employment applications (worker registrations) reported for 1977-78	
include "revivals"; that is, the number of times the files of previously registered workers were reactivated during the course of that year. This reporting procedure was discontinued in April 1978.
Delhi Leamington Port Perry		
St. Catharines St. Eugene Stittsville		Niagara Falls
Tillsonburg	Woodstock	
Walkerton	Elora Owen Sound	Clarksburg
Quebec
Cap-de-la-Madeleine
Chicoutimi
Joliette
La Pocatiere
New-Richmond
Nicolet
Quebec
Rimouski
Rouyn
St. Eustache		Oka Ste-Anne-des-Plaines Ste-Monique St-Joseph-du-Lac
St. Hyacinthe		Frelighsburg Rougemont St-Hilaire
St-Remi		St-Paul
Sherbrooke Ville St-Georges		Franklin
New Brunswick		
Grande Falls Sussex Prince Edward Island	Bathurst	Florenceville
Charlottetown		
O'Leary Nova Scotia Kentville Pictou		Summerside
(c) Canada Farm Labour Pools have no responsibility for recruiting foreign workers. This service is provided through the commission's employment and immigration offices.
Based on the number of employment authorizations issued (1102's), some 6,299 foreign workers were placed in agricultural employment in Ontario during 1978, and 6,760 in 1979.* These totals include renewals of employment authorizations as well as transfers of workers to subsequent employers. Therefore, the actual number of foreign workers admitted to Canada for farm jobs in Ontario was somewhat lower.
* Foreign worker placements in agriculture are maintained on a calendar year basis.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Thirty (17 officers, 13 support staff).


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of National Revenue?
June 13, 1980


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Taxation, 27; Customs and Excise, 16.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of Public Works?


Paul James Cosgrove: There are 23 persons engaged in internal communication public relations, publicity or media relations employed in Public Works Canada. Of these 14 are employed at headquarters and nine in the regions.


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of Veterans Affairs and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: (a)	Thirty-four administrative contracts-Total Cost $255,702.
(b)	Eighteen policy consultant contracts-Total Cost


[Stage Direction]
See lists below.
Administrative Contracts
August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980
Number of
Name	Contracts	CostDiane Quinton	1	$ 3,500A.R.A. Consultants Ltd.	3	45,000Potentia Consultants Ltd.	3	5,775Communication Design Consultants	1	5,000Dean Waugh Associates Ltd.	1	1,260Jean Yves Lefebvre	1	2,000Dr. D.P. Snidal	1	3,600Dr. P.A. Galbraith	1	7,800Dr. J.R. Tanner	1	2,400Dr. J.I.M. Doyle	1	19,392Dr. J.M. Kilgour	1	12,000Manitoba X-Ray Clinic	3	22,000Dr. J.J. MacDougall	1	7,800Dr. R. Lannigan	1	3,600Charles Deloache	3	16,875Andrea Spry	1	5,600David Ashby Enterprises Ltd.	1	9,600C.H. Keppoch	1	2,000W. Alexander	1	14,800Kerry Management Services	1	24,600Caird F. Wilson	1	14,000P. Johnston	1	2,500J. MacKenzie	1	2,000J. MacKenzie	1	11,600Dr. D.L.G. Howard	1	4,000Dr. J.G.D. Letts	1	4,000Total:	$252,702
Order Paper Questions
Policy Contracts
Name	Number of Contracts	August 1, 1978 to March 31, 1980 CostRichard L. Paul	1	$ 4,500A.D. Atkins	2	18,500Dr. G.G. Habib	1	3,500Dr. L.F. Koyl	1	40,100E.A.C. Amy & Sons	5	43,189S.C. Tubb	1	20,000Dr. R.D. Appleford	1	12,560J.U. Doucet	1	11,500A.W. Jarvis	1	25,000Dr. T.M. Carey	1	1,000F. Whalen	1	10,989Audit Services Bureau	2	42,500Total:	$233,338
Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Department of the Environment?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: None.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Department of Justice?


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: None.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1978, did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs ban or recommend against the use of (a) clothing because of its flammability (b) medicine containers because of danger to small children?


Aideen Nicholson: (a) Yes. Actions taken since January 1, 1978, were based on item 4 of part 1 of the schedule to the Hazardous Products Act which has been in place since 1971 to ban the advertising, sale and importation of clothing that does not meet flammability standards. Removals from sale at departmental direction during the period in question included 11,700 cotton sweatshirts, 29 chenille items (shirts, shorts, sweaters and pants), and 12 metres of cotton chenille fabric.
(b) No. Medicine containers are subject to regulation under the Food and Drugs Act administered by Health and Welfare Canada. As such, they are excluded from the purview of product safety legislation administered by Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.

Order Paper Questions CFB BORDEN-FRANCHISES


Mr. Stewart: Do any companies or individuals hold concessions for franchises at CFB Borden and, if so (a) what are their names and what are the franchises (b) how much is the rent per year and how is it charged?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Yes. (a) and (b)
			Rental Charge
Name of Concessionaire	Type of Concession	Per YearDr. J. Walasek	Medical Office	$1,592.04Mr. J.E. Bouchard	Alterations Shop	1,320.00Mr. C. Spence	Barber Shop	2,956.56Mr. E. Cairns	Dry Cleaning Depot	2,409.00Mr. P. Symak	Barber Shop	1,683.00Muriel's Taxi	Taxi Stand Service	992.56Muriel's Taxi	Taxi Service in CFB Borden	600.00plus	$ 240 per taxiMr. Wm. Scrimgeour	Barber Shop	1,755.00Mr. G. Newkirk	Beauty Salon	5,320.80Reliable Taxi	Taxi Service in CFB Borden	600.00plus	$ 240 per taxiBank of Montreal	Bank	$13,520.04
The yearly charge is paid in equal monthly instalments and is based on the following factors:
Number of square feet of building space occupied by the concession.
Cost of similar civilian facility in the Borden area.
The Crown's charges to Base Borden for the provision of utilities to the concessionaire.

[ Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 152 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The questions enumerat-:d by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it he pleasure of the House that question No. 152 be deemed to lave been made an order for return?


Mr. Cossitt: What is a list of all grants made under the (a) Canada Works program (b) Young Canada Works program since its inception and up to the date that the Program was phased out for the former constituency of Leeds and the present constituency of Leeds-Grenville and what was the total amount granted under each program?
Return tabled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should have spoken a few minutes ago when my colleague from Berthier-Maskinonge introduced his bill. As a point of information to members opposite, it is the intention of the government at four o'clock on June 27 to introduce and pass through all stages bills respecting changes to constituency names. We have given notice to that effect to the opposition whips. We would ask that those bills be submitted by members today or certainly Monday so that they can be printed and brought forward on June 27.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that that arrangement has indeed been made in the name of the whip. We have been alerted, and I thank the hon. member for again bringing that matter to our attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the understanding. 1 might modify it a bit and say that it will be the members who will bring forward the bills, not the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to the comments made by the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is it agreed that certain private members' bills shall be put to the House on the date mentioned, June 27, for handling of all stages?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is so ordered.
June 13, 1980



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance) moved: that Bill S-2, to implement conventions between Canada and Spain, Canada and the Republic of Liberia, Canada and the Republic of Austria, Canada and Italy, Canada and the Republic of Korea, Canada and the Socialist Republic of Romania and Canada and the Republic of Indonesia and agreements between Canada and Malaysia, Canada and Jamaica and Canada and Barbados and a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you indicated the title of Bill S-2, proposing that legislation to confirm agreements between Canada and certain countries be read a second time. The aim, as has also been indicated, is to avoid double taxation with respect to income tax of subjects of countries that are parties to the conventions.
The bill also aims at ensuring that future amendments to the conventions or agreements can be implemented by orders in council, subject to a resolution of Parliament. This procedure, which is defined in part II of the bill, is in accordance with the procedure established by Parliament for the nine conventions already approved since the tax reform. -
The 11 conventions are similar as to form as well as substance, and they are similar to those which have been agreed to in the past. Two of the conventions, those with Jamaica and the United Kingdom, will replace conventions signed before the tax reform. When all these conventions have been ratified, the number of Canadian tax conventions in effect will increase from 24 to 33.
I would now like, Mr. Speaker, to review briefly the major elements of these tax conventions. Generally speaking, dividends may be source taxed at a maximum rate of 15 per cent; exceptions are Malaysia, which does not tax dividends paid to non-residents, and Jamaica, which maintains its right to tax at a rate of 22.5 per cent, as stipulated in the 1971 agreement, when the dividends are paid to a Canadian firm which controls the Jamaican enterprise.
A general rate of 15 per cent-20 per cent in some cases with Liberia-is provided for in the case of interest paid to a non-resident. Certain types of interest, such as the interest paid to the Export Development Corporation, are exempted in the source country.
International Conventions
With respect to royalties, the treaties provide for a general rate of 10 per cent, except that those with Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia and Romania provide for a rate of 15 per cent.
Other matters are dealt with in these treaties. For instance, there are capital gains, non-discrimination, the case of teachers, the problem of pensions, and double taxation relief. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on each of these matters.
Capital gains. The provisions dealing with capital gains in each one of the conventions follow the Canadian policy to ensure that the country where the gains were made keeps its taxation right in the case of sales of real estate, business assets or shares in real estate business.
Non-discrimination. Each convention prevents discrimination based on nationality. This will ensure that a country's nationals will be treated the same way as those from other countries under similar circumstances. However, this will not prevent a country from granting tax incentives-for example, small business deductions-on the sole basis of the taxpayer's residence.
The case of teachers. None of the conventions provides for special treatment in the case of foreign teachers in Canada. The two-year exemption provided for in the 1966 convention with Great Britain will therefore be removed.
Pensions. Canada has preserved its right to tax pensions paid to residents of the countries concerned in the bill. In the case of two countries, Italy and Great Britain, this taxation right at source will be exercised only when the amount of pensions exceeds $10,000 a year. However, those provisions do not affect the taxation right of the recipient's country of residence.
Relief from double taxation. In Canada, the method used for relief from double taxation is to grant a credit on Canadian taxes for taxes paid abroad, subject of course to the limitations set out in the domestic legislation. Furthermore, dividends received by a Canadian business from its foreign affiliate are tax exempt in Canada if they come from the exempt surplus of the affiliate.
The conventions with Malaysia, Spain, Liberia, Korea, Jamaica, Romania, Indonesia and Barbados also contain a special provision commonly called a fictitious tax credit. Under such a provision, tax incentives provided by the domestic law of those countries are recognized for Canadian tax purposes, which means that investors will be able to deduct from their Canadian taxes foreign taxes that have not been collected.
As a whole, the terms of each of those conventions provide fair solutions to the different problems of double taxation between Canada and those countries. Each of the countries concerned is awaiting impatiently the implementation of the bilateral tax convention, and consequently I am very happy to see that hon. members are agreed to give this bill rapid and diligent passage.

June 13, 1980
International Conventions
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to take more of the time of the House for this bill which is very well known as the previous government had already introduced it, and 1 am happy to see that hon. members are prepared to pass this bill on a priority basis.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we would like to congratulate the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Bussieres) on his speech. He is far more informative than the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). As a matter of fact, the more the Minister of State (Finance) performs, the less there is for the Minister of Finance to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: As a matter of fact he is doing less. His main job is obfuscation; that is, to seem to be answering questions in the House while telling us nothing. So the Minister of State (Finance) is a refreshing change.
Now, the legislation before the House is not exactly earthshaking but it is an indictment of our system, Mr. Speaker, that it has taken so long for it to go through the House. If my memory serves me right, some of these tax agreements were entered into by the minister something like three or four years ago directly with countries such as Spain, Liberia, Austria, Italy and so on. It is extremely embarrassing for the Canadian government when they have to go year after year and advise these countries, which presumably ratified these tax conventions long ago, that the Canadian Parliament still has not acted because the government has not so timed its business in the House of Commons that the legislation can be dealt with. So we certainly do not want to hold up this bill; we hope it will be dealt with expeditiously.
However, I do want to ask a few questions in that field on some legislation that may be coming up-further legislation dealing with tax conventions. The legislation before us this afternoon has to do with avoiding double taxation. I wish the government party had avoided double-tracking during the election campaign and that they would avoid double-crossing the Canadian electorate.


An hon. Member:: Since the election.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, since the election. There is every indication that their fondness for doubles is going to continue- double-tracking, double-taxation and double-crossing.


An hon. Member:: Double talk!


John Carnell Crosbie: Before getting on with that, though, I would like to say a word as somebody who was minister for a few
months in the Department of Finance. I think our tax officials, the people who work for the department, should have a kind word said about them. This is not normal. I do not know of any taxpayer across the country, from St. John's to Vancouver or Victoria, who has much in the way of kind words to say about the tax department or the tax policy department. But as the minister I found them to be very hard working. They deal in an area of great intricacy and difficulty in a technical sense and they do a good job.
It is alarming to see the length of time which has elapsed since Dr. Neufeld retired. He left the department in January or February, I believe, some time during the early winter. He was the assistant deputy minister for taxation and did an absolutely first-class job. But Dr. Neufeld has gone from the Department of Finance and is now vice-president and chief economist with the Bank of Montreal. As a matter of fact, a few days ago I saw reported in the paper an address he made in London which was of very high quality, as I would expect from Dr. Neufeld. But the department has not yet been able to find a replacement for Dr. Neufeld.
An article I noted in the Financial Post drew attention to the difficulties the department has been having. It drew attention to the need for attracting first-class tax lawyers to work for the tax policy branch of the department and pointed out the difficulty experienced in getting any lawyers who have expertise in taxation to come to the department because of the pay which is offered them. The government will have to consider whether to remove the tax policy people from the ordinary salary levels of people in other departments in order to attract the person of high calibre who is needed for the tax policy division of the Department of Finance. I wish my memory served me better but it must be three or four months at least since Dr. Neufeld left the department-it is almost six months now-and we have not had an assistant deputy minister of finance, taxation, in that time. Mr. Sid Rubinoff is the acting assistant deputy minister for that branch but he is also in charge of his own section of the department and can hardly do justice to both of these very heavy positions.
We also know, from what we have seen and heard, that the department is examining tax expenditures and areas in which they can raise tax revenues and whether tax expenditure loopholes should be closed or what should be done. It is very difficult to do this work if you do not have a full-time, top-notch tax expert at the head of the section. So while there are some fine people there, Mr. Speaker, they need strengthening, they need assistance.
Having been the minister, I can assure the House that the complexities of this area are immense. Everyone in the country is interested in this field; at least, anybody who makes money, anyone in the business world, anyone who pays income tax. So very many people in this country have an intense interest in this area. They are all looking for loopholes, for ways to avoid paying taxes or ways to reduce the burden of taxation on themselves and their companies. The government is going to be very badly off unless this crisis can be overcome. It is my suggestion that the government start thinking about paying
June 13, 1980

twice as much, if necessary, to get a first-class man to take over Dr. Neufeld's old position in the department.


An hon. Member:: Or woman.


John Carnell Crosbie: Or woman. When I say man, I mean woman. When I say woman, I mean man. I am bisexual in that respect. And when I say "Mr. Speaker", I mean "Madam Speaker". When I say "Madam Speaker", I mean "Mr. Speaker". This is the way I am-absolutely sexless.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not discriminate between one and the other.


An hon. Member:: But you know the difference.


John Carnell Crosbie: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, when the government says no it means yes and when the government says yes it means no. And when the Minister of Finance says something, we know he does not mean anything. So there you are!
To get on with it, Mr. Speaker, I am trying today not to make an hour and thirty minute speech if I can possibly avoid it. So 1 just want to pass on. In my speech, that is-I do not want to pass on here. However, if I have to sit here many more years watching this crowd trying to act as the government, I may well want to pass on.
What I want to ask some questions about is this. When I was minister of finance I think we had a coup, which is not generally realized. Dr. Neufeld was the negotiator, and late in December he managed to conclude an agreement for a new tax convention with the United States of America. That was of great importance and great urgency because at the time we were trying to settle our oil pricing negotiations with Alberta, and one of the matters at issue was the proposed energy tax and whether it would be a tax on income or a tax on revenue. A tax on revenue is far preferable from the point of view of simplicity and less possibility of tax evasion and so on, so that was the route that I certainly favoured.
However, the province of Alberta and the producing provinces were arguing that it should be a tax on income. The difficulty with a tax on income was that there was a large loophole there in that under the present tax convention that is now operative the non-Canadian holders of resources, particularly in the field of oil and gas, could remove income from Canada and only have to pay the withholding tax. I think this is what the problem was, the 15 per cent withholding tax, that it would not be subject to the energy tax or other income tax rates.
This made it really impossible for us to proceed with an energy tax by way of a tax on income. I want the minister to tell us when he winds up whether the new tax convention has been agreed by both governments. I understand it has, so when is legislation is likely to come forward to the House imple-
Internalional Conventions
menting it, because it has far more importance. The nine we are dealing with today are of insignificant importance to Canada. They are minuscule in importance compared to the tax convention with the United States of America and the effects it can have on the government's revenue and on our whole system here in Canada. Have both governments agreed to the new tax convention which was agreed to by officials during last December?
There was in the papers some weeks ago a story that a new Canada-U.S. tax treaty had been negotiated. Recently it has been prepared for signature. One of the provisions of that agreement was that the 15 per cent withholding tax on dividends, interest and so on would, I think, be reduced to 10 per cent. But the loophole that enabled income from resources to be moved out only paying the withholding tax had been changed, and 1 am quoting now from the Ottawa Journal of May 24:
The resource tax change ensures that any profit or income from real property, including natural resource royalties, will be fully taxed in Canada. In addition, gains arising from the sale of the property, including business assets of a permanent establishment, will be fully taxed in Canada. Under the old treaty, a maximum tax of 15 per cent applied to non-residents on resource royalties-
And so on.
Finance officials say the extra revenue generated from the resource tax changes could be worth "hundreds of millions of dollars" in the future as the price of oil-and the government's share of tax-rises closer to world prices.
In return for getting the Americans to accept our proposal that that loophole be stopped, we had to give something, of course, to the Americans, and what was agreed was that there had to be quid pro quo and that was a reduction from the 15 per cent, I think it was, to the 10 per cent rate on the withholding tax with reference to certain earnings. The Americans also agreed then and continue to agree, as I understand it, that they are going to change the provisions of their tax law which make it difficult for U.S. businesses and U.S. citizens who go to business conventions to come to Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this has been a sore point for a number of years. Our own hotel and tourist industry complains that those changes to the law severely curtail U.S. convention business in Canada, but I understand, if my memory serves me right, last December the Americans agreed to amend that. That was the amendment they were going to make in return for our dropping the rate on the withholding tax to 10 per cent.
So, if the minister when he is closing could confirm that all this is so and can tell us when that very important new tax convention will come before us for ratification, it would be of extreme importance.
The Americans also agreed that they would allow the nondeductibility rule for Canadian advertising in U.S. border broadcasting stations to be dealt with in another manner and not hold up this new tax convention. I would like to know if that is still the situation, because that is the tax convention that it would be of great importance and great interest for this House to pass.
Before sitting down I might mention to the minister that there is other legislation coming up-the Bretton Woods legis-

June 13, 1980
International Conventions
lation, for example. When that comes forward we would like to have information on some of the countries we have relations with, such as Jamaica, what the present state of our financial relationship with Jamaica is and just what we are doing to help Jamaica, what requests have been made or what action the government might be taking in view of the very difficult financial position of many Third World countries.
We are going to be interested in the whole area of north-south relationships, and when the minister introduces those bills, if he does, we would like to have more fullsome information than just what is happening. How does the government see the international economic and financial scene? What are the results?
The Minister of Finance has left this House. He has gone to places such as Hamburg to an IMF meeting. He has been to "gay Paree" for an OECD meeting. He has addressed the Franco-Canada Chamber of Commerce. He has done considerable travelling to international finance forums. We know this Minister of Finance is a somewhat shy man who does not like to say what he is doing or what he is going to do. He is used to being a manipulator, a House of Commons manipulator. He has not learned yet that he is the Minister of Finance, that he has to start telling the country what his policies are and that he can no longer just be the artful dodger. He has to learn that he can no longer just be the Artful Dodger. He has to learn that Finance. It wants a Minister of Finance who is going to outline his policy to deal with recession and inflation. We are having both at the same time in these present circumstances. The artful dodger is going to be tracked down. He is not going to be able to hide in his Lear all year-


David Michael Collenette: "Lair".


John Carnell Crosbie: -even if he has a Lear jet. Even a Lear jet will not help him.


David Michael Collenette: Lair.


John Carnell Crosbie: I cannot help if my accent is not what it would have been had I gone to Oxford and Cambridge or one of those places. I am just a young fellow from the country!
So that dodger is going to have to learn that he has to come to roost. The cock has to start crowing and not just obfuscating. I suggest when the Bretton Woods legislation comes in as the next piece of business that our cock start crowing and that he tell us what his policy is going to be in the international finance area. What happened in the IMF meetings in Hamburg? What happened at the OECD meetings in Paris where the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and I were last year?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What happened?


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, I cannot tell anything on a lady, you know that! But we would like to know what happened this year. What happened last year is old hat. We want to know what happened this year and what the government's position is going to be, not generalities. Is the government taking any new
initiatives? The minister says he is concerned about the north-south dialogue. What specific steps is he going to take? We want this kind of information. What is the position on Jamaica? What is the position with reference to Turkey, another country that is in a difficult position internationally in finance? These are the kinds of things we are interested in, and if he does that, then we will be co-operative to pass the legislation through this House, as long as it gets its minimum of needed debate and we get some information.
So, Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. We have one or two other speakers who have a contribution to make, and then we will be ready to pass on to the next item of business. I hope the minister will address himself to the U.S. convention when he speaks to close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he was saying something that I believe he really meant, we thank the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Bus-sieres) for the statement he made on introducing this bill. If the Minister of State (Finance) is called upon to introduce and pilot through this House many more pieces of financial legislation, we may begin to get the notion that he is the minister of finance and that the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) is something else. However, we do welcome his statement and his readiness, when the bill goes to committee, to explain any futher details about these treaties which need to be explained.
For a moment I thought that the hon. member for St. John's West was going to treat this bill as though it were a general budgetary proposition opening up the whole field of taxation, but his forays into that wider area were somewhat limited, and I shall follow suit. In other words, I have one or two things of a general nature that I would like to say, and then I have a comment about what I regret is an omission in the bill which is now before us.
The general comment I wish to make is that, as the hon. member for St. John's West said, tax officials are not exactly the nation's greatest heroes. But if the Department of Finance could recruit more tax officials who understand, for example, the difference between tax credits and tax exemptions, they could become national heroes. We get into great flaps over the changes, up and down, in the exemption levels provided in the Income Tax Act, but we sometimes forget that moving those levels up or down results in a bonanza for those at the top and often times not very much for those at the lower end of the income scale.
We have established, in respect of political contributions, the very fair principle of a credit against the actual tax paid, with a ceiling, so that one cannot finance the Liberal party and get the whole thing back from the treasury. We had a debate a week ago this afternoon, I believe about the desirability of applying the same principle to contributions to recognized charities. We have contended that people with lower incomes would be better served by tax credits for their cost of living,
June 13, 1980

for housing accommodation and so on. These are concepts which could be built into the income tax structure which would make it much fairer than it is at the present time.
I join the hon. member for St. John's West in wishing the government well in its recruiting of efficient and able people in the department, and I hope that the minister or ministers in charge of that department will give more consideration to the concept of tax credits as one of the best ways in which to achieve fairness in the taxation policy.
However, the bill before us does not deal with taxation policy broadly but rather with agreements between Canada and various other countries for the purpose of avoiding double taxation. In so far as we comprehend what these agreements do with the countries listed in the bill, we are prepared to support the legislation that is before us.
I want to express, however, on behalf of constituents of mine, both in my own riding of Winnipeg North Centre and across the country, a regret that agreements with some countries have been so long delayed. I refer in particular, because there are many in this country who are affected, to the agreement between Canada and West Germany. The hon. member for St. John's West said that some of these had been around the department for a long time. I know that I had correspondence with the hon. member for St. John's West when he was the minister of finance about the taxation agreement with West Germany. I also had correspondence with the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) when he was in that role. I had it also with the Hon. Donald Macdonald, and the Hon. John Turner. So it has been around for a long time. At one point, an agreement between Canada and West Germany did get into one of these omnibus bills such as the one we have today, but when we got to that bill, the government said it had to be amended and the agreement with West Germany had to be taken out. Every time there is this difficulty in reaching an agreement between two countries, each country seems to blame the other.
The people in Canada who are affected-and, by the way, the ones who are in touch with me are mostly pensioners-say that the word they get from their friends in West Germany is that Canada is dragging its heels. But when I received these letters, as I did last year, from the hon. member for St. John's West or from other ministers, their story always is that it is in Bonn that the delay is taking place. When you add to the fact of this delay respecting income tax agreements between this country and Germany the fact of confusion about the reciprocal pension arrangements which were made some years ago between Canada and West Germany, it does put many of these people who are concerned in a very difficult position. I have in my mind the names of some of the constituents who have written me about this over the years who in the meantime have died. Well, it is no problem for them any more, but it does seem a shame that people have to wait so long for problems such as this to be solved.
I hope that the minister will not indulge, as did the hon. member for St. John's West when he was minister of finance and as these other ministers have done, in the old game of
International Conventions
blaming the other side. I realize that it takes two to reach agreement, but surely if we believe in the fairness that is involved in these taxation agreements between various countries, our people should make a serious effort to come to an understanding with the officials of the government of West Germany and achieve this agreement. I press for it on behalf of Canadians of German origin, Canadians who formerly lived in Germany, many of whom are disturbed over the length of time it is taking on two counts; one, to get the reciprocal pension agreement sorted out, and two, to get a taxation agreement between our two countries which will meet the situation.
There might be other countries. I know I have heard complaints about the situation between this country and Italy. But I see that Italy is included in the bill before us. There might be other countries that are not mentioned, so I do not single out West Germany except that that is a country concerning which 1 have had most correspondence.
These are my thoughts on this bill. They are in two parts. First, I would like to see the taxation policy improved, particularly along the lines of more use of the tax credit principle; and second, 1 would like to see the agreement between this country and Germany finally achieved and put into legislation. I hope that when the minister speaks to wind up this debate he will be able to give us some hopeful word in that connection.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in rising to exchange a few views with respect to Bill S-2, I would like once again to put on the record that I find it most unfortunate that legislation, such as the bill before us, is being put through the House to which in future, by order in council, various amendments can be made. Although these amendments can be negatived by a vote in the House, nevertheless they take substantially away from Canadians, through the House of Commons, the right to consider legislation rather than simply have ratification of or a negative vote on something that the government has already put in place.
I have raised that point before, but I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that once again this offensive clause is put into this bill. I think that in committee we should give serious thought to whether it is needed in fact. However, the main thrust of my comments concerning this legislation is that I think it is time we in Canada stopped being naive. I know that is common wisdom. My friend to the left has just said he has no particular objection to this legislation, that its whole tone is routine, but I think it is time we stopped being naive. In effect we are asked to somehow or other rubberstamp it and get on with it. We are living in a world where tax havens have become commonplace. These double taxation treaties really facilitate that type of operation. 1 suggest that we should first quit being so naive and realize that if this is the way the world will be ordered, it is time we started to play a few of the tax haven tricks ourselves. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) said that we will have 33 treaties. If other countries are asking us to enter into these tax treaties, I think the time has come for us to start taking a look at why they are so anxious for tax treaties. To what extent are
2102

June 13, 1980
International Conventions
they setting up tax havens within their own jurisdiction from which Canadians somehow or other do not get any benefit?
In support of what I am saying, I should like to touch upon the four tax haven countries with which we will enter into tax treaties under this bill. The first country I should like to refer to is the United Kingdom. It may come as a little surprise to members of the House that the United Kingdom is treated as a tax haven country. But one has just to go down the corridor into the library and ask for a booklet on the tax havens of the world in which there is a very interesting section on the United Kingdom and how its tax haven facilities work. I should like to quote a few passages from the booklet entitled: "Tax Havens of the World" dealing with the United Kingdom as a tax haven. Under the heading "Tax Treaty" which is exactly what we are now considering amending with respect to the United Kingdom, it reads:
The United Kingdom has more income tax treaties to avoid double taxation in force than any other country in the world, with more than 80 income tax conventions taking precedence over normal taxation procedures and rates.
One can see that the most advanced country in the world as far as double taxation is concerned and, to some degree, the tax haven concept, is the United Kingdom. That is one of the treaties before us that we are being asked to amend. The booklet to which 1 referred continues as follows:
-since the new corporation tax became effective April 1, 1973, withholding of income tax has been abolished and United Kingdom companies must deduct the 30 per cent ACT. New or revised income tax treaties since that date generally allow for the shareholder to receive a 15 per cent credit against the ACT. In those treaties not yet renegotiated, the shareholder may receive an adjustment against the ACT by arrangements with the tax authorities. In most treaties the articles treat royalties, interest and technical assistance fees as exempted from withholding tax or the ACT deduction.
The reason I have touched on that, first of all, is that I want to put into context the exact nature of the tax haven found in the United Kingdom. The booklet continues:
The United Kingdom is treated as a tax haven country primarily because of a quirk in the basic concept of the corporation tax.
It goes on to say:
-thousands of United Kingdom companies conduct their overseas activities through domestic subsidiaries that are controlled and managed from abroad. Accordingly, these companies are not resident for United Kingdom tax purposes. In order to satisfy these conditions of management and control outside the United Kingdom the Inland Revenue requires that all directors' and stockholders' meetings be held outside the United Kingdom and that all administration be directed from outside the United Kingdom, which may include the exigency that officials of the foreign parent company abstain from making visits to the "non-resident" United Kingdom company.
This goes on for pages. Also the following is pointed out:
A secondary reason why overseas companies have created foreign-based trading operations in the United Kingdom has been linked to Britain's advantageous remittance tax law which offers a special inducement for executives from abroad to work in England.
Again it is indicated:
Under the United Kingdom Inland Revenue Act, foreign citizens employed in the United Kingdom by non-resident foreign companies (not managed and controlled within the United Kingdom) may take advantage of the "remittance basis" of taxation practised in the United Kingdom and, therefore, minimize the taxes paid to the United Kingdom.
It continues:
The individual qualifying under the remittance basis will not be taxed on transfers of capital to the United Kingdom but will be so taxed where income arising outside the United Kingdom is remitted to the United Kingdom. In the past many foreigners, especially American executives working in England, would arrange financing in their home country, instructing their employers to deposit salaries to their accounts and paying interest charges on the loans, with capital transfers made to employees non-taxable in the United Kingdom.
The point I am trying to make is that we are not listed as a tax haven country. Yet, we are signing many treaties with tax haven countries that, for their own advantage, be it employment, industrial production, banking, finance, or whatever, are exploiting the world market at the present time through the simple facility of creating these tax shelters. Surely the government should be asked to come before committee to give us an overview on this. To what extent is the Canadian government aware of this activity? If they are, to what extent have they considered bringing some of these activities into existence in Canada so that we can have the double-edged advantage of these tax treaties? In principle it is beautiful to be running around the world saying we want to sign these treaties and co-operate because it facilitates trade, expansion and business, but if we are only getting part of the advantage by not structuring some tax incentives or tax havens in this country, I would suggest we are only getting half the apple as opposed to the whole. If members are interested in the full story about the United Kingdom, I invite them to take a look at the book.
Let me go to the other extreme. Another tax treaty into which we are about to enter is with the Republic of Liberia. It is just the reverse contrast. We would be one of the few countries in the world to enter into a tax treaty with Liberia. The same booklet to which I referred reads as follows:
Liberia has income tax treaties with West Germany and Sweden avoiding double taxation. A treaty with Canada has been signed but is not in effect, while a treaty to avoid double taxation on shipping and aircraft income is in force with New Zealand.
We will be the third country in the world that has been courageous enough to sign a double taxation treaty with Liberia. I say that because we must remember that Liberia offers foreign investors and traders numerous inducements to operate there as a tax haven for holding, trading, shipping or manufacturing companies. The booklet indicates:
A modern tax law designed to attract foreign capital is a hallmark of Liberia's tax structure. Under the law a Liberian corporation is not subject to taxes in Liberia if (1) more then 25 per cent of the corporate stock is owned by non-Liberians and (2) corporate income is derived from sources outside of Liberia.
Also the booklet indicates:
-the Liberian minister of finance is authorized to fix the rates on the tax payments withheld to non-residents but in no case may they exceed 15 per cent-
In short, it is a perfectly orchestrated country and administration for the avoidance of taxation through the tax shelter route. The net effect of this is perhaps best spelled out in another book called "The Robert Kinsman Guide to Tax Havens" and is, if you like, the bottom line with respect to Liberia. On page 132 of that book he states:
June 13, 1980

-the importance of this African tax haven in the shipping world. Because it encourages the use of its flag as a flag of convenience, it has the world's largest merchant shipping fleet. Liberia is the only tax haven in Africa and has a few other significant tax features of potential interest: it levies no tax on the foreign source income of non-resident corporations more than 50 per cent foreign owned, but does tax their domestic income. The country's corporation law is patterned after that of Delaware. Assistance in establishing a company may be had through a Liberian trust company office in New York. Despite its distance from the United States (almost nine hours by jet from New York), it uses the U.S. dollar as its currency and English as its official language. The nation has no exchange controls and has been an independent republic since 1847.
Liberian corporations can be formed quickly, sometimes within 48 hours, by cable from the United States, and have several other handy features. Annual meetings can be held anywhere... but there are no government reporting requirements and bearer shares may be issued. The articles of incorporation need not specify corporate purposes, and corporations may become directors as of 1977. There is no residence requirement for officers, directors, or stockholders, although each corporation must have a resident business agent in the country, a task usually performed by a local trust company.
Let us not kid around, Mr. Speaker. What we are proposing is to sign a double taxation treaty with Liberia, a country that has made a specialty of not only granting tax haven status to those who want it, but making it so attractive for the registration of fleets that the largest merchant fleet in the world is registered through Liberia.
1 ask the question again: Are we sure that is the type of country with which we want to enter into a double taxation treaty?


An hon. Member:: Yes it is.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The second question I must ask is where is the benefit to us? Where is the other side of the treaty that we can point to as showing that not only are we getting international agreements signed, but showing the advantages to Canadians of some type of attractive tax treatment for those who wish to do business here?


Mr. Evans:: Did you ask those questions when the treaty was before your cabinet last year?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we have another voice in the wilderness over there. The member has asked a very pertinent question. He wants to know if 1 asked the questions I am now asking of our own cabinet. I am very pleased to tell the hon. member that I did. If he wishes to go through his governmental files he will find discussion papers on what is now before us. I would urge him to bring those discussion papers along when this bill goes to committee so that we can have a free discussion and get a lot of that information on the record.


John Leslie Evans: I cannot do that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the voice in the wilderness now says he cannot do that-he cannot bring these discussion papers to committee.
There are two other countries I should like to touch on very briefly that are included as possible tax treaty countries. Barbados and Malaysia are both tax havens under the definition of that status noted in the "Tax Havens of the World"
International Conventions
booklet I referred to. Let me deal first of all with Barbados. This is an interesting study. My hon. friend who spoke once from the wilderness and then went mute, knows that in the Bank Act which is before the finance committee, there is a proposal to allow foreign banks into Canada.
It is interesting to see what Barbados, as a tax haven, did to facilitate bank activity there. The main reason I raise this question during the discussion of Bill S-2 is to make sure we have the proper perspective. These are not innocent little treaties; they are very significant treaties. Canada is becoming one of the most active countries in the world in signing these treaties and I think we must get the other side of the story before we rush into some of them, perhaps unwittingly.
Having regard to Barbados, the booklet "Tax Havens of the World", dealing with the act that concerns corporations states:
-under the amended act of 1977. only a "resident" international business company may qualify for income tax exemption. A "resident company" is a company incorporated under the laws of Barbados or having its business managed and controlled in Barbados.
I want to discuss what they have done with respect to banks, Mr. Speaker. On the next page the booklet states:
As an integral part of its hopes to attract foreign companies through tax advantages, the government of Barbados also became a financial tax haven in 1979 when new banking and trust institution legislation was implemented. The new offshore banking laws permit foreign banks incorporated in Barbados to carry on business outside of Barbados with considerable flexibility and do not require a minimum or maximum capital investment. However, a relatively small tax of only from 1 to 2Vi per cent as determined by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is levied on the earnings of Barbados banks derived from offshore activities.
Later on the same page the article goes on to say:
Patterned after the unusually successful Singapore offshore banking law, Barbados permits nonresidents to operate banks in Barbados that are not subject to the normal 45 per cent tax applied on business profits and associations for dividends, interest, servicing and other income earned outside of the island. The traditional bank secrecy rules of the other leading financial tax havens of the world are practised. To qualify for an offshore banking institution in Barbados, foreign investors are not allowed to transact business with Barbados residents, receive deposits from residents or carry on lending arrangements which create interest and other income derived from Barbados residents.
Is it not rather strange that we have on our left a rump group which from time to time likes to ask how it is that our banks are not paying higher income taxes, and yet to this moment in this debate they have not said anything about this bill that would obviously facilitate the avoidance of tax by one or more Canadian corporations? We hear nothing from them to indicate they are interested in what Bill S-2 is all about.
I invite those interested in the ramifications of these tax haven countries, with whom we are considering entering into certain treaties, to read the book "Tax Havens of the World". Everything is set out very well in it. It deals with the type of incentives Barbados, for example, offer to win business. On page 6 of the section on Barbados, it states:
Like the other present and former British overseas territories situated in the Caribbean area, Barbados takes pride in offering a number of Pioneer Industries and Industrial Incentives Acts in addition to the International Business Companies (Amendment) Act, 1977. One of the most important of these incentive laws is the Pioneer Industries Act of 1958 which provides manufacturers of approved products with exemption from taxes for a specified term of from seven to ten years under an option plan involving two choices.

June 13, 1980
International Conventions
That is another example of a country that is openly trying to create tax incentives in order to get people to do business there and presumably to create employment and general prosperity. What is our side of the equation? What do we have that is comparable? To the best of my knowledge, in the context in which 1 am now speaking, we have nothing. That is the thrust of my remarks. Let us not take Bill S-2 too lightly. This involves treaties with various countries, some of which have serious ramifications for us. Unfortunately there is a ramification which is being overlooked. We are one of the few countries of the world which does not have comparable tax schemes or incentives to attract bankers, financial institutions and other industries to do business in this country. Yet, we are contracting through these treaties with various countries which do this very thing, countries such as the United Kingdom, which is perhaps the greatest tax haven country in the world.
I mentioned that I wanted to touch on Malaysia. Under the Income Tax Act of 1974, Malaysia provided that:
-income derived outside Malaysia by a resident company or an individual is exempt from taxation unless it is received in Malaysia. Foreign income of non-residents received in Malaysia also is exempt of tax. A single exception to the general rule is that resident banks are taxable on income no matter where it is derived.
Obviously, in that case the bank will be incorporated in Barbados and will presumably do business in Malaysia, if it is starting from scratch. The article to which I am referring points out that Malaysia has treaties with countries such as Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Treaties have also been signed by Austria, Belgium and West Germany, but they are not yet in force. Once again, we are one of the leading countries in signing these treaties, such as in the case of Malaysia, yet there is very little evidence that Canada has tried to create a situation within the country that will reap benefits for the country, such as those being reaped by many of those countries which have these tax avoidance schemes.
I hope the Secretary of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) will have some comments to make on this bill before it goes to committee, and that some of the observations which I have made will be dealt with in committee where we can consider the matter further.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate is to reinforce a point referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). It is a matter about which I have spoken on previous tax treaty ratification legislation which deals with a reference to section 36 of the bill. There is a difficulty with regard to the procedure which was devised, after a great deal of negotiation, when the Hon. John Turner was the minister of justice, about orders in council being made and being subject to revision in this House. How is this done? It says:
An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament after it has been laid before Parliament pursuant to that subsection unless before the twentieth sitting day of Parliament after the
order has been laid before Parliament a motion for the consideration of either House, to the effect that the order be revoked,-
In other words, it is a negative resolution. It must spell out the procedure because the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), when he was president of the privy council, was either too indolent or did not give a damm about what was going on in Parliament. I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and I begged him to give us the reference. Subsequently, his predecessor as the minister of finance, the former member for Eglinton, was chairman of the procedure committee while I was vice-chairman. Both of us, in our private ways, appealed to the hon. gentleman to give us the reference so that we could dress up in our rules precisely what is provided for under section 36.
It is the most ludicrous thing that one can contemplate, and is an indication of the sloppy way in which this House must sometimes proceed because the government is replete with inertia. A complaint was raised the other day because the committee on procedure has not even met, although there is ample work for it, particularly with regard to putting this reference in place.
I am sure there are enough of us in the House who understand what is involved here that we could come to an agreement. After all, the legislation brought in while John Turner was the minister of justice was by agreement, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I am sure will remember. The reference was put in place after it had been discussed privately and publicly, and agreed to. I am sure the temper of the House would be the same and that we could change our rules of procedure to remove from each one of these bills this long rigmarole that takes place in this House when a negative motion is brought before it, or when a particular order in council shall be subject to an affirmative or a negative motion. These matters are provided for in the statutes.
The points mentioned by my colleague with regard to the features of these tax conventions have been repeated before. Although I have not examined the statutes in detail, he assures me that some of the problems which we encountered in previous legislation and had corrected in committee, are, for some reason, reappearing. I do not know whether it is bureaucratic insistence that they shall be right at all times and that the House of Commons committees must be deemed to be wrong at all times, but there is a reintroduction of the same errors time after time, and this House will not accept it.
The finance committee though does not have much on its plate at the present time, and there is enough here to keep it busy until Christmas. If this matter is added to the agenda it will be dealt with. I would say to the Minister of State, Finance (Mr. Bussieres), who is acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I hope he takes note of what we have said with regard to convincing the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to obtain an order of reference. I am sure there would be consent with very little delay so that it could go to the committee on procedure where we can amend the rules and
June 13, 1980

eliminate all this consideration in the House and in committee of what are really rules of procedure.
I also hope the government will take note of the views of these committees and of the people who hold these views so that they will prevail, rather than the views of those in the bureaucracy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 see that the minister is rising. I should inform him that if he speaks now he will close the debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if, in all fairness and out of courtesy, the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) could be given a few moments to express his views. He kept making comments during my speech, and I thought he should have a few minutes here this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Minister of State, Finance (Mr. Bussieres). His statement at this point will close the debate on second reading.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who did not accept the invitation of the member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), but I too, just like the hon. member opposite, would have been very pleased to hear my colleague who is a very able man on the subject of tax conventions and I am aware of his precise interest in this bill and I also know his wish that this bill be passed rapidly. If he did not accept the invitation from the member for York-Peel it simply was to allow me to speak for a few more minutes and draw to a conclusion. I thank him for that. I am convinced that the member for York-Peel will have an opportunity in committee to put to the test the knowledge of my colleague.
First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I fully agree with the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who opened the debate in the name of the opposition regarding the replacement of the assistant deputy minister of the taxation division of the Department of Finance. It is a serious concern and I join him in congratulating and encouraging the public servants of this division for the excellent work they perform. As for the tax treaty or convention between Canada and the United States, the officials of the Canadian Department of Finance and the American treasury have negotiated a new tax agreement between the two countries, as hon. members will know. The convention has not yet been ratified by both governments. Once it has been approved and signed, we shall have the opportunity to discuss it as we are now discussing the agreements dealt with in this bill.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned the negotiations concerning the agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany. I would like to tell him that last week officials from both countries met to see if progress could be made and to move towards a possible agreement on a convention between Canada
Bretton Woods Agreement
and the Federal Republic of Germany. I quite agree with him that the discussions should be speeded up and that both sides should stop passing the buck to each other and say in Canada that it is the fault of Bonn, and to say in Bonn that it is the fault of Ottawa. Instead, the process should be accelerated and there should be some good will shown to come to an agreement as soon as possible, especially as concerns the problem of pension reciprocity and the more general convention on taxes.
The hon. member for York-Peel has raised several interesting points. More particularly, he spoke at length about the countries which offer a tax haven. I wonder why the hon. member is condemning, for instance, the United Kingdom for its local taxation system and the way in which it sees fit to treat its own residents for taxation purposes. For our part, we consider that if a treaty with the United Kingdom favours Canadian entrepreneurs and investors, this is all to the advantage of Canadians, and we do not want to make a judgement on the internal taxation system of other countries.
Our major concern in these agreements and tax conventions is to offer Canadian businessmen and entrepreneurs, those who offer services and goods, the opportunity to benefit from more interesting competition, interests and incomes when they do business with foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House knows that Canada would benefit from an increase in the field of services. We have highly qualified firms of all types which can easily compete in other countries, and it is for those people, for those businessmen who invest in these countries or go there to offer services that such taxation agreements exist between countries. Some have also raised the issue that the amendments to these agreements could be implemented by order in council. But that is not only by order in council. It is by order in council but subject to a resolution of Parliament and I would like to remind hon. members that under part XII, clauses 35 and 36 of the bill indicate the whole procedure to be followed before an order in council is passed. So there is a procedure under which Parliament will be able to question the amendment to the agreement. Those were the few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make. I am convinced we will have an extremely interesting discussion in committee on this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the minister sits down, unless he has said it and I missed it, would he comment on the situation between this country and West Germany in the matter of a double taxation agreement?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, when I replied to the concern of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on those negotiations with the Federal Republic of Germany-unfortunately I believe he had left for a few moments, which happens very rarely-I indicated that last week officials of the two countries had met and I fully agree with the hon. member that

June 13, 1980
Bretton Woods Agreement
Bonn should stop saying it is the fault of Ottawa and Ottawa should stop saying it is the fault of Bonn, but we should intensify our negotiations and reach an agreement as soon as possible on the question of the pensions and the tax convention. 1 agree entirely with him, and as I said, last week officials met and I believe we must put the pressure on to reach an agreement as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Pierre Bussières: that Bill C-5, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall be as brief as I was earlier. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) kindly invited me to seize this opportunity to expand on our major international positions, considering the interest he took and still takes, I am sure, in this bill he introduced when he was minister of finance and considering the interest we all have in this House, but I shall restrict myself and be as brief as possible.
The bill before us today, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, provides for the acceptance of an increase in Canada's quota in the International Monetary Fund from $1,357 million Special Drawing Rights to $2,035 million SDRs. In terms of Canadian dollars this means an increase of approximately $1 billion to $3 billion.
As hon. members will realize, this will be a part of our foreign exchange transactions and will have only a minimal impact on our Canadian dollar requirements. In fact, the Canadian dollar cash payment associated with this increase will amount to one-quarter of 1 per cent of the total, or about $2.5 million. Twenty-five per cent of the increase will be paid in Special Drawing Rights held by the exchange fund. The
remainder, about $748 million, will be paid in non-bearing demand notes.
The drop in the exchange fund's holdings of SDRs will be fully offset by an increase in what is called our "reserve position" in the IMF. This represents the amount that we are entitled to draw on demand from the IMF for balance of payments purposes. This reserve position is part of our official international reserves. As a result, their composition will change-with SDRs falling and our IMF reserve position rising by equal amounts-but their total will not.
The increase in the Canadian subscription is part of the 50 per cent increase in IMF quotas agreed to in December of 1978 by the fund's board of governors. If all members agree to their proposed quotas this will raise total subscriptions from SDR $39 billion to SDR $59 billion. This over-all increase is designed to ensure a better balance between the size of the fund's resources and the needs of members for balance of payments financing over the next five years.
The International Monetary Fund is the central institution of the international monetary system and, as such, its continued ability to operate effectively is crucial to the smooth operation of that system. Quotas are an important feature of the IMF as they serve four purposes in its operations. First, the quotas which members subscribe are the major source of the funds which the IMF lends to countries in balance of payments difficulties in order to allow them to correct their imbalances without taking protectionist or other restrictive and disruptive measures.
Second, quotas serve to limit the amounts which members can borrow under the various facilities of the IMF. Third, quotas determine the size of individual allocations of Special Drawing Rights when SDRs are created. Finally, quotas determine the voting strength of members and the composition of the executive board.
Since the absolute size of payments imbalances tends to increase as international trade expands, the amount of funds subscribed to the IMF must be increased periodically to meet the needs for international liquidity. The current increase in fund quotas comes at a time when there exists a possibility of large payments imbalances over the next few years. Resources made available through increases in quotas will place the fund in a good position to meet the needs of members during this period.
The increase in Canada's quota will preserve our share in total IMF quotas. This will allow us to maintain a position in the fund which reflects the relative importance of Canada in the global economy. A higher quota will also increase our eligibility for future allocations of Special Drawing Rights and add to the resources available to Canada in the event of balance of payments need.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the unanimous approval given to the proposed general increase in quotas by the board of governors,
June 13, 1980

the need for a strengthening of the financial position of the International Monetary Fund and the importance for Canada to continue playing a prominent role in the IMF, it is in Canada's interest to accept the proposed increase in its quota. This bill authorizes the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to do that.
Before concluding, I would like to remind hon. members that this bill is similar to the one which was introduced in the Thirty-first Parliament by the previous government by the then minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West. By reintroducing this bill at this time, the government wishes to emphasize the importance for Canada to accept the proposed increase in its subscription to the IMF. Hon. members were very co-operative with regard to the tax agreements bill that was introduced before this one, and I am glad they recognize this bill is urgent and agree to give it speedy passage. [English]


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this, as the Minister said, is an important piece of legislation. We support the legislation and the concept that Canada should increase its contribution to the International Monetary Fund, particularly if Canada is to have the same vote and take the same position in the future that it has taken in the past. However, I regret very much that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) does not feel this is an important enough area for him to make a contribution in introducing this bill.
The whole structure of the international financial system is comprised of the Bretton Woods agreement; the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. That system faces a horrendous crisis this year; it is facing it now.
With regard to the whole subject of north-south dialogue my colleague for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) will be addressing [DOT] himself to the whole question of what is to be done to help the underdeveloped world, the Third World countries. They are going to be absolutely bludgeoned with the rapid increase in oil prices over the past year.
How is this going to take place? How are they going to be helped? This is an area of tremendous importance. The Minister of Finance has been in office since March 3 and has represented this country at several international meetings in this area. 1 mentioned the IMF meeting in Hamburg at which Canada was supposed to have a fairly important role. He also attended the OECD meeting in Paris recently.
The minister made speeches at those gatherings, but he has not told this House a word about his trips. He has not described for us the difficulties he found there, what are the matters that require attention and what is the attitude of the leading financial powers in the world in facing them. He has not told this House anything about the serious economic and financial problems. As we all know, that is our complaint about the Minister of Finance. He has not told Canadians anything in respect of what he is going to do about the financial problems facing Canada. When this opportunity arises through the introduction of the legislation before us, which has to do with the IMF and the whole international
Bretton Woods Agreement
financial structure and Canada's place in it, the Minister of Finance is not even in the House of Commons. He has an associate minister of finance here. The associate minister of finance was not over in Hamburg to attend the IMF meeting. The associate minister of finance was not in Paris at the OECD meeting. The associate minister of finance does the legislative work that the Minister of Finance does not want to be bothered with. The minister does the ethereal work; the minister does the travelling work-the minister does I don't know what. We cannot find out what he does because he is not expressing to this House anything he does. We don't know if he has a policy, and we don't know if he doesn't have a policy. We don't know if his main thrust is the battle against inflation or the battle against recession, or the battle against unemployment.
Here is what the minister himself said on April 21 to this House. I am quoting, now, from his bootleg budget, his mini-mouse abomination at page seven;
The international environment which we are facing is a very troubled one indeed.
That is what the Minister of Finance had to say on April 21. He told us the international environment was very troubled. Yet here is his opportunity to be in this House today, Mr. Speaker, to tell us about this troubled international environment, to tell us what he has discovered about it in his two recent trips. What did he discover on these trips to Hamburg and Paris about the troubled environment and what the world can do about it? He is not here. He is like the Scarlet Pimpernel; he pitches here, he pitches there, he pitches, we know not where-however it goes. He is the new Scarlet Pimpernel. Then he goes and makes an intervention statement at the ministerial meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. This statement was released in Ottawa on June 4. What does he say in that? 1 quote from page one:
The international environment we are facing is a very troubled one indeed.
He didn't open up with any new spirit. He didn't say anything he hadn't said before. He said exactly the same thing on April 21. He told the people at the OECD meeting:
The international environment which we are facing is a very troubled one indeed.
Where is this master of analysis who has concluded that the international environment is a very troubled one indeed? Where is he? When is he going to tell the House what the trouble is, how extensive is that trouble, what his suggestions were to the IMF and OECD as to how the troubled environment should be dealt with? What is his suggestion for softening the north-south crisis? What is his suggestion for dealing with $100 billion that is being generated in the oil-producing countries this year, how it will be recirculated and directed to the countries which will need to borrow to pay the oil import costs the poor devils are going to face? We are badly enough off in this country. This is a wealthy country and we should be self-sufficient in energy. But we are not, because of the hon. gentlemen opposite who have never had an energy policy. When one was presented to Canada they assassinated those

June 13, 1980
Bretton Woods Agreement
who attempted to do the difficult job, putting them out of office under false pretences. Now they are over there struggling today. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was downstairs after the twelve o'clock question period trying to announce that he was making a tremendous offer to Alberta, that he was going to offer Alberta a $2-a-bar-rel increase from April 1 until the end of September. That was because he hasn't got a policy. He is offering them what he calls "the PC policy" trying to pretend it was the PC government's policy. What kind of a government is that? They do not even announce it in this House, Mr. Speaker. They strut down to the basement and stammer out their feeble excuses for their lack of action. That's the dynamo of a minister who has been here since March 3. He was going to solve the oil pricing question, the energy situation, and here he is on June 13 with no agreement. He has made this panic offer to Alberta and pretends it is the same offer we made back last December. It is not the same, nothing like it. They are using it as an excuse for their lack of accomplishment.
But to return to the international environment. The minister should be here to tell us what he learned at these meetings, but he is not.
We are not going to be pushed around by the Minister of Finance, nor by the government. We are going to continue to point these things out. The people of Canada are not going to be pushed around by them. As I said earlier this afternoon, the "Artful Dodger" is not what we need in Canada. We do not need a minister of finance who is an "Artful Dodger", that is, a manoeuverer who can get around corners, who can appear to be walking forward when he is really going backward at a gallop. That is not the kind of minister we want. We want a minister of finance who tells the people of this country what he foresees and what he plans to do to avoid the bad things he foresees, and what he plans to carry out to encourage the good things he foresees. We do not need a master of double-talk; not a master of nothingness. I said earlier today, he is the only man in the House who can be Blynken, Wynken and Nod, all three at the same time. He is the old three-in-one. He doesn't answer questions from the NDP, he doesn't answer questions from the Conservative party, 1 don't know what he does in the Liberal caucus. Perhaps they don't bother to ask him questions, but the time of the "Artful Dodger" might have been all right in the nineteenth century when events were pretty slow and Dickens was writing, but the "Artful Dodger" doesn't suit the people of Canada today in our economic position with unemployment increasing rapidly and inflation rising quickly. With these serious problems facing Canada the people don't appreciate the "Artful Dodger". The IMF doesn't appreciate the "Artful Dodger"; the OECD doesn't appreciate the "Artful Dodger". The "Artful Dodger" has to stop dodging and start working, start announcing and pronouncing what the government's approach is. There is not a person in this country who can figure out what the government intends to do in the economic sense. We cannot afford to wait for weeks after an oil pricing agreement for a budget to come down. If that
minister is so shy and modest he does not want to bring a budget down before there is an oil pricing agreement, let us have a clear statement by the government about what its thrust is to be in the next three or four years. Let it tell us what the framework is within which the working people, the businessmen, the manufacturers and the industrialists of Canada will have to operate. What is its position going to be on the international front? What the minister said at the OECD meetings was clear. 1 quote him again:
Inflation remains the number one problem facing most countries around this table.
We know that. Then he said:
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.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the financial analysts, the investors and the brokers read this kind of stuff. They try to get from it some idea of what the government is going to do. What are they to make from the minister's statement? Does it mean that the government's policy will be: Look, until we beat inflation, get it under better control, we can do nothing about increasing unemployment and therefore the thrust for the next year or two will be against inflation and we will do what the governor of the Bank of Canada has recommended to the Senate committee-we are going to reduce further aggregate demand, as the governor of the Bank of Canada said we should be doing. Is the fiscal policy of the government going to correlate with the monetary policy of the governer of the bank and the government's monetary policy? Is that what is to happen, or is it something else? Surely to God the people of this country have a right to be told by the government what approach is to be taken.
We can go on examining the minister's short statement to the OECD. He points out on page two what the problem is. He was referring to the oil price increases. It says:
Those surpluses which are now running at a record rate of over $100 trillion arc contributing to the deterioration of the economic situation of virtually all oil importing countries internally as well as externally. They also threaten to create major difficulties in international financial markets.
Why is the minister not here to tell us what he proposes to do about those surpluses and how the world is going to get around this? And as for the IMF, how we are to avoid major difficulties in the international markets; what is Canada going to do to stop contributing to this situation? Here is Canada, a relatively wealthy nation, self-sufficient, overall, in energy- not now self-sufficient in oil-and we have a government that hasn't the gumption or the backbone to seize the nettle, and agree it was an unscrupulous lust for power last fall and last January and February which made them lie and deceive the Canadian people into believing they had some solution other than the one we tried to approach in our budget. They should frankly admit that they codded the Canadian people, that they fooled the Canadian people, that they were ruthless in their lust for power and that now they have to do a 360-degree circle, that they have to increase oil prices and take other steps to cut down the huge imports. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) admitted the other day
June 13, 1980

that the oil import subsidy scheme is going to cost this year, before the recent oil price increases, about $4 billion. Four billion dollars that the taxpayers are going to pay, not the consumers of the product that are eating this up and causing this deficit; the taxpayers, many of whom do not drive cars and are paying $4 billion this year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am only getting started-to warm up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to refer to a comment I made earlier this afternoon when your colleague was in the chair. I gave what 1 considered to be notice of the intention of the government on June 27 at four o'clock to seek unanimous consent to proceed with second reading and all stages of bills to amend the names of constituencies. Your colleague in the chair at the time anticipated my comments somewhat and proceeded to make a House order to that effect or sought consent to make a House order to that effect. I have since been advised that is not the customary way to proceed on this routine matter, and so I ask hon. members to allow that order to be withdrawn-it was procedurally incorrect-and just take my notice that on June 27 at 4 p.m. I shall rise in my place and seek unanimous consent to dispense with all these bills, following which we will move into the business allotted for that day, June 27, motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed as the parliamentary secretary has suggested?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable. There was a discussion about the procedure and how we should handle it. The parliamentary secretary has made the proposal to the Chair in accordance with that discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was the way I understood it, namely, that it was an understanding and did not need to be made into a hard and fast House order.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. Yesterday the parties held discussions on the question of the sitting of the House on Friday, July 4, which is a day on which the Liberal party will be meeting in convention in Winnipeg. As is the custom in the House, when the parties do have their conventions and these conventions are held on sitting days, the House does not sit. Therefore, in accordance with the agreement yesterday, and 1 would like to thank the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon.
Capital Punishment
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for their co-operation in this matter, I have given notice to the Chair, and I move the following motion:
That any division required on July 3, 1980 after five o'clock p.m. shall be deferred until 9.45 o'clock p.m. on July 7, 1980; and that, when the House adjourns on July 3, 1980, it shall stand adjourned until July 7, 1980.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there were those discussions, and we understand the position of the party opposite. We were happy to see that the party is meeting in convention, and we hope that out of that convention will come some direction to what appears to us, at least at this point, to be a directionless government.
We think the party needs to get together, and therefore in the interests of the country, because the party opposite happens to form the government, at least for the time being, we are very pleased to give our consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again I can confirm that there have been these discussions and that we have agreed to the terms of this motion. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) expressed some pleasure that the Liberal party would be holding a national convention. It is interesting that it plans to hold it in my city of Winnipeg. It is good that lots of notice is being given about this because, if that many Liberals turn up in the city of Winnipeg, it is going to be a very odd experience for western Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of holding a national referendum on the issue of capital punishment and, following such referendum, amend the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code to conform with the majority views of the people of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address fellow members of Parliament today on the need for a public referendum on a subject which has been very controversial over the years. I propose a national referendum on capital punishment. I earnestly request those who have entrenched positions on this matter to give up the security of those positions so that the people may decide on a matter on which the wishes of the majority and those of its elected representatives differ.
2110

June 13, 1980
Capital Punishment
I firmly believe that capital punishment should be retained for those who, with malice aforethought, take the lives of fellow human beings. Although there cannot be a one-issue general election, a particular question can be appropriate as the subject of a referendum.
Capital punishment is such an issue. Its importance is not denied, and yet it has been submerged during the two most recent federal election campaigns under other major and dominating issues. A referendum would cut across party lines in a way not possible in an election. In a democracy it is essential that the will of the people be followed in this life and death matter. It appears, however, that without a referendum on the subject there will not be a clear expression of the public will and no action upon it.
It has been evident from reliable public opinion polls that the majority of Canadians are and have been in favour of capital punishment. In spite of this fact it has been abolished.
In 1973 the polls showed that approximately 60 per cent of Canadians supported the death penalty. However, that same year 53 per cent of members of Parliament renewed the partial and temporary abolition bill. Members of Parliament seem to be more abolitionist than the people. In 1975 a Gallup poll indicated that nearly seven out of every ten Canadians favoured the death penalty. However, in 1976, by a free vote in Parliament, it was abolished.
In voting according to their conscience members did not represent the will of the people. The results of a Gallup poll released in November of 1979 showed that about 70 per cent of Canadians still were in favour of capital punishment for murder. Clearly, then, the will of the people has been and continues to be thwarted.
In the year 1972 a poll taken by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion showed that almost two-thirds of Canadians felt that, where the views of a member of Parliament on an important issue are different from those of his constituents, he should vote in accordance with their views rather than his own. However, in a question such as this involving strong religious, emotional and moral aspects it is very unfair to expect a member of Parliament to represent the will of his constituents against the dictates of his own conscience. Yet if he does not, the democratic process is thwarted. This places the member in an impossible situation. In such a case the use of the referendum, a resort to direct democracy, is appropriate. Parliamentarians, guided either by conscience or by public opinion polls, cannot be fully representative of the will of the people as a whole in the matter. The only clear and democratic way for it to be decided is by a national public referendum. This would provide public access to the decision-making process and a decisive answer to this very important question. [DOT]
If we are to believe the polls, then there is no question that the majority of Canadians want capital punishment restored, and that majority extends to every part of the land. It is not the majority of the east as opposed to the west, or Ontario
versus Quebec, it is the will of our people, from St. John's to Vancouver Island. Capital punishment must be retained.
In British Columbia, a convicted murderer twice held hostages, and during one of these incidents, an innocent person was killed. In Alberta, a child killer was on short-term release, and another innocent child fell victim to him during that release.
In my opinion, the majority of Canadians are not convinced that abolition works, nor that the present law is effective. During the time capital punishment was considered law in Canada, the government used the cabinet's power of clemency to commute all death sentences. I would suspect that that would always be the present government's posture. That is their right! But there is a right greater than that of the cabinet. It is the right of the majority of Canadians to govern their own destiny. It is their right to help shape those laws under which they must live. It is their right to have their collective will imposed on us, their elected representatives.
Folk wisdom has it that those who would harm society expect to be protected by the very laws they break. Thieves are appalled when their own homes are burglarized; armed robbers are outraged to be the target of police bullets. But you cannot have it both ways. If you play the game, you have to be ready to pay the price, and if the price is your life, then you do not play that game. The ultimate penalty, death, will deter all but the most case-hardened criminal.
The standard argument against the imposition of the death penalty is that if we, as a society, allow capital punishment, we may allow an innocent person to die, and that person's blood will be on our hands. However, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been satisfactorily established that this has happened in Canada. I have faith in our judicial system and the built-in safeguards the system has to protect the innocent.
I fear that the fact there is even controversy over capital punishment is symptomatic of an illness that has befallen our society. It is my belief, and one shared by many Canadians, that we have allowed our society to become too permissive, that for too long we have spared the rod and spoiled the child. For too long, we have made excuses for deviant behaviour, and now we are reaping the bitter crop we have sown. One cannot pick up a newspaper these days without being assailed by story after story of juvenile delinquency, or armed robbery with violence, or the senseless destruction of public and private property. Those who willfully infringe on our laws must be made to face the music for their actions, especially if they transgress against the most precious of all God's works, a human life.
Let us consider the subject of deterrents. Who is to say how many persons have avoided committing murder because they feared the consequences? It is no argument against capital punishment to say that in places where it is still on the books there are just as many murders committed each year as in places where capital punishment has been abolished. The fact is that, where a hundred murderers are convicted but only one is executed, capital punishment is no deterrent because it is not enforced.
June 13, 1980

The threat of death is considered to be a strong deterrent among criminals themselves. This is the way gangsters and hoodlums assert and maintain their authority in the underworld. They apply death without mercy. Retribution is not a barbaric reason for punishing. It is the right reason, for only so can the community affirm, the moral order on which it is based, and citizens can be satisfied that justice is being done. Take that away and you erode society's faith in itself as a moral community where men are trusted to obey the laws and, if they disobey, are punished as agents responsible for their own actions.
The enforcing of capital punishment under proper circumstances upholds the dignity of man, and righly places a high value on human life.
An objection to capital punishment sometimes held in religious circles is that no one has the right to take human life except God. This area is related to the belief that the person who executes a criminal is as guilty of murder as the one he executes. If there is no secure instrument of justice, all law and order would soon end. That would be so if this is carried through to its conclusion. In that case it would be wrong for a nation to defend itself against an aggressor, it would be wrong for a city or province to maintain a police force. We would be defenceless, and no one would have the right to defend himself from the violence of evil men.
Some persons take the position that an individual who commits murder is mentally ill and should be institutionalized until cured. To overlook the possibility of mental derangement in one guilty of homicide would be wrong. But, to maintain, as some do, that every murderer is mentally ill, is to mishandle the truth.
Most forms of criminality are the result of a breakdown in morals, not emotions or mental imbalance. Others advance utilitarian objections. They say that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime, so why employ it? This assumes that the first responsibility of our courts of law is to deter criminals in their actions. I question that. This ought to be one of the results of properly handled law courts. But the first obligation of law is to protect society and to punish wrongdoers. Should the courts take the position that they will not send car thieves to prison because people continue to steal cars in spite of the prison sentences meted out to car thieves? Of course not. The demands of justice are met first.
An equally wrong idea is that a prison sentence is sufficient punishment for murder. Where cold-blooded, premeditated murder is proven, a prison sentence with probationary periods is not punishment commensurate with the crime committed. Prisons should certainly be operated in as humane a way as possible, and prisoners should be treated as human beings, but punishment must fit the crime, or men will laugh at the courts and conduct themselves in society in any way they please.
Capital punishment is an emotionally charged issue, Mr. Speaker. It is my feeling that the question of capital punishment should be settled once and for all.
Capital Punishment
There are many precedents for the holding of a public referendum on capital punishment. In the United States, if I might cite a few examples, where criminal law in within state jurisdiction, public referenda have been held on this issue; in New Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, Colorado and Massachusetts. In 1972, California voted by a public referendum to restore the death penalty.
In our nation we have asked the public for its view on two occasions: prohibition in 1898 and conscription in 1942. Capital punishment has been a bone of contention in Canada for many years. A national referendum on the subject would have the following advantages for Canadians. First, it would allow public opinion to be expressed clearly and provide a definite direction for Parliament by a process of direct democracy. Second, it would remove from a member of Parliament the unfair burden of deciding whether to vote against his own conscience. Third, in a democratic fashion it would finally resolve a problem that has been the cause of dissension and public argument for many years. Fourth, it would avoid the growth of resentment against the government and against Parliament by members of those groups in society that have struggled to be heard on this topic and have felt ignored. Fifth, it would renew the faith of the ordinary people in society in their ability to influence government decisions in a democratic way.
If the people indicate they want a change in the law, then I believe the Criminal Code should be amended to reflect that desire. I have expressed my own personal feelings on certain instances, that capital punishment should be brought back. I am hopeful this motion will be acceptable to the House. There is but one way to have the majority opinion heard; that is, by a national public referendum.
I hope the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) will speak during this debate. He will also second my motion because he believes in abolition. We are both convinced that the people must decide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Prud'homme:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


George Albert Proud: I take for granted, having listened to the hon. member's speech, that this penalty is a deterrent. If such is the case, does the hon. member believe that in order to really deter, the penalty should be administered in public and not in private?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not believe it should be in public. I believe there is justice and there is dignity of mankind. There is no dignity in displaying the death penalty by killing someone in public. I believe it should be a dignified process.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to

June 13, 1980
Capital Punishment
rise to speak on this motion because I am absolutely opposed to it on two grounds. First, I am opposed to the subject matter of the motion which is on capital punishment. Second, I oppose the other aspect of the motion, the procedural matter at hand in the holding of a public referendum on a moral issue such as capital punishment.
I want to briefly talk about the subject of capital punishment itself. On May 5, 1976, I rose in my place, as did many members of this House, on second reading debate of Bill C-83, a bill to abolish capital punishment. You may remember that, Mr. Speaker, because you were here. Perhaps this was not the first time a government bill had been introduced to actually abolish capital punishment without qualification. Prior to that there was a five-year suspension, but it kept coming up for extension. It was a very emotional time for all of us in the House of Commons. Indeed, I Would say that to vote a few days after, in May or June of 1976, I had to make what was probably the toughest decision I have ever made in my life. It was tougher than deciding to enter public life, to get married or to have a family, because there was no doubt in my mind there.
On the question of capital punishment we are dealing with the right of the state to take the life of an individual. It is my contention, and I will not repeat all the arguments I made on May 5, 1976, that the state is a very omnipotent force. The authority and power of the state must be checked at every turn. Indeed, that is why we have Parliament and the adversary system of the British parliamentary system, so that the actions of government can be looked into at every turn and scrutinized, if that is the correct way of putting it. The state can abuse its power. As we saw in the early 1970s in the United States, the institution of presidency was used to abuse power. 1 think there is a good record of keeping the authority of the state under control in the British parliamentary system.
Without going into all the arguments, once the state has the right to take the life of an individual for a crime of murder, theoretically the state could use right to take the life of an individual for other infractions, as may be deemed appropriate by the legislature or by Parliament.
For example, in many Latin American countries, and just recently in Iran, we have seen the state taking the lives of individuals not in retribution for murder, but for crimes against the state. This was done in the 1930s in the Soviet Union at the time of the famous purge trials under Stalin. We are a long way from the climate which existed last year and which perhaps exist in Iran today, and the conditions which existed in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. When we look around the world we find that Canada is one of the few sane havens where the rule of law is upheld, where the rights of an individual are respected. I for one do not want the state ever again to have the right to take the life of an individual. I am not talking about war, because that is a different matter. That is a matter of self-defence and collective action of the state to declare war to defend its own interest. I will not go into that debate today.
I am absolutely opposed to the question of capital punishment being introduced once again in this Parliament. It was disposed of in 1976. As long as I sit in this parliament, and as long as I live, I hope we will not return to those days when we had capital punishment on the books.
More specifically I want to deal with the procedural matter of having a referendum on a moral issue. The suggestion in the motion of the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) really strikes at the heart of parliamentary democracy. In case anyone thinks I will argue against referendum being used nationally on constitutional issues or the referendum used in Quebec, let me qualify my comments. The British parliamentary system has served this country, Great Britain and many other countries very well over the years. I should like to quote that great Conservative philosopher, Edmund Burke, who believed in the fiduciary role of a member of Parliament.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He was not really very Conservative.


David Michael Collenette: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) said that he was not very Conservative. For me to quote him I suppose he must have had a few Liberal streaks in him.


An hon. Member:: He was an Irishman.


David Michael Collenette: Well, I have Irish blood, so that is good; I feel at home. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, or at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Mr. Burke made the statement to his constituents in Bristol that if they elected him as a member of Parliament, they were entrusting him to act on their behalf for the duration of that parliament. As one who was defeated last May, and one who voted for the abolition of capital punishment, my constituents had the right of recall in May of 1979. One could argue that some of the votes I lost in that election was due to the stand I took on capital punishment in 1976. Notwithstanding that, when the public makes electoral choices it chooses on a far greater range of issues, hence the fact that I am now back in the House subsequent to the 1980 election. The point I made is that one's constituents have the right, when an election is called, to question the actions of a member, not only as a representative of the government, but as a representative of the collective wishes of the people.
As one who paid the price last year, I am prepared to live with the concept expressed by Edmund Burke who believed that as members of Parliament we cannot run back to our constituents and poll all of them on every single issue at every moment, but that we have to use our own judgment.
My friend, the hon. member for Erie, who is usually quite reasonable and with whom I often agree, talked about an unfair burden. He wants to be relieved of the unfair burden of voting on capital punishment. I would suggest to him, with all due respect, that burden is the price a member of Parliament must pay if he is to be a good and active member under the British parliamentary system. I hope he changes his views as a result of this debate.
June 13, 1980

In January, 1979, the government introduced Bill C-9, for the establishment of referenda in this country. There was a heated debate. I spoke on January 29, 1979-in fact I have my notes in front of me-following the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who led the opposition attack on the bill. In my speech 1 noted that the Conservative party was attacking the bill on the grounds that it undermined responsible government. I was speaking, of course, in the context of British parliamentary democracy.
I find it somewhat ironic when the official position of the hon. member's party attacks the concept of referenda, that he and many of his colleagues-perhaps some on this side as well-believe that referenda should be used on moral issues.
We on this side believe in the principle enunciated in Bill C-9, that the people of Canada should be consulted by means of a referendum on the structure of government and on constitutional matters. It is all very well to poll the people on their ideas about the laws by which we are governed, but when it comes to holding a referendum on moral issues I think we would not only be betraying our heritage but we could also unleash a very nasty spectacle in this country. I think of the spectacle of the riots in Paris in 1792 or the kind of venom we have seen on the streets of Tehran in the last year. I am not being anti-democratic or disrespectful of the public, but when collective behaviour occurs on emotional questions, that in a sense begs a more conservative approach to government-a more conservative approach provided by thoughtful, rational discussion in Parliament. When a question like capital punishment is put to the people directly emotions run high.
In 1976 there occurred the unfortunate death of a young shoeshine boy in Toronto. I remember the kind of feeling which permeated the calls that came into my constituency office. Some of the abuse I took was directly attributable to that horrendous crime.
In a sense the public acts irrationally when its passions are aroused. If we take this action in regard to capital punishment, then we may have to take the same action regarding abortion. The fireworks would go off then. If we are willing to condone the state taking a life for certain crimes and then hold a referendum on abortion, where do we go next? I have strong views on abortion as I believe it is a crime against an unborn child; it is ceasing life that exists, notwithstanding the fact that the baby has not technically been born.


Mr. Kelly:: You are consistent.


David Michael Collenette: My friend, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) says I am consistent. Then there is the question of what we do about euthanasia. We may have to deal with this question within the next decade. Do we give authority to those who administer medical treatment to terminate that treatment upon the advice of a parent or next-of-kin? I believe we should not, and I think of Karen Quinlan who might still be alive. A person who is clinically still alive but is not functioning mentally is a life and that life must be respected. I do not think that 1, as a member of Parliament or in the government as an agent of Parliament, should interpret
Capital Punishment
what is almost the very metaphysical question of what is life and what is death. I think that is beyond our scope as legislators.
I seem to have rambled on, Mr. Speaker, but I just do not believe that the state should hold referenda on moral questions. We saw what happened in Italy a few years ago with the referendum on divorce. It nearly ripped the Christian Democratic party apart and I am sure the same thing has happened in other countries.
I for one object to the whole question of capital punishment and retribution for a capital crime, and I object to the procedure whereby a country would enact legislation calling for referenda on questions of moral conscience. I am therefore personally opposed to this motion.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. parliamentary secretary accept a question?


David Michael Collenette: Yes, certainly.


David Kilgour: Can the hon. parliamentary secretary imagine any murder, whether contract killing or one in particularly heinous circumstances, that would cause him to think that the perpetrator should forfeit the right to live?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, this is essentially the qualifier that the former right hon. member for Prince Albert used. In other words, it is an escape clause. It is like the six-months' hoist clause on a bill. You get to third reading and then you chicken out and move that the bill be read six months hence.
That is what the late right hon. member for Prince Albert was referring to when he spoke in the debate in 1976. He was a life-long abolitionist who unfortunately, and I do not want to malign him, in his latter years changed his mind, using what I consider to be a very specious argument. He qualified his life-long opposition to capital punishment, for which he had, I think, admirable moral grounds. He said we should have capital punishment for acts against the Queen.
Basically that is what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is saying now. Maybe I am attributing motives to him, but in his heart he is probably an abolitionist and is grappling with the subject, looking for some kind of justification for capital punishment. To paraphrase the words of Mackenzie King, capital punishment if necessary, and vice versa. I would say to him categorically that in my mind there are no grounds whatsoever for capital punishment. I do not discount the fact that one might have to kill in war. That is a very separate issue which is not under debate at this time.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to oppose the motion which is before the House today. I note, in commencing, that I was pleased to see that the previous Conservative government took no steps whatsoever in the direction suggested by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz). At no time did they introduce legislation or, indeed, suggest that there would be any legislation introduced which would

June 13, 1980
Capital Punishment
provide for a referendum on the subject of capital punishment, or on any other subject. That approach on the part of the former Conservative government, in viewing the merits, is entirely appropriate.
I would like to deal with two aspects of the motion before the House today. The first is the matter of referendum itself, and the second is the substantive question of whether indeed, on the subject of substantive punishment, there should be a review of the decision which was made by this House in 1976. Dealing with the question of referendum itself, I question why on this issue, as opposed to so many other issues which might be conceivably raised in the public form, this member of the Conservative party is proposing a referendum.
I have no doubt whatsoever, if there had been a referendum, for example, on the subject of Petro-Canada and the Conservative's plan to dismantle that company, that some 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the population of Canada would have supported our opposition to that referendum. Yet, there is no suggestion by Conservative members of referenda on issues such as this, which are certainly of great concern to the people of Canada. There is no suggestion of referenda on issues which may go against the philosophy of the Conservative party.
I suggest that in attempting to have a referendum on this subject, whether one is an abolitionist or whether one supports capital punishment, one is engaging in an act of political cowardice. I do not use those words lightly. I suggest that because I believe, as the hon. member from Toronto has indicated, quite properly, that we have responsibilities in this House. Some of them may be difficult and at times the questions raised may be contentious, but we have responsibilities to take tough decisions on those contentious questions after having considered all aspects.
Had there been a referendum on certain other controversial subjects which the House dealt with, the results would have been very disturbing, indeed. Had there been, for example, a referendum at the end of the Second World War on the question of whether Canadians of Japanese extraction should be sent to Japan, I have no doubt historically that 75 per cent or 80 per cent of Canadians, in an emotional referendum on this subject and considering that they were just coming out of World War II, would have said yes. What a serious and disastrous error that would have been.
I have no doubt that in 1970, at the time of the imposition of the War Measures Act, when perhaps 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the Canadian population had they been asked whether they were in favour of the imposition of the War Measures Act and the Draconian curtailment of civil liberties which it entailed, would have said yes. Yet in retrospect many Canadians have come to realize that the imposition of the War Measures Act was a serious mistake.
Had there been a referendum taken at that time on the subject of the War Measures Act I have no doubt the majority of Canadians would have supported it. Fortunately, and I am very proud to be able to say, the New Democratic Party, and Tommy Douglas particularly, stood up at that time and said no. We were prepared to take a stand in principle on a subject,
a stand which subsequently the then leader of the Conservative party, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, indicated he thought was the correct stand.
We must be very careful when we talk about the use of referenda as an abrogation of political responsibilities. I think we should also look at the history of referenda where they have been used. I would suggest that the possible consequences of a referendum on capital punishment are very serious indeed. What, for example, would be the situation if a majority of the people in the province of Quebec voted against the imposition of capital punishment, and a majority of the remainder of Canadians were to vote in favour?
Our criminal law must be uniform across the country, yet we would be in the invidious position of having that kind of regional division on a subject which is certainly of very great importance. We must accept our responsibilities as legislators in this chamber to deal with questions which may be complicated and controversial. Yet, were there to be a referendum, it could very easily tear the country apart through a kind of emotional outpouring that could result from regional divisions.
There is no suggestion that there would be any requirement in respect of majorities in each region of the country. There is no suggestion in the wording of this particular motion of what the wording of the referendum itself would be. Would the wording restrict capital punishment to cases of premeditated murder? Would it broaden capital punishment to certain other cases? What about those people who support capital punishment in certain circumstances and not in others? In other words, to word such a referendum in order that it have any meaning, would be virtually impossible.
It would not only be difficult to word such a referendum question, it could be a very, very divisive question in this country. One need only look at the conscription referendum in 1942, to which my friend has referred, as being evidence of the kinds of consequences which can result from a referendum in this country. That is an example which should never be repeated in Canada, on any subject whatsoever.
I say on the question of a referendum that, while it is certainly important that the views of the people of Canada be respected and that they be listened to, we have a responsibility within the atmosphere of this chamber, having heard all the different positions, both pro and con, and having had the opportunity to assess those in an objective fashion, as legislators, to make the final decision. In some cases that decision on questions which face the Canadian people will go in the face of what perhaps is at a particular time a majority sentiment in the country. But, surely, to suggest that a referendum at any given time should determine what legislation should be implemented in this country would be a very serious mistake. On the question of referenda, particularly on the sensitive subject of capital punishment, I would suggest it would be a serious mistake to implement the motion before the House today.
What about the substantive question attempted to be dealt with by the motion, the question of capital punishment itself? There was reference earlier in this debate to gangland murders in the underworld; gangland murderers use this kind of justice
June 13, 1980

themselves. Surely, it is not up to the representatives of the people of Canada to suggest that our code of criminal justice should be determined by the code of criminal justice as followed in the underworld. What kind of logic is that?
We must rise above that kind of logic if we are to deal in an objective and sensible manner with the real concerns of the people of Canada. Of course, the people of Canada are concerned about violent crime and about murder, particularly about premeditated murder. However, I suggest it is an artificial distinction, a distinction without any basis whatsoever, to suggest that a murderer, a potential murderer or a prospective murderer who is considering whether to carry out this deed, this contract killing if that be what it is, will say to himself: Well, 1 only face 25 years in prison if I am caught, so I won't carry through with that decision to murder.
That is the present penalty which first degree murderers face, 25 years in prison. It is completely unrealistic to say, now that the prospect of death has been abolished by Parliament, that 25 years behind bars, the deprivation of liberty for 25 years, the condemnation to prison for 25 years without parole, will not deter a person who is capable of any kind of deterrence whatsoever. It is simply not realistic to suggest otherwise.
I would point out that when capital punishment was abolished in 1976, that was the quid pro quo; in exchange for the abolition of capital punishment Parliament enacted first degree murder and second degree murder. The penalty for first degree murder is 25 years behind bars with no prospect of parole before the termination of that 25-year sentence. Surely, if anybody can be deterred from committing murder, that is sufficient deterrence. However, we have seen, and the evidence is irrefutable on this point, that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent.
My friend, the hon. member for Erie has mentioned mistakes being made. I am sure my friend would agree that one mistake is too many. He has said there is no proof that mistakes have been made in Canada. He couched his words carefully because he would know, if he examined this question, that mistakes have indeed been made, unquestionably, in other jurisdictions; for example, in England. No doubt he is aware of the notorious case in England when an innocent man was put to death, and there was no way of rectifying the terrible wrong that had been done.
I have a clipping which gives an example of the kind of wrongdoing and injustice which could occur, and has occurred, if capital punishment were permitted in this country. I have a clipping here from the Vancouver Sun of October 19, 1974. It relates to a teenager's confession to a 1973 killing which resulted in the release of a man imprisoned for life. The evidence disclosed that a gentleman convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence was sentenced to imprisonment for life, and subsequently a young teenager admitted that, in fact, he had committed the crime. He produced evidence that was absolutely incontrovertible, that he had indeed committed the
Capital Punishment
crime. Had capital punishment been in effect, there would have been no remedy whatsoever. The person who had been wrongly convicted of murder would have been condemned to death.
In response to a question from a member opposite my friend said he is not in favour of public hangings because they are not dignified. I have great difficulty in my own mind in making the distinction between a private hanging, a private electrocution and a public hanging or execution so far as dignity is concerned. If my friend is suggesting that somehow it is a deterrent, that indeed we should go all the way and have public hangings, and perhaps various other punishments which would similarly deter, and in the past we have seen the kinds of punishments that have been used in an attempt to deter-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Erie on a point of order.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is distorting what I had said. In no way did I suggest that this would result in a circus. I said there would be death with dignity and in no way suggested that there would be a circus.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is a difference in point of view.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Some of the attempts which have been made in the past to deter murder include burning at the stake, boiling in oil or water, iron coffins, burying alive, breaking on the wheel, drawing and quartering, decapitation, impaling, hanging, crushing, flailing, shooting, exposure to insects, poisoning, throwing to animals, stoning, drowning, torturing, electrocution, asphyxiation, crucifixion and mayhem. Those are the kinds of attempts which have been made in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Everything but appointment to the Senate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), says everything but appointment to the Senate. Of course, that is the ultimate indignity. Perhaps my friend from Erie might suggest that would be a suitable punishment for the most serious forms of murder.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest that reference to the other place in those terms is hardly parliamentary.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I intended no disrespect to members of the other place in saying this. I did not mean to suggest they may have been guilty of the crimes with which we are dealing today.
I would like to relate a story to the House told by a former member for Prince Albert, a former distinguished prime minister and leader of the Conservative party. This is the story recounted often:
My great grandfather saw a boy hanged in Upper Canada for picking pockets in 1837. 1 think the boy was 17 years of age and everybody gathered for the public execution. Those Scottish people in North York turned up in large numbers. There was a great celebration, and during the ceremonies of the execution four of them had their pockets picked, which just indicates the argument that the fear

June 13, 1980
Capital Punishment
of capital punishment will greatly reduce the number of offences is not completely tenable, or indeed tenable at all.
This appeared in Hansard for May 1, 1972.
There are many other arguments against capital punishment; for instance, the discriminatory implementation of capital punishment, the use of capital punishment against the poor in disproportionate numbers, the kinds of mistakes that can be made in implementing capital punishment, and the fact that there are those who seek glory. I am thinking of the Gary Gilmores of this world who, if capital punishment existed, would murder for that purpose itself.
There are many reasons why some on this side of the House oppose not only capital punishment but also the political cop-out of a referendum on this question.
In closing, I say that we oppose this motion. We oppose the use of referenda on questions such as this. We oppose the use of capital punishment. We believe that the value of life in this society has to be respected by all citizens, and that surely includes representatives of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to rise to speak to this motion.


An hon. Member:: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With due respect, there is a procedure under which members are recognized in this place, and the Chair is bound to respect that procedure. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) has the floor.


John Leslie Evans: Like the two members before I oppose capital punishment. I do not agree with this motion and will not in any way, shape or form vote for a motion that does allow a return of capital punishment in Canada.
I think the two hon. members who spoke before me have indicated quite clearly the kinds of problems that arise when a
referendum is used to settle moral issues in the country. The referendum in the province of Quebec, which was resolved on May 20, at least for the time being, would indicate the divisive effects a referendum can have. Certainly referenda on issues as emotional as the death penalty and abortion will have divisive and long-lasting effects.
I would not want to repeat what other members have said before me. However, I would look at some of the statistics available to us that are relevant to the effects of capital punishment as a deterrence to capital crimes, or what used to be called capital crimes. If we look at that evidence and relate the rate of homicide to 1974, the time when the death penalty was abolished in Canada, to subsequent periods-in fact, relate it to information as recent as 1978-we will find that the rate of homicide in 1978 was the lowest it had been since 1974. Indeed, in 1974 the rate of homicide was 2.46 per 100,000 population, and in 1978 it was 2.62 per 100,000 population; in the interim it had increased. It has fallen since then. It is now the lowest it has been since 1974.
If one breaks homicide down into the various forms of murder; for instance, premeditated murder, manslaughter, infanticide and so on, we find precisely the same pattern. There is no evidence whatsoever, that is statistically valid, which would indicate that the abolition of capital punishment in this country has led to a higher incidence of murder, or other forms of death, whether they be homicide, infanticide or manslaughter. As a result, if the basis of the argument is deterrence, there is no evidence to support the case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
[ Translation]
It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 16, 1980