1981-06-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, with the latest increase of 9 cents per gallon in petroleum products, gasoline and heating oil prices have increased by as much as 60 cents a gallon in the last year and a half. Yet during the last election campaign the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in newspaper advertisements, said "Vote Liberal and the price will stay down". Therefore I move the following motion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That this House condemn the Liberal government for the deceitful and dastardly way that it has disregarded its campaign promises to keep oil price increases below 18 cents a gallon.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR HOLDING OF GENERAL ELECTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the government's absolute deception of Canadians in taxing energy supplies to pay for its own financial incompetence, thereby imposing unnecessary excise taxes, high interest rates, and spiralling inflation upon all Canadians; and given the government's total failure to produce a long-range industrial development plan so that Canada might realize its true potential heritage for generations to come, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the Prime Minister admit to the lying, deceitful practices of his government since its election last February 18, by calling an immediate federal election so that the Canadian people might pass judgment on the dishonest political trickery of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that it was the clear understanding of all Royal Canadian Mounted Police men and women that their new salary adjustment would be retroactive to January 1, 1981, and in light of the fact that the government's incredible decision to make this salary award effective as of April 1, 1981, has fuelled anger and frustration within the ranks of the force to a level that is difficult to exaggerate, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That the government be condemned for yet another breach of faith, the regrettable consequences of which will be a serious deterioration in the morale of the men and women on the force and a concerted demand for unionization to prevent similar inequities.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the House will recall that on April 3 I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) to look into and take action to solve a problem created by Canadian General Electric's takeover of Federal Electric in Winnipeg and the loss of jobs in Toronto. Subsequent to that the minister has indicated to the people involved that he is still looking into the matter. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), I move the following motion:
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be required to explain what action he took to safeguard the jobs of the workers at the Davenport CGE
10244

June 4, 1981
plant in Toronto, and further what action is now being contemplated by Canadian General Electric to ensure that these workers and their families will not be required to shoulder the burden of the corporate decision to discontinue building transformers in the city of Toronto.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR ENDING OF ALBERTA OIL PRODUCTION CUTBACKS- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the response of the federal government to the blackmail of the Alberta government which has seen a 2-cent per litre rise in the cost of gasoline, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
That this House urges the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues to impress upon their Alberta cousins, in particular Premier Lougheed, to end at once their threats to the integrity of the Canadian nation by restoring the oil flow so that the 2-cent per litre tax can be eliminated.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASE IN PRICES-AID FOR PEOPLE IN REMOTE AREAS- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, the motion that I shall move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 is with regard to recent increases in petroleum products. Considering the serious impact such increases in energy costs have as they are passed through to northern residents of our country, to whom energy and transportation costs represent the single most contributing factor in already disproportionately high living costs, I move:
That this House request the government to produce forthwith and lay before the House measures designed to shelter those Canadians who live in isolated, remote and northern regions of our country, from the effects of the latest unjustified increases in energy costs, and to consider the special circumstances of residents in such areas as they relate to the already excessive costs of transportation and being able to maintain an adequate and equitable standard of living.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Earlier this week a riot broke out in the Matsqui institution at Abbotsford, British Columbia, during which over 50 per cent of the medium security complex was destroyed by fire. Reports indicate that 200 members of the RCMP, 20 Matsqui police officers, and over 150 troops from Canadian Forces Base, Chilliwack, were called into action to restore order.
Because of the challenge to authority and the wanton destruction of facilities built by taxpayers' money, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), the following motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That the Solicitor General assure the public that those responsible for this act of destruction will be held accountable, and suitable penalties be imposed, including the withholding of pay, the use of the prison population in the rebuilding of the facilities, and any other procedures available to lessen the financial burden on the Canadian taxpayers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPPING
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canadian shipping industry was shocked to learn that the government is again considering a further increase in Seaway tolls, tolls that have increased by over 100 per cent since 1978, and on an industry now subject to world prices for bunker fuel oil while other modes of transport engaged in international trade enjoy the benefit of a heavily subsidized domestic oil price. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport that Canadians want to maintain a viable Canadian shipping industry and that the minister make a clear unequivocal statement that no increase in St. Lawrence Seaway tolls is contemplated in the foreseeable future.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 4, 1981


ALBERTA CUTBACKS IN OIL PRODUCTION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the defeat by the Canadian people in the 1980 election campaign of the heartless Crosbie budget which proposed, among other things, a callous 18-cent per gallon tax on the price of gasoline and an acceptance of 85 per cent of world oil prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder):
That this House applaud the compassionate and reasonable responses now being made by the government in response to the Conservative plan to divide this country by supporting Premier Lougheed's dictatorial oil cutbacks.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I too rise on an urgent matter. Whereas on October 16, 1979, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the then leader of the opposition, spoke out against increased tanker traffic on the west coast of Canada, and that on October 17, 1979, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the then prime minister, also opposed such tanker traffic, and that on October 23, 1979, the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) asked, this as reported at page 494 of Hansard:
Is the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs now prepared to tell us that under no circumstances will the government consider, support or recommend a proposal that involves tanker traffic on the west coast of Canada?
-and whereas the government and opposition in British Columbia are also opposed to such a plan, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House of Commons recommend that the government reject the decision by the National Energy Board favouring a TransMountain pipeline from a west coast oil port delivering American oil to Americans at the risk of the beautiful and environmentally sensitive British Columbia coast.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Amax Canada Ltd. has decided to reopen its mine on the north coast of British Columbia despite the fact the company was alleged by Canadian environmental officers to be exceeding allowable limits on the dumping of tailings into the Alice Arm inlet in that province. Since the controversy continues as to whether Amax is actually harming the delicate ecology at Alice Arm, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House urges the Minister of the Environment-not the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but, rather, the Minister of the Environment-to launch immediately a full scale independent public inquiry into all facets of the issue.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


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 heartless Minister of Finance. The Bank of Canada bank rate has gone to 19.10 per cent, the highest in our history, a heartless rate. Gasoline prices in St. John's Newfoundland are up 64 cents a gallon since the minister took over this office. Heating fuel prices are up 43 cents a gallon, over a 50 per cent increase since the heartless minister took office. Yesterday in the supplementary estimates the petroleum compensation tax went up $2,143 million. The minister is going to take $4.8 billion from the consumers of Canada this year through the petroleum compensation charge.
Are not your interest rates and the gasoline and heating oil increases enough? Is it not time to give lower income Canadians a break? Will the government now consider reducing the petroleum compensation charge and the other new tax that has just increased gasoline nine cents a gallon this week?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has brought into his question a large number of comments and allegations which, if dealt with, would take most of the question period. I would tell the hon. member that even though

June 4, 1981
Oral Questions
there have been increases in the price of gasoline, Canadians, because of policies followed by this government, are paying the lowest price for gasoline of any industrialized country in the world.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, for my supplementary I would like to pass on to something simpler for the minister to grasp. The minister's colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, said on May 15 that he would introduce legislation to tax away the excess profits of the Canadian banks and that young farmers should not be forced to pay 22 per cent interest rates.
The government has its own bank, the Federal Business Development Bank, wholly owned by the government. It exists to promote the establishment and development of business in Canada, particularly small business. That bank is today charging from 20 per cent to 23 per cent interest rates on its loans. This is the government's own bank, not some bank that is a figment of the minister's imagination. Will the government instruct its own bank to carry out the Minister of Agriculture's policy, or does the Minister of Finance admit that his colleague is talking completely through his little green hat and trying to fool the farmers of Canada in what he says?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is asking. He said he would ask something that would be simple. If he is asking me to subsidize interest rates charged by the well functioning Federal Business Development Bank, then that is a proposal that runs totally counter to the prescriptions which he offers in every speech, that I should restrain government expenditures and reduce the deficit. I knew there was a conflict between the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for St. John's West on their financial policy, but now there is a conflict within the breast and the full heart of the hon. member for St. John's West-the bleeding heart.


USE OF BANK'S PROFITS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am not asking the minister a question about my views, nor about my prescriptions, but about the policy of his colleague, that heartless hippo who sits farther down from him who appears to have the heaves about interest rates. 1 have a letter from a small businessman in British Columbia who had a loan from the minister's bank at 14.5 per cent interest on December 2. It is now at 22.25 per cent. He is a small businessman.
The government owns its own bank. Will the government order its own bank to pass over any profits it has to its consumers in the small business and farming communities, so as not to have excess profits and to reduce its rates, giving a
good example to the commercial banks of Canada about which his colleague is complaining, and bad mouthing, while the government goes on exhibiting the same practices as those very same commercial banks? That is what I am asking this minister.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member failed to do his homework before asking such a question. He should know that not only has the Federal Business Development Bank not earned any profits in 1979-80, but that it actually lost around $38 million. So the bank's losses could be passed on to small businesses, as the hon. member suggests, but that is not what we saw fit to do. During the 1980-81 fiscal year, the bank granted over $500 million in loans to more than 48,000 Canadian businessmen, and furthermore the bank experienced some losses because it got more involved in the financing of venture and working capital.
So I think the bank fulfilled its mandate rather than implement the hon. member's wild imaginings.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The bank rate today is 19.1 per cent, which is outrageous. Is the Minister of Finance aware that his colleague, that other minister of finance, the Minister of Agriculture, is forecasting an interest rate of some 30 per cent? The Minister of Agriculture forecast a 30 per cent interest rate in terms of the government's forecasting, as reported at page 10129 of Hansard for June 1. He said in part: "even though interest charges are forecast to go up to 30 per cent".
Is this the latest government forecast? Is this what the government is looking at in terms of the peaking of interest rates at the present time-a 30 per cent Canadian interest rate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture actually gave his speech I have not read it to refresh my memory, but quite apart from the interpretation the hon. member may put upon the speech, there is no forecast by the government that interest rates will rise to any particular level. As the hon. member knows, forecasting is one of the most popular businesses in the country. It is engaged in by hon. members of all parties. I have no objection if any individual wishes to make forecasts, but that does not constitute a forecast from the government.
June 4, 1981


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, it appears that what the Minister of Agriculture needs is not a big green cowboy hat but a big green muzzle to keep him quiet.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 1, in a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen once again that other economic minister, the Minister of Agriculture, stated, and I quote:
I am also considering changing the lending policy of the Farm Credit Corporation by instituting a moratorium for three years on payments of interest and principal on corporation loans.
Can the Minister of Finance confirm whether this is government policy? It was in the newspaper under the name of the Minister of Agriculture in a letter to the editor. If this is government policy-and obviously it would be welcomed by the agricultural community-could the Minister of Finance indicate when this change may take place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if I understand the quotation read by the hon. member correctly, it said that the Minister of Agriculture was considering such proposals. That is fine. When they become government policy, they will be announced in the House.


Mr. Clark:: By Marc Lalonde.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am delighted that the Minister of Agriculture is discharging his responsibilities and taking, as he always does, a sensitive attitude toward the problems of farmers. I doubt if there is any farmer in the country who would share the rather insulting description given of the Minister of Agriculture by the hon. member for St. John's West earlier in the Question Period.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Provincial housing ministers stated the following this week after a two-day meeting with the minister:
Mr. Cosgrove failed to make any commitment with regard to the future role that the federal government would play in resolving the serious housing problems facing Canadians today.
Since the minister has stated for many months that this was to be a major decision-making meeting to do something about affordability and about housing problems in Canada, will the minister report to the House today on what proposals he took to that meeting as the senior minister who is responsible for housing solutions in Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately the release which the hon. member has referred to was issued by the ministers prior to the completion of the conference, and I think that, for example, they had not had time to consider, in concert with CMHC officials and myself, such issues as the year for the handicapped when, with a number of housing officials, we agreed upon a number of specific steps that the federal government, together with the provincial governments, municipalities and some private agencies in this country, will be taking toward addressing such problems as those of the handicapped. I use that as one example, but there are many others. I suspect that is why we saw five of the ministers join together and observe Question Period when the conference ended.


ACTION TO CONTROL MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I asked the minister what proposals he took to these meetings to solve Canada's housing problems, and I assume his answer means he took none. The provincial housing ministers condemned the federal government because it is not taking any action against the amoral interest rates, particularly mortgage interest rates, which are up again today, and they also indicated they would welcome the creation of a fund through Canadian banks that would reduce the cost of mortgages and hold mortgage rates at a set amount. I therefore ask the minister will he take this matter to the cabinet and aggressively push for controlled mortgage interest rates?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the hon. member does not give the source for the assumptions in her last question. I think 1 should take the opportunity of advising her and other members of the House that, on the contrary, the provincial ministers did express an appreciation for the initiatives of the federal government. For example, introducing the MURB provisions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: -for example, in introducing 5,000 social housing starts last year, and in supporting increases through the rehabilitation program. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, these programs they felt perhaps were not adequate, notwithstanding the increase in housing starts last month at an annual rate of more than 200,000. However, I asked them, what programs, what initiatives, what things are you as provinces going to do in response to the initiatives of the federal government?


An hon. Member:: And there were none.


REQUEST THAT MORTGAGE RATES BE PEGGED
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance. Contrary to what the Minister of Public Works has just told the House, housing starts in May are down dramatically and

June 4, 1981
Oral Questions
show signs of continuing deterioration. In light of that fact and that 1980 was a disastrous year for the housing industry, and in light of the fact that capacity in the housing industry has been hovering at 70 per cent for well over a year and a half, I ask the minister does he not think it is now time to peg mortgage rates and provide affordable housing for Canadians, and to separate mortgage rates from other interest rates to make sure that the Canadian people can have housing at an affordable rate, and that construction workers will have work in this industry which is so vital to Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about the housing industry being a disaster. That, of course, is quite untrue. Housing starts in Canada during the month of May totalled 208,000 at a seasonally adjusted annual rate. This does represent a decline from a record high level in April and is more a reaction from that April increase than it is to any weakness in the housing sector itself, because the performance is considerably better and has improved very substantially over the first five months of this year. I do not think the hon. member is entitled to describe the situation as a disaster.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance who continues to demonstrate his insensitive attitude toward all Canadians suffering from record high interest and mortgage rates. In view of the fact that the government watered down and limited the Small Business Development Bond program from the original proposal in the Crosbie budget, by not including unincorporated small businesses or the majority of farmers and fishermen, and by not including venture and working capital, and in view of the continuing increases in interest rates which are crippling this small business community, will the minister assure this House and the small business community at large that he will expand and extend and, indeed, improve the SBDB program as originally planned, in order to include all these sectors which suffer most from the government's lax and insensitive attitude toward interest rates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is rather easy for hon. members opposite to specialize, in a sense, among themselves in their questions. One group of members which the hon. member has joined is asking us every day to launch further expenditure programs. Another group of members, led by the hon. member for York-Peel, is asking us every day and in every speech to restrain expenditures and to reduce the deficit. That obvious conflict is why the Conservative party has absolutely no credibility in the field of economic policy or financial management in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member talks rather glibly about sensitivity. In my opinion the truly sensitive person is the one who is thinking of the long-term interests of the Canadian people, not short-term palliatives which are bound to worsen conditions in the long term.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNINCORPORATED BUSINESSES AND FARMERS
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, it is curious that the minister is not aware of the study which I have before me on the economic impact of the Small Business Development Bond program, commissioned by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, by Infometrica, a computer system. His department is the other department in the country which has it. I am sure if he took the care, he would find out that the study concludes:
-that the SBDB will produce a net revenue increase to the federal treasury of $77 million in the first year of full operation.
Therefore his last answer is just hogwash. There is no sensitivity on the part of the government at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a question?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, now that I have given the minister the facts of that program, I should like to ask him whether he thinks that the very survival of the small business community is more important than perhaps the purchase of Petrofina for $1.5 billion, which is really where government spending is taking place.


Mr. Paproski:: Answer it, Allan.


Otto John Jelinek: I am asking the minister now-and not the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism-whether, in view of this conclusion on the program, he will take immediate steps to include sectors of the small business economy such as farmers, fishermen and unincorporated businesses, in the Small Business Development Bond program?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from the opposition. Last week, as was reported in all Canadian newspapers, the Royal Bank announced that it was earmarking $500 million for the Small Business Development Bond program. RoyNat announced that it was setting aside $ 180 million for the bond. Now, Madam Speaker, if all chartered banks and financial institutions in the country are included, over $2 billion will be lent in the next 18 months
June 4, 1981

during which the program will be in effect, at approximately half the going interest rate, in order to help small businesses wishing to expand their operations.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On March 4, in reply to a question put by myself, the minister stated:
-regarding the uranium inquiry, this inquiry by the director is not completed. Obviously, when it has been completed, his findings will be made public.
When does the minister intend to make the inquiry public, as we have now learned, both from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, that the report is completed? We have had representations all the way from 1977 that this report would be made public. If the minister declines to make it public, how can we believe his statement of June 2 when, dealing with the Petrofina study, he stated:
It was alleged that the study made by my department will not be made public, but I can confirm to House that it will be.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to misinterpret what I said in this House last March. What I said in reply to a question was that the findings of the director of investigation would certainly be known and made public. This has been done since the document has been referred to the Department of Justice for review. I can therefore say that the findings of the director have certainly been made public. This is a known fact, as the hon. member is aware. The whole matter is now in the hands of the Department of Justice.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, that is absolutely fantastic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On March 4, the minister told us that the findings of the director would be made public. Now we are told that the conclusions have been made public in the sense that there has been a reference to the Minister of Justice.


Miss MacDonald:: Shame!


CABINET DOCUMENTS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my follow-up question is directed to the Prime Minister. It touches on certain representations which he has made concerning the inquiry, including the representation in 1977 that it would look into everything, including possible government illegalities.
Oral Questions
Also it is in reference to the statement made by the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs that all documents would be shown to the director, including cabinet documents.
Would the Prime Minister indicate whether all cabinet documents, including minutes and memoranda of cabinet, were shown to the director, or is what is now being represented true, that the Prime Minister secreted these documents and said that the director could not pursue them?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no recollection of any documents having been refused to the director of combines investigation. But I am very happy to take notice of the question. Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the answer; I do not.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are the hon. secreter.


PUBLICATION OF REPORT ON PURCHASE OF PETROFINA BY PETRO-CANADA
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has just said that his interpretation of publication of the findings of a report are that those findings will be passed to the Minister of Justice who can then keep them secret. That is his definition of publication in so far as the cartel inquiry is concerned.
Will the minister tell us whether that same definition of being published applies, in his judgment, to his commitment in the House to publish the report and the inquiry into the Petrofina matter? Will that also be published by passing it in secret to another minister who can keep it secret? Is that the extent of his engagement to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition were a bit more versed in law, he would know that two investigations were carried out by two different services in my department. The investigation concerning Petrofina was carried out by the Bureau of Corporate Affairs, and the procedure used is quite different from that available to the director of combines investigation. In the latter case, the director has the legal obligation-and if the Leader of the Opposition is not aware of this, I shall tell him-to do only one of three things. First, he can refer his investigation to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which was done in the case of the oil companies. Of course, the evidence that he collected was made public at the discretion of the president of the Commission.

June 4, 1981
Oral Questions
The second option of the director of investigation is to refer his file to the Department of Justice, which must review it and determine whether or not to press charges. If the department decides to take action, the file is, of course, made public. Otherwise, and this is the third option, the director must comment on the findings of the investigation in his annual report. Obviously, these findings are made public since the report of the director of combines investigation is tabled in the House.
Madam Speaker, I deeply regret that some members are trying to misrepresent my comments of March 4 last. If I may, I would like to quote from Hansard, on page 7878, when I replied to a question asked by the hon. member for York-Peel in these terms:
In relation to the second question of the hon. member regarding the uranium inquiry, this inquiry by the director is not completed. Obviously, when it has been completed, his findings will be made public.
And this is what has been done.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I, of course, would be the first to admit that I do not have the same experience with judges as the minister has had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


UNDERTAKING TO PUBLISH REPORTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister has given two clear commitments to this House of Commons and I quote, as he did, that "the findings will be made public." These were two clear commitments given to this House with regard to two investigations of great interest to Parliament and to Canadians, one having to do with the uranium cartel and the other having to do with the Petrofina matter. My question to the minister is simple. Will he give this House an undertaking now that those reports will ultimately, and soon, be made public to this Parliament, and be published in their totality so that the whole House of Commons and the entire Canadian public will be able to see the contents of those reports, will be able to know that elements of those reports have not been hidden by the Minister of Justice, or by anyone else, from public view?
The question is simple. We have had a commitment from the minister that he would publish those reports. Will the minister keep his word, or is he trying to find some way to hide from Parliament and the people of Canada the reports on the uranium cartel and the Petrofina purchase?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition does not have as much
experience as I have with judges because he was not able to complete his law studies. Of course, he will never have my experience in these matters. However, as concerns the two commitments I have made-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think we need some order.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it seems that members of the opposition do not know that their leader was no more successful in law than he was as prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: I made the commitment in the House that the report on the Petrofina case prepared by my officials would be made public, and I can assure once again the Leader of the Opposition that this will be done. As for the commitment concerning the uranium inquiry, I must remind the House of the comments that the hon. member for Yukon attempted to ascribe to me when he said, as reported on page 10009:
That is not what Ouellet said. Ouellet said it would be tabled.
I must point out that what was referred to the Department of Justice is a summary of evidence, and this was done under section 15 of the Combines Investigation Act. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition knows nothing about the law. I cannot blame him since he never managed to become a lawyer-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A recent report prepared by the federal government states that the Department of Indian Affairs is neglecting the needs of 14,000 Indian children in Manitoba. Considering that this is the second such report within a year-the other revealed the same results in Saskatchewan-will the minister inform the House what remedial action he plans to take at this time?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member may know, I am going to Manitoba tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I can only indicate that Manitoba receives a fair share of the total allocations in our budget relative to the number of Indians elsewhere in the
June 4, 1981

country. I do not know of a more fair way to deal with this situation than to make the money available to all Indians in Canada on an equal basis, which is precisely what we are doing.


FUNDS FOR EDUCATION
Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. In light of statements made by leaders of the Indian community and officials in the minister's department that the Indian education problem stems primarily from the lack of government funding, is the minister prepared to seek additional funds, instead of merely washing his hands of the matter, by transferring jurisdiction, along with the existing problem, to the Indian bands?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a report which has just come out. All directors of education in the department are meeting to consider the recommendations in that report. As soon as a study of the report has taken place, I will be pleased to indicate to the hon. member what action we will take.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. Veterans pension applications, new and appealed, are still not processed and finalized for as long as 62 months, as verified by the Legion. The United States department of veterans affairs takes from 60 to 90 days to finalize an application. What measures is the minister taking to correct this disgraceful situation in his department?
Hon J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member was present at meetings of the House committee on veterans affairs and I think the presidents and responsible officers of most of the agencies for our veterans and of the pension commission and all the others were present. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask these questions, and he had some answers, which were very good by the way, that most agencies were progressing and the cases to be heard were less and less as time goes by. I think he had all the answers as far as the agencies are concerned, that progress is being made and will be made in the future.
[DOT] (M50)


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN LEGISLATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, Madam Speaker, we received answers all right. The chairman of the pension commission told us that he is hamstrung. He cannot correct a situation that is going from bad to worse because of
Oral Questions
the legislation with which he has to work. I should like to ask the minister if he will give a firm commitment to the House that he will bring in corrective legislation so that these applications can be processed within 90 days, instead of from one to five years. I want to point out that the mortality rate among veterans waiting for applications to be processed is exceedingly high and is a national disgrace.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the question that he has submitted in this House will be discussed with the president of the pension commission, and if any correction can be made in order to improve the disposal of these claims, it will be made. We will do our utmost to improve the system, if it is possible at all, according to the law.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The minister's colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has been making a number of speeches across the country in which he has quite rightly said that if the farmers are to be able to continue to do the excellent job they do for this country, they must have far lower interest rates available to them. In order to accomplish that, he has urged very strongly that his colleague, the Minister of Finance, make the Small Business Development Bond available to unincorporated farmers-that is the vast majority of all Canadian farmers-to enable them to do their job at a cost they can bear. As a result of those recommendations from his colleague, does the Minister of Finance intend to act on that suggestion and, if so, when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I answered a similar question just recently to the effect that when the decision is made about either the extension or widening of the application of the Small Business Development Bond, I would obviously be making it known in the House. No such decision has been made. I want to assure the hon. member that I had discussions yesterday and will continue to have discussions with the Minister of Agriculture with respect to what possible way we can move to assist the farmers of Canada meet the current situation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Resign. That is the best way.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You did that.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what you should do. If you care about the country, get out and give it a chance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Go to South Africa.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you go skiing again?

June 4, 1981
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I know that the minister has been saying for quite some time that he is considering the matter and will make a statement soon. This has been going on and on. We wonder if he is trying to write a new meaning into the word eternity. I tell him that farmers all over the country are going out of business day by day. They cannot stand operating with all these very high interest rates. Would he give an answer on this most important matter no later than next week? Would he please assure the House that he will do that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has talked about eternity. He seems to have enjoyed a good deal of electoral eternity in the House of Commons.
There are real problems in extending the Small Business Development Bond to unincorporated businesses and farmers. It is not just through ill will or a refusal to consider the problem. It would include a large number of farmers. I am sure that if these proposals were sound on their face, they would have been adopted by the former minister of finance when he constructed the Small Business Development Bond and excluded the groups which the hon. member now recommends to me. Obviously there are good reasons for the decision taken then, which still prevail.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I also wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. One year ago Canadian inshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada received 25 cents per pound for haddock and 22 cents per pound for codfish. Today they are offered 17 cents per pound for haddock and 16 cents per pound for cod. In view of the fact that the federal government, through taxes, has raised the price of gasoline by 60 cents per gallon within the past year, including the 9 cents yesterday, which is the highest single increase in any one day in the history of Canada, at a time when the price received by our primary producers has dropped by 33 per cent, what action is the minister planning to take, if any, to help the fishermen survive?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I must say that I find it interesting, if not curious, that hon. members from the opposition should get up and draw to our attention the increases in energy prices that have taken place. They have taken place, but what we have been telling the country, and what I repeat today, is that the energy price increases which have taken place under this government are considerably less than those-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The fishermen would have been exempt.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -than those that have taken place under the present government. I refer to the recent meeting of the Conservative party in February, and to their official resolution in which they said that the PC party believes that Canada should move quickly toward 75 per cent of the world price for oil and gas.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are there now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The world price for oil and gas now is $43. Can you tell the fishermen how you would apply that, and meet the lesser prices which were announced and are in vogue at the present time? I categorize the opposition position as rather hypocritical. It will not fool the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Two decades of the rosary for that, Allan!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the minister. The inshore fishermen in some parts of Nova Scotia, for the information of the minister, have been tied up for the past two weeks simply because it is uneconomical for them to continue fishing, and now this government has rammed its knee in their necks with the twelfth consecutive raise in the price of gasoline since 1980.
Let me ask the minister if he would stop being righteously indignant. Instead I should like to know what action he is planning to take-


Charles Joseph Clark: None.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -to help fishermen lower fuel and operating costs at least to the level of his promises during the last campaign-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is pretty low.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -so that the fleets will no longer be tied up beyond the fortnight they have been at the docks already and can contemplate returning to sea, and so that the unemployed shore workers can contemplate returning to their employment?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Exempt them, as we would.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what we did.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks what we intend to do to help the inshore fishermen and all the consumers of energy in the country. My answer is the answer that was given yesterday-that we intend to pursue a policy that will be less burdensome, that will impose lesser price
June 4, 1981

increases on the consumers of Canada than the budget which the hon. member supported unsuccessfully in December, 1979.

[ Translation]


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment. Recently his department published a report indicating the regional distribution of federal subsidies for research and development. The published statistics clearly show that Quebec comes last on a per capita basis in the granting of those subsidies. Thus Ontario receives a yearly amount per capita of $86 while Quebec receives a measly $36. This is my question: is the government contemplating a catch-up plan in order to remedy this unfair situation not only for Quebec but also for some other areas of Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, it is true that there are several factors governing the payment of subsidies made under the authority of the National Science Engineering Research Council or under the National Research Council. It is not merely a question of population, but the number of researchers and universities carrying out graduate studies, and several other factors are also taken into account. However, we are considering the problems raised by the hon. member and we are devising plans with a view to extending and correcting the few disparities which he pointed out in his question.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO DECENTRALIZE CERTAIN RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of Quebec's special cultural make-up, will the federal government further decentralize some of its research bodies, such as the National Research Council of Canada, to make it possible for Quebec's scientists to work in an environment which is more congenial to them and more attuned to the priorities of that province in the areas of small business and its traditional industries such as the textile industry?


John (Moody) Roberts: If I understand the question correctly, Madam Speaker, I have already mentioned the case of the National Research Council. There are several statistical data related to various criteria. As I said, we are currently rethinking our policy to ascertain whether there
Oral Questions
are ways to correct the imbalance which some of the figures we have been quoted seem to indicate.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, could you do me the favour of directing a question to the Solicitor General? Members, other than when they ask for you seem to get very little response today.
Using terms such double-cross, shafting, bad faith, breach of trust, and God knows-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might help the whole process if he proceeded with his question.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am, Madam Speaker. I have asked you to intercede for me. I undertand that is your role.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: The RCMP officers across this nation are desperately upset over what they consider to be reneging on a clear undertaking by the Treasury Board last fall to make pay increases this year retroactive to January 1, 1981. Might I ask the Solicitor General, or ask you to ask him, why it is that he allowed Treasury Board and his colleagues to put himself in a position where the RCMP must talk tough and talk unionization in order to get from government fair and just treatment?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, since the pay raise was announced I have been in four provinces speaking to members of the RCMP about the matter. I know there is some dissatisfaction. I appeared before the Treasury Board on the matter but we did not get everything we wanted. Frankly, nobody gets everything they want. I can report, however, that the increase we are to pay is a good one in the sense that it is in line with other pays now being set by the Treasury Board.
I also remind hon. members of the House, that, in general, police pay has increased more quickly than the national average across Canada. That is not only true for the present but going back at least 15 years. Members of police forces are doing better and the RCMP is doing better than at any time in the past in relation to what other Canadians are making.
I have also heard rumours about the possibility of witholding services and so on-


John Carnell Crosbie: God help the Prime Minister if that happens.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -but I put very little stock in them. The RCMP has never failed to serve the Canadian people. It has never held back its services from the Canadian people, even at a time when its salary level was far lower than it is today in

June 4, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Chretien
relation to the salaries of other Canadians. Therefore, I do not think that members of the House or the Canadian population ought to be alarmed about reaction from some members of the force, or from some journalists or members of Parliament.


CONTINGENCY PLANS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Solicitor General. I just remind him that there was a one-hour walkout in Montreal yesterday, that there are widespread reports of so-called "blue flu", and that RCMP officers from one end of the country to another are shutting off their radios. What steps and contingency plans does the minister have in place to guarantee and assure Canadians, such as those living in Halifax, which have been ravaged and rampaged by idiots over the last three or four days because of a police strike, that in fact emergency police services will be available?
Can the minister categorically assure the Prime Minister that when representatives of the summit nations will be here in July, the level of police and security required for such a visit will be in place?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the pay package which the RCMP received includes a 12.2 per cent increase, and other benefits which amount to an additional few percentage points on top of the 12.2 per cent. Therefore I think it was a good pay increase in that sense, although it was not everything the RCMP wanted. However, I do not think consideration of withholding services is justified. The RCMP have always been counted on by the Canadian people and, in my opinion, they still can be.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier in the question period the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said that the report on the uranium cartel had been referred to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in order to hide it. I think my privileges have been affected very seriously. When the director of the combines investigation branch concludes that there might be a prosecution involved, under Section 15 of the Combines Investigation Act he must refer the file to the Attorney General of Canada whose decision it is whether or not a prosecution should ensue.
I would like to say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that I intend to carry out my responsibility. This file was not referred to me by the minister but by the director. In addition, in every case it is important that the
law of the land is respected and not played with by the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I intend to look into the file to decide whether or not prosecution should ensue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is very important for the public to understand that it is the duty of the Attorney General of Canada to decide those things.


Mr. Kilgour:: Why do you not make it public?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A few months ago there was an investigation, a report-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is obvious to members that the hon. minister is continuing a debate which began in Question Period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The minister does not have a question of privilege. There is a divergence of opinion about how these matters ought to have been concluded. If the hon. member wants to make further points, he could do so at times when that is allowed in the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Outside. Go out in the hall.


Madam Speaker:: Certainly the minister does not have a question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Presenting Reports.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. minister to co-operate with the Chair. I have ruled that he does not have a question of privilege. He has made a point but it does not constitute a question of privilege, and I am afraid I cannot hear him any longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Big Daddy is coming. What is your question of privilege?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was at the
June 4, 1981

point where I believe he was going to ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to withdraw the accusation.


An hon. Member:: So what?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker has ruled. The Speaker is just a nobody, right, Pierre?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid we will not be able to get through this particular part of the deliberations if hon. members do not co-operate and stop heckling. Otherwise we will not be able to determine who has a point of order and who has not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition clearly in this House imputed to the Minister of Justice the motive that he was going to hide information communicated to him in a way which was contrary to his duties as a Minister of Justice. I believe the Minister of Justice had a right to make this point to you, Madam Speaker. I submit that the Minister of Justice may have been a bit roundabout in making that point, but surely he has a right in this House to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that allegation, as I think he should.


Madam Speaker:: I would like everyone to know what is going on. The Minister of Justice did not have a question of privilege. The Prime Minister rose on a point of order. I listened to that point of order. There was no question of privilege. He obviously-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I did not finish, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: He obviously gave an explanation for some of his actions. That is usually accepted by the House. It seems that point has been made.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not abusing the rules of this House.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I won't give up.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The minister did not have the floor, but I distinctly heard what he said. I have interrupted other members in this chamber-


John Carnell Crosbie: You sure have.


Madam Speaker:: -even though they said they still needed time to make their question of privilege. As soon as the Chair finds there is no question of privilege, that it is a continuation of a debate or expressing a grievance of some kind, the Chair sometimes interrupts. That is what I have done in the case of the minister.
Business of the House


John Carnell Crosbie: Apologize.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Apologize.


Madam Speaker:: The treatment is no different, I hope. I like to be fair. I hope I have not treated the minister differently from other members.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Madam Speaker:: I have to tell the minister that he does not have a question of privilege. I listened to the Prime Minister's point of order. The point was made, the explanation was given, and the House usually accepts explanations given by members.


John Carnell Crosbie: Now you know how we feel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: A perfectly supportable decision, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are not supposed to comment on decisions by the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I will comment no further, Madam Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader the business he intends to call today and tomorrow. I understand it is his intention to designate two allotted days next week. If he could do that, I would be grateful. Also, could he indicate the government's intention with respect to the business for next week.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, tomorrow we will be resuming debate on the second reading stage of three bills, hopefully. The first is Bill C-58, the Canada Elections Act, then Bill C-12, the Bankruptcy Act, followed by S-6, the Two-Price Wheat Act.

Monday and Thursday of next week will be two opposition days. On Tuesday and Wednesday we will continue the debate on Bill C-57 to amend the Excise Tax Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether the promised legislation in the name of the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs has yet had cabinet approval and whether it will soon be on the order paper. I refer to legislation to correct certain omissions in last summer's Bill C-40 having to do with the widows of disabled veterans and

June 4, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Chretien
possible legislation respecting the War Veterans Allowance Act.
As a second question, may I ask the minister whether he has yet found a way to get Bill C-53 referred, after a short debate, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That bill has to do with sexual harassment.
As a third question, may I ask the minister if he is yet prepared to take the House into his confidence as to what his plans are about proroguing this session and starting a new one. It used to be when I was a lot younger that a session did not go beyond a year. This one has gone well beyond that. We are now into our 204th sitting day. In view of the fact that it might be good for the general atmosphere of the House if we had a new Speech from the Throne and a new start, I wonder if the minister could give us a response to this question.


Yvon Pinard: There are three questions, Madam Speaker. To the first question the answer is: not yet. To the second question: it all depends on the progress we make on other bills. To the third question: it is still too early to answer.


POINT OF ORDER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to gain some knowledge of the Standing Orders of the House. A few weeks ago members opposite spent several half-hours debating whether or not the clocks in the House were in working order. That lasted days and days. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has made a very serious accusation, yet I am discharging my responsibilities as Minister of Justice when I receive a report from the investigation director asking me to check the files to see whether or not there is a case for court action, and the Leader of the Opposition states that by acting-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If I ask hon. members not to comment on my rulings, it is obvious that I cannot do so myself. Each time other members rose on questions of privilege, whether these had to do with clocks or something else, I did what I had to do under the circumstances and the way I handled the question raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is not at all different from the way I acted with members of the opposition.
What the minister is now attempting to do, and what others do until I interrupt them, is to turn a question of privilege into a point of order, something which of course I cannot accept. Besides, the minister is in a very difficult situation because he cannot comment on that point of order without referring to the question on which I have ruled already. On several occasions the minister gave explanations to the House concerning his conduct. His explanations were accepted by the House until
further notice. Should another opportunity arise, I am confident that when other questions are put to the minister he will give to the House whatever explanations he may want to give, but he may not do so at this time.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, often in the past when the Chair ruled against a question of privilege based on the criteria established in practice and in the Standing Orders, a member could still rise on a point of order. So it is in this manner that I rise now on a point of order, which is not the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) which you rejected, because points of order can be raised by any member of this House. Now it is strictly forbidden, according to the rules, to make allegations about a member, and it is clear that during question period the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) accused the Minister of Justice and made allegations by saying that he was not doing his job and was not taking his responsibilities seriously. That is clearly against the rules of this House. I am not raising a question of privilege, as you have already given your ruling on that, but I am rising, as an ordinary member, on a point of order to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his very serious allegations about the Minister of Justice, if he has the courage to do so.
Madam Speaker, we are dealing with procedure, and it is indeed true that you have ruled against the question of privilege, perhaps before completely hearing out the Minister of Justice, but that was your ruling and I do not wish to go back on it. I will abide by your ruling and not comment on it. However, by rising on a point of order, I submit that it is the Chair's duty to ensure that no member of this House, whatever his title, be allowed to make allegations about anyone. In this case, the Leader of the Opposition is clearly at fault for having, during the Question Period, taken the opportunity to clearly, directly and unequivocally suggest that the Minister of Justice was not doing his job. I think that we cannot let that go by unchallenged and that is why I am rising on a point of order because 1 would like you to ask the Leader of the Opposition to have the courage to stand in his place and withdraw his accusations.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if there is any duty at all on a member, his first duty is not to attempt to do indirectly what would be wrong to do directly, and that is to question a ruling of the Chair. I must say I am rather surprised at my hon. friend moving in the direction he did, having regard to the skill and understanding he has of the rules.
The second thing is, it is incumbent upon every member of the House to address the House and the issues in a parliamentary way. If you examine the blues of the exchanges that took place you will find that the language used by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in the House was
June 4, 1981

absolutely parliamentary. It was not out of order; in fact, it was in order. This place is not any thing else but a place of debate where strong positions are taken on issues that are important. Of course, that must be done within the confines of appropriate parliamentary language. I do not believe that any unparliamentary language was used, and I am sure if it was the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to recognize it.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: On this particular point, Madam Speaker, the question is always a very difficult and narrow one. I think I have been able to detect during the exercise by the government House leader and others on the government side this question of attributing motives to members of the opposition, trying to silence them in that way. What I would suggest to the House leader is the difference is this, that if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said the Minister of Juctice (Mr. Chretien) would be failing in his duty if he failed to do something with a report, that would not be attributing a motive at all; that is, if he failed to do something having received a report. On the other hand, if I were to suggest that the intervention by the government House leader was an attempt to intimidate the Chair, then that would be a clear attribution of a motive to the government House leader.
I have used that example merely to establish the distinction in his mind, and I trust in the minds of my colleagues in the House. Unfortunately every time there seems to be criticism of the government side there is immediately this attempt to rise and say that members of the opposition are attributing motives. That is not the case. I would hold that there was no such thing on the part of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition at all, in any way. This is merely a misinterpretation of the rules by the government House leader to his advantage.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have not yet given the floor to the hon. minister. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) sought the floor before the Minister of Justice. I will hear him now. Afterwards I will hear the Minister of Justice if he still has something to add. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General.


André Ouellet: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) may have acted involuntarily-and that is where we will see whether he is a gentleman or not-but he very clearly imputed motives to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). Not only did he do that, but he also-voluntarily or not, it is for him to say, but I think it is important that he does if he has a minimum of seriousness and responsibility-stated, erroneously, that it was my duty to submit a report to the Minister of Justice, whereas it is very clear that that duty is not incumbent upon the Minister of
Point of Order-Mr. Chretien
Consumer and Corporate Affairs but solely upon the director of investigation. It was my officials who, pursuant to section 15, submitted the document to the Department of Justice. Therefore, I think that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition will at least have to be honest enough to admit that he was wrong and to withdraw the accusations he made against the Minister of Justice and, second, to withdraw as well the wrong impression he gave about me and my responsibilities.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but I thought the hon. Minister of Justice was not rising again. If he is, it is his turn to be heard and then I will hear the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not want to create a controversy, and it is very seldom I get up on a point of order, but on this point of order I would like to say that, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) said a moment ago, it might be an error made in the heat of debate by the Leader of the Opposition, who said the report had been transmitted to me by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs so it would be hidden. That is a very serious point, Madam Speaker, because the report had not been transmitted to me by the minister; it had been transmitted to me by the director.
I would like to take just a minute to explain for those who do not understand that law that my duty is to look into-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Don't make an ass of yourself.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. minister feels very strongly about the exchange that has been taking place in the House, but he must recognize that the Chair is also in difficulty because the Chair cannot allow the minister to comment or to continue with the explanations he has given and on which I ruled that he did not have a question of privilege. All I have done is rule that he did not have a question of privilege.
I will now hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette).


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in relation to the comments made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I think what is at issue here, and I am speaking strictly to the rules-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to be sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary is speaking to the rules. Is he speaking on the same point of order or is he introducing a new point of order?

June 4, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Chretien


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the point of order originated with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and it was followed by a comment by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I do not want to talk about the substance of the matter because I know you have ruled on the substance. But there is a clear difference in this House with regard to the rules relating to unparliamentary language, which is listed in Beauchesne-though not all unparliamentary words are listed there-and the imputation of motives. Citation 322 of Beauchesne clearly states:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers that a statement by a member respecting himself and particularly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
That is the key, and it is very easy to use very parliamentary language in the imputation of motives. But that is not what is at issue.
1 submit there is another reference to which Your Honour should turn, and that is 316(e) of Beauschesne, fifth edition, which clearly states:
Besides the prohibitions contained in S.O. 35, it has been sanctioned by usage that a member, while speaking, must not:
(e) impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged to a
member;-
I submit what was done this afternoon clearly contravened the practices of this House and in no way dealt with unparliamentary language.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am sure Your Honour will find that there is no point of order, as there was no question of privilege, but it might be useful, since several highly exercised ministers of the Crown have been engaged in this matter in their usual intemperate way, for me to review the record of what happened here today.
I should say that it is of more than passing interest to note the unease in the government benches having to do with the uranium cartel and whether the facts about that cartel will be made public or held secret. That is the matter which is of the deepest political interest and, I think, of interest to the country.
Let us review what happened. What happened was that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) said solemnly to this House of Commons that he would make public the findings of the inquiry into the uranium cartel. That is what he said; he put it on the record. He has today reinterpreted his statement to say that public means private.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is debating the question. That was the whole substance of what was discussed during the question period. The Leader of the Opposition is now debating. If he has other things to add respecting the particular point of order which was raised, I can hear him.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, all I have to add on the point of order is that I do not believe there is one.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that two things have been discussed. The Minister of Justice gave explanations about the procedure he was following respecting a certain report, and I ruled that there was no question of privilege.
Then a further point of order having to do with imputing motives was raised. At the time of the deliberations I did not have the feeling that motives had been imputed, but I do recognize that there is quite a lot of noise in the House and I sometimes do not hear all of what is said in the House. My impression was that the Leader of the Opposition was criticizing the actions of the minister and expressing an opinion about those actions of the minister, but that he had not imputed bad motives.
I can do two things with respect to this particular question. Conversation is rather rapid in the House. I was going to ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition if he thought he had imputed motives and, if he did, he might want to withdraw; but he has just now told the House that he has not imputed motives, and I am not in a position to contradict him at this point.
I will look at the records. If I find that motives have not been imputed-because my impression now is that motives have not been imputed-I will not come back to the House with this question. If I feel that motives have been imputed, I will then take the necessary actions to see that things are conducted in this House in a parliamentary way.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I am pleased to table the annual report of the Privacy Commissioner in both official languages.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 219, 799, 2,056, 2,141, 2,180, 2,470 and 2,508.
June 4, 1981


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Since 1970, by year and area, how many foreclosures or quit claims were received by CMHC following loan assistance under section 15 of the National Housing Act and, what was the total value of such claims?
2.	Since 1970, by year and area, how many foreclosures or quit claims were received by CMHC following loan and contribution assistance under sections 15.1 and 34.18 of the act and what was the total value of such claims?
3.	Since 1970, by year and area, how many foreclosures or quit claims were
Order Paper Questions
received by CMHC following loan and contribution assistance under sections 34.15, 58 and 59 of the act and what was the total value of such claims?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	See lists below.
2.	See lists below.
3.	See lists below. With respect to sections 58 and 59 of the NHA, contribution assistance did not apply to these CMHC direct lending programs.
Section 15, NHA Acquisition through Legal Action and Quit Claims
Total
Year	Nfld.	P.E.I. N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon	Loans	$0001970	Nil	Nil1971	1	1	3881972	1	5	6	5,9801973	18	18	21,6621974	11	1	12	13,5321975	1	14	15	18,1201976	10	1	1	12	19,1641977	2	1	12	3	18	43,4011978	1	1	27	5	34	43,1681979	1	1	6	1	1	1	11	17,996
Section 15.1 and 34.18 NHA Acquisitions through Legal Action and Quit Claims
Total
Year	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon	Loans	$0001970	Nil	Nil1971	Nil	Nil1972	Nil	Nil1973	Nil	Nil1974	Nil	Nil1975	Nil	Nil1976	Nil	Nil1977	1	1	2	1771978	7	8	1	1	17	9,7451979	2	6	3	1	12	7,290
Corporation Claims Paid-AHOP (Section 34.15 NHA)
Year	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.1970 to 1974 1975 1976	1	3	3	1	1 161977	13	7	11	341978	42	1	15	24	601979	176	2	27	49	136
Total
Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon	Loans	$000
						Nil	Nil
2	1	2	6	1145	1	3	33	71573	1	1	1	36	177	5,384242	6	6	2	249	647	20,227499	8	2	253	1 ,	1,153	35,599


Mr. de Jong: 1.	What is the present CHIP monitoring system and its objectives?
2.	What has the present monitoring system revealed?
3.	(a) Under what section of the Criminal Code will prosecutions be made (b) on what date (c) where will they occur?
4.	Is CMHC considering revising (a) the standards for insulation materials because of possible health and fire hazards (b) insulation practices to insure that no long term structural damage to homes occurs and that maximum energy savings are achieved?
5.	Will CHIP increase the number of inspections that it carries out?
6.	On what date will the public be informed of the problems with the program so that they can make their insulation decisions based on sound information?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	Under the present CHIP monitoring system, CMHC inspectors inspect units identified by CHIP in accordance with the following selection criteria: all grants in excess of $500, random selection of one grant in 20, all units where doubt exists as to eligibility or where fraud is suspected.
Monitoring inspections are visual only and are undertaken by CHIP to ensure that materials, for which a grant is being paid, are properly installed.
2.	The present monitoring system has revealed: cases of discrepancies between the amount of insulation installed and that claimed, cases of poor workmanship, in the majority of cases, the quantity of materials installed corresponds to that claimed.
3.	(a) Prosecutions will be made under Sections 338,
338(i) and 423(i)(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada, (b) and (c) Prosecutions are expected to

June 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions
take place in Hamilton and Toronto in the fall of 1981.
4.	(a) CMHC is continually revising the standards for insulation, primarily through the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), which are responsible for them. The health and fire aspects of the standards are also being studied by an interdepartmental committee. During 1981, changes will be made to the current materials acceptance program whereby a comprehensive evaluation report on the accepted materials will be produced and made available to the consumer.
(b) Changes in insulation practices are being made in two ways:
(i)	More information is being provided to consumers and insulation installers through workshops sponsored by industry associations, the National Research Council and others.
(ii)	Implementation of the CGSB certification program for insulation contractors should be in place by September 1, 1981. This program should help to ensure that good practices are followed.
5.	It is not proposed to increase the percentage of inspections being carried out.
6.	The public is immediately informed when changes occur. The publications, "Enersave" and "Keeping the Heat In", are available to the public upon request at no charge. In addition, the Enersave advisory service offers a free insulation analysis advising home owners on where and how to insulate and approximate costs. For more information about insulation, procedures, solutions and vapour barriers, the toll-free Enersave Heatline is available.


Mr. Herbert: Have there been any changes in assigned responsibilities for the surveillance of coastal waters since March 4, 1976 and, if so, what are they?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: No.
In so far as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is concerned: up to December 31, 1976, waters outside 12 miles on Canada's east coast were managed through the International Commission of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). Under the auspices of this commission, a joint scheme of international enforcement was established which enabled member countries to conduct surveillance and inspections of fishing vessels of all member nations which fished in the ICNAF area. Canada played a lead role in this scheme and in addition to ships of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans utilized ships and aircraft of Department of National Defence and Department of Transport. Waters inside 12 miles which
were not included in the ICNAF scheme were also patrolled but were under Canadian management.
On the west coast, there was limited foreign fishing activity outside 12 miles. The major countries were the U.S., Poland, Japan and the U.S.S.R. Management of the major U.S. and Canadian fisheries (halibut and salmon) were by international agreement through the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC). Bilateral agreements with Poland and the U.S.S.R. were in effect to avoid gear conflicts with Canadian salmon vessels fishing outside 12 miles. Waters inside 12 miles were patrolled by DFO ships. Surveillance outside 12 miles was conducted by both DFO and DND vessels.

As of January 1, 1977, with the declaration of the 200-mile limit, Canada took over management of fish stocks inside 200 nautical miles of baselines along her coasts. Foreign nations were permitted to continue to fish under licence in this new zone for stocks surplus to the needs of Canadian fishermen. Their fishing operations were then subject to Canadian regulations, licences and enforcement programs. Surveillance operations within the new zone were also brought under Canadian management and violations were handled in Canadian courts. Surveillance is conducted by DFO ships with assistance from the Department of National Defence as required and through interdepartmental arrangements. In addition, Canadian observers are frequently on board foreign fishing vessels.
In waters of the former ICNAF area which are not inside 200 miles the ICNAF scheme of joint enforcement is continuing under the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) which is a successor to ICNAF. Waters under NAFO management are mainly the Flemish Cap and the southern and eastern extremeties of the Grand Banks. On the west coast, agreements between Canada and the U.S. are ongoing to provide co-operative management and enforcement of the halibut and salmon fisheries; however, neither country conducts any fishing activities for these species in waters of the other country.
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: there has been no change in assigned responsibilities for the surveillance of coastal waters. However, the degree of support provided by the Canadian Forces to assist other government departments in carrying out their regulatory responsibilities, does change in accordance with circumstances.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: yes.
1976	Extension of the Eastern Canada Traffic System (ECAREG Canada) to the entire Arctic region (NORDREG Canada); NORDREG as yet is a voluntary system.
1977	Establishment of exclusive fishing zones as follows: zone 4-east coast of Canada, zone 5-west coast of Canada, zone 6-Arctic region.
The establishment of these zones designates major areas as exclusive Canadian fisheries zones and will allow Canada to asset jurisdiction over fisheries conservation and management in the area involved; and extends seaward Canada's responsi-
June 4, 1981

bility for pollution surveillance under Part XX of the Canada Shipping Act.
1979 Implementation of the Canada/U.S. co-operative Vessel Traffic Management Agreement for the Juan de Fuca region.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or any other department make available to any member of Parliament, a mailing list of industrial and commercial companies operating in the member's constituency or any other constituency and, if so, to which members?
2.	Are lists available to other members upon request and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. To the extent that such information is readily available, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce provides non-confidential information on firms (e.g., their products, services, addresses, etc.), in response to requests from the public. It is my understanding that the department services many requests for such information from
Order Paper Questions
members of Parliament as well as from persons and firms both inside and outside Canada, and federal and provincial government departments. Because of the nature of the information, and the frequency and volume of requests for this service, no formal record or list of recipients of the service is maintained.
2. The names, addresses of firms, their products/services and, at times, the name of a contact point, are all considered to be of a non-confidential nature and would be available to all members upon request (either orally or in writing), as they would be to all members of the public.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount was transferred to the provinces under the Fiscal equalization payments program, by year, for total payment and by province on a per capita
basis?
2.	What is the estimated per capita contribution for the year 1981-82?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1.	See lists below.
2.	The estimated per capita contributions for 1981-82, by province, are as follows: Newfoundland, $712; Prince Edward Island, $771; Nova Scotia, $569; New Brunswick $588; Quebec, $291 and Manitoba, $355.
Equalization Entitlements By Province, 1957-58 To 1980-81 (in thousands of dollars)
1957 Fiscal Arrangements	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Total1957-58	11,823	3,089	17,188	8,631	46,342	14,220	20,314	11,981	5,522	139,1101958-59	20,131	5,561	26,258	22,641	63,275	13,495	20,389	13,407	6,704	191,8611959-60	22,142	5,964	27,906	24,640	78,106	14,795	23,530	16,385	5,885	219,3531960-61	20,255	5,561	25,913	23,975	69,874	13,349	21,904	15,357	6,052	202,2401961-62	20,961	5,369	26,294	24,111	72,682	13,420	23,296	14,278	5,571	205,9821962 Fiscal Arrangements	1962-63	24,012	6,931	29,117	25,518	68,773	13,705	22,895	12,319	203,2701963-64	23,779	7,201	31,290	26,999	65,311	12,920	21,868	7,137	196,5051964-65	27,061	8,111	37,668	33,048	96,121	18,694	22,002	1,190	243,8951965-66	34,926	9,490	43,786	39,857	133,115	27,250	29,206	317,6301966-67	39,191	10,451	47,902	44,214	151,343	30,500	31,407	355,0081967 Fiscal Arrangements	1967-68	65,677	14,189	75,095	63,566	268,715	39,925	25,141	522,3081968-69	73,162	16,250	83,990	71,804	386,584	49,319	26,424	707,5331969-70	95,680	19,506	96,796	87,950	430,682	52,597	66,111	849,3221970-71	97,288	19,927	99,479	93,086	420,101	54,735	98,966	883,5821971-72	105,235	19,971	107,614	92,975	453,288	71,954	88,771	939,8081972 Fiscal Arrangements	1972-73	113,716	25,141	123,881	103,186	534,326	68,138	102,032	1,070,4201973-74	155,963	33,267	185,986	146,270	737,125	112,612	116,150	1,487,3731974-75	174,687	42,544	232,028	168,527	918,375	124,485	50,633	1,711,2791975-76	189,071	47,694	252,050	187,423	1,049,421	150,793	1,876,4521976-77	229,158	54,430	298,120	232,441	1,062,881	153,291	10,421	2,040,7421977 Fiscal Arrangements	1977-78	278,1 17	62,960	342,073	273,277	1,321,991	236,488	58,213	2,573,1191978-79	321,208	71,623	375,372	322,299	1,482,830	291,674	32,723	2,906,7291979-80 (5th Est.-Mar. 81)	347,870	80,889	422,722	312,463	1,682,755	348,573	76,026	3,271,2981980-81 (3rd Est.-Jan. 81)	376,426	88,026	449,088	378,686	1,720,824	342,626	40,195	3,395,871
The payments in this table consist of payments described in successive fiscal arrangements statutes as "equalization". They include transitional guarantees for Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta from 1962-63 to 1964-65 and for Saskatchewan in 1967-68 plus the Atlantic Provinces Adjustment Grants. The most notable of the guarantees is an amount of $14,268,000 paid to Saskatchewan in 1967-68. Payments
for the years 1967-68 to 1976-77 include amounts in respect of tax points abated for post-secondary education. Beginning with 1977-78 payments include amounts for the additional personal income tax transfer in respect of established program financing.
The amounts shown are equalization entitlements for the year shown at the left irrespective of when paid. All adjust-

June 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions
ment payments are therefore attributed to the year for which the revenues are equalized. The amounts shown for the years 1957-58 to 1978-79 are final. 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 are subject to adjustments.
While the payments are grouped by quinquennial arrangements, there were mid-period changes in (a) 1958-59 (when the Atlantic Provinces Adjustment Grants were started), (b) in
1964-65 when the standard of equalization was raised from national average to top two provinces but natural resources revenues were dropped as a positive element of equalization,
(c)	in 1973-74 when "school purpose taxes" were added and
(d)	in 1974-75 where equalization in respect of oil and gas revenues was modified so as to be applicable to all "basic" revenues from these sources plus one third of "additional" revenues.
Equalization Entitlements Per Capital By Province, 1957-58 to 1980-81 (Dollars)
Fiscal Year	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.1957 Arrangements 1957-58	28	31	25	151958-59	47	56	37	401959-60	50	59	39	421960-61	45	54	36	411961-62	46	51	36	401962 Arrangements 1962-63	51	65	39	421963-64	50	67	42	441964-65	56	74	50	541965-66	72	87	58	651966-67	79	96	63	721967 Arrangements 1967-68	132	130	99	1031968-69	145	148	110	1151969-70	186	176	125	1401970-71	188	181	127	1481971-72	202	179	136	1471972 Arrangements 1972-73	215	223	156	1611973-74	290	292	231	2261974-75	323	369	286	2581975-76	344	407	308	2821976-77	411	460	360	3431977 Arrangements 1977-78	493	524	410	3981978-79	565	587	446	4771979-80 (5th Est.-Mar. 81)	606	658	499	4461980-81 (3rd Est.-Jan. 81)	649	708	527	536


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence award a $132,853 contract to L.E. Minogue Consultants Ltd. for an assessment of modern steam versus second generation gas turbine plants for ship propulsion systems and, if so, what will be the practical application of the results of the study?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Department of Supply and Services placed a $132,853 contract on behalf of the Department of National Defence for an assessment of modern steam versus second generation gas turbine plants for ship propulsion systems. The study results will indicate the potential benefits of using each of modern steam plants and second generation gas turbine ship propulsion systems, concentrating on the potential saving in the areas of fuel, manpower associated with the powerplants and power-plant downtime.


Mr. McKinnon: Is the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce buying (a) a Boeing B757 simulator at a cost of $1,237,850 (b) a Boeing B767 simulator at a cost of

Eligible
Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Provinces10	16	23	10	4	1313	15	23	11	4	1716	17	26	13	4	1914	15	24	12	4	1714	15	25	11	3	1713	15	25	9	2212	14	23	5	2117	19	23	1	2623	28	31	3326	32	33	3746	41	26	5765	51	28	7272	54	69	8570	56	105	8975	73	96	9488	69	112	107121	113	128	148150	124	56	169170	149	201170	150	11	191211	230	62	246236	282	35	277268	338	79	311273	333	41	321
$1,237,850 (c) an Airbus A-310 simulator at a cost of $1,134,350 (d) an Airbus A-300 simulator at a cost of $997,616 and, if so, for what reason at this time?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: No. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not purchasing the simulators but is contributing 50 per cent of the non-recurring unrecovered development costs associated with the production of these simulators under the Defence Industry Productivity program.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 4, 1981



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 2, consideration of Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 1 and 3 (Mr. Blenkarn).
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, when I had to call it ten o'clock the other evening, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was busy doing a calculation for me. I am sorry he is not here today. I was asking the Minister of Agriculture if he was aware of the burden the increased tax on beer provided for in this bill would place on the producers of grains used in the brewing industry. I am doubly sorry that the minister is not here today. He has probably gone off with his green hat somewhere. However, he was making a calculation. He was making a conversion regarding the levy on hectolitres of absolute alcohol or at least I thought he was. No, that was where the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should be debating motions Nos. 1 and 3 of Bill C-57. These two motions would delete parts of clause 1(3). Will the hon. member please relate his remarks to the items before us for discussion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point or order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules are quite clear. At the amendment or report stage of a bill remarks must be relevant to the amendments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the debate has proceeded for four days on the basis laid out in my own speech at the beginning. There was a general debate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have the right to prescribe the rules of the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I am calling to the attention of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) that we are debating at this stage motion No. 1 at the report stage of this bill, and motion No. 3 is grouped with motion No. 1 for debate. I am asking the hon. member to observe to some degree the rule of relevance. There has been a number of days of debate at this stage, and I am calling the attention of the hon. member to the rules of the House.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my understanding that the debate in which I was engaged was dealing with the general matter of the bill. We had an
Excise Tax
amendment respecting another bill before us on which we voted just after the conclusion of my remarks the other evening. I was not brought to order on this matter of an assumed or on alleged irrelevancy on that occasion, and I find it difficult to understand why I should now be brought to order on this question of alleged irrelevancy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to bring the attention of hon. members of the House to the Standing Orders of the House. The Chair is the servant of the House, and it is up to hon. members to decide whether the rules are to be observed or not observed. In terms of the rules and regulations of the House, we have before us motion No. 1 and motion No. 3 at the report stage of this bill. Those two motions are grouped for debate, and there is an obligation on hon. members at this stage to observe relevancy with regard to the amendments before us which are embodied in the motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will ask Your Honour, then, if-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if you had been listening the first night, it was explained that, because there had been less than one half day's debate at second reading, the members of the House would have a wide-ranging opportunity to review the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the hon. member has spoken before. He has made his point. I have reviewed Hansard, There was no House order. There was nothing on the record which substantiates the hon. member's position, and under the circumstances the Chair has no other obligation but to call to the attention of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich the Standing Orders of the House.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that the Speaker and the Chair are the servants of the House. It would appear that we have two Speakers and two Chairs. Therefore, in the present circumstances, while reserving my right to intervene in the more specific debate on individual items having believed that I was still speaking on the general matter of the debate, I will, in response to the demands of the Chair, resume my seat.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to debate motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 1 by striking out lines 14 to 17 at page 2.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised, if I may say so, that we did not have the participation of the minister or parliamentary secretary with regard to the three days of debate we have had. There were certain points made, the minister intervened on a point of order to get our consent to put in an amended ways and means motion which, as we will see on clause 4, makes a fundamental and wide-sweeping change; but such is the performance that we are going to get.
In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that the minister would pay the House the courtesy of a reply to some of the points raised where there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the opposition and the government. The government has distinguished itself.

They were unexpectedly brilliant, since they remained absolutely silent.


Pierre Bussières: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) is rising on a point of order.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the comments of the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and I am quite surprised. I was going to make some general comments as hon. members opposite did during the afternoon. However, I listened carefully when you reminded the members of this House that they should deal specifically with the subject matter and the object of motions Nos. 1 and 3. Those motions Nos. 1 and 3 especially concern the tax on cosmetics. I could have said a few words on the subject and called on the members to reject the amendments because such was your interpretation of the Standing Orders. I thought it would be inappropriate and disrespectful to the Chair to make a speech answering the objections raised following your comments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This merely confirms my view that during the first three days, the debate was on the bill generally.

Now, this particular item is very narrow and deals with a definition of "manufacturer or producer". One of the major changes in this bill has been to introduce the concept of a marginal manufacturer and to bootleg into the Canadian tax structure a value added tax in the guise of an excise tax.

At page 2, paragraph (3), we find under subparagraph (e) an amended definition of manufacturer or producer:
(e) any person who sells gasoline, diesel fuel or aviation fuel, other than a
person who sells such goods exclusively and directly to consumers,
In this case, a person having bought wholesale quantities of fuel, diesel or gasoline puts them in small barrels to sell them to dealers. I think that my colleague, the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) will explain the situation of a petroleum products dealer in his riding who happens to be affected by this section of the bill.

Now, why are we getting this value added tax? We are starting out with this particular point because there is no way that one can accept in the definitions clause these various definitions of manufacturers or producers. If the minister is having difficulty locating it I will read from the original act as to who is a manufacturer or producer. I can read a half page of very close text but it simply says the assignee, the trustee of a legitimate manufacturer or producer, the user of a patent or other right to goods, departments of government and other public authorities, and sellers of cosmetics.
June 4, 1981

The first amendment in the bill deals with sellers of cosmetics. Strangely enough, the very first definition in Bill C-57 is that of "cosmetics". We are dealing now with the definition clause. A general debate was called for because of the limited debate beforehand. Now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty, the start. We are just lifting the corner of the box on the idea of marginal manufacturers.
The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and many others will show what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) is trying to do by establishing this category of person and what the effect of the tax will be. We can show the bottom line to the public because they are the ones who will pay it. Not only is it a value added tax in the case of some marginal manufacturers, but in the case of distributors of cosmetics there is a transfer of the manufacturers' excise tax to the wholesale level. This is a deviation from the principle of an excise tax at the manufacturers level. This is what we are supposed to have.
We will fight the indexing of the excise tax based upon the cost of living. Naturally this will save or eliminate the necessity of the Minister of Finance having to come to Parliament to obtain an increase in taxes or an increase in his revenues, simply by letting the percentage tax or the ad valorem tax accumulate and snowball.
The other night the minister responsible for financial institutions received the permission of the House to put in a different ways and means motion which changed the base period. It did not reduce the tax, but in essence it will raise perhaps as much as $25 million more by reason of the changes.
It is incumbent upon the House to realize fully what it is doing. I am satisfied that hon. members on the government side did not sit on the committee as parts of a floating goon squad, brought in from time to time to make a quorum. They sat there understanding and following the briefs, presentations and representations made by the public. They will realize that a fundamental change is being effected on the excise tax.
Part IV is a direct tax on revenue. In fact, part of it has already been declared illegal by the Alberta Court of Appeal. We will have more to say about that later on. In this particular amendment we are seeing a small corner of the box being lifted on the idea of marginal manufacturers and the application of the tax on those individuals. Since they have purchased goods on which they will not pay or be charged with excise tax, they will have to charge and obtain from their customers an excise tax based upon the increase in value because of the packaging or servicing of the commodity. This will be a value added tax.
I do not have any intention of going on at great length, but I hope some of my colleagues will deal with this particular point. We will come back to it as we deal with other amendments. We had an amendment to include diesel fuel in the bill. That has been left without amendment, but it is very instructive to see the amendment which follows that which we are trying to
Excise Tax
delete. According to clause 1(3), a manufacturer or producer shall be:
-any person who, by himself or through another person acting for him, assembles, blends, mixes, cuts to size, dilutes, bottles, packages, repackages or otherwise prepares goods for sale, other than a person who so prepares goods in a retail store for sale in that store exclusively and directly to consumers.
What about the Liquor Control Board of the province of Ontario which buys rum, sherry and other spirits in bulk quantities and bottles them? Are they to be marginal manufacturers? Since they are part of the government of Ontario, presumably they will fall under the rule established by the Alberta Court of Appeal, that one level of government cannot tax the activities of another level of government, in the case of gas owned, produced and distributed by the government of the province of Alberta or an agency thereof.
Also it would be very interesting to see whether the Government of Canada would dare to impose any tax on the Liquor Control Board of the province of Quebec, or La Regie des Alcools du Quebec, on its wine importing and bottle operations. One could speculate at length on the activities.
We will see just how far this will go. Will it apply to an importer of coffee or an importer of tea who imports in bulk and packages under a private label for one of the big chain stores or department stores? I am not too sure whether that kind of service will be included. They are goods which the importer has blended, mixed and packaged. Presumably those goods will be subject to another tax by the Government of Canada. Whether there is a limited value or a notch is not disclosed; at least, I have not been able to find it. But no doubt there will be excise tax bulletins-explanatory-which will have the force of law. Hon. members opposite will have no more participation in etablishing those details than I will, but we will suddenly find them in force like statutes. All too often we will find public servants, when one protests or begins to examine these provisions, saying, "Well, they were made by Parliament." That is nonsense. These interpretation bulletins, explanatory texts or excise tax bulletins are internal regulations made by the department itself. They have the force of law.
I am objecting to the concept of the marginal manufacturer being brought in under this act, not necessarily at his manufacturers level, but as I pointed out earlier, in so far as a distributor of cosmetics is concerned, at the wholesale level. I am opposed to this particular amendment to the act and would urge the House to support my friend from Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and myself in having this portion of the amending bill deleted.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would like to state again the general principle governing the changes in definition found in section 2 and that are the subject of several amendments, two of which have already been discussed, namely amendments 1 and 3 dealing with the definition of manufactured cosmetics. The

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax
amendment now under consideration and other forthcoming amendments deal with the processing of certain products to be found under the heading of "marginal manufacturers." The purpose of this change in definition is to ensure that all production operations will be included in the cost to which the so-called manufacturer's excise tax applies. So, by collecting all the so-called manufacturing costs, the inequities under the present system will be removed. Mr. Speaker, such is the purpose of this change in definition, and I urge all members anxious to correct these iniquities to support the provisions of this bill, namely the definitions contained in section 1 and to reject the proposed amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Blenkarn) negatived, on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to a decision of Madam Speaker, motions Nos. 4 and 5 are grouped together for debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 1 to 23 at page 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is what I would call the second highest summit in this particular bill, one which I think from the point of view of government represents the worst departure that we as members of Parliament could possibly contemplate in that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in proposing paragraph 6 on page 4 of Bill C-57, is asking Parliament to give him a blank cheque in perpetuity. He is asking that the excise tax on an alcoholic and tobacco subgroup be indexed on the basis of what was asked in the bill on a quarterly basis, which means that every quarter the government would examine the CPI and adjust the ad valorem tax of 9 per cent by the
amount of the quarterly CPI advance-and up would go the tax by that calculation. If the tax is 9 per cent and the CPI is x, you get 9 plus x. At the sixth month rest we would have the 9 per cent plus y, which is the difference between the third month and the sixth month, and there would be a calculation. The calculation would be 9 plus x times 9 plus y divided by four, so that the introduction of the quarterly CPI operated as a snowball.
Much as any one of us likes to receive compound interest on our savings accounts or on our government bonds, the government was receiving tax on a compound basis. There was great objection to this. The first people to object were the chairmen of the liquor boards of Canada. There were delegates from the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and one other province, if my memory serves me correctly, who indicated just what this measure would mean to the liquor boards across the country which, every three months, would have to recalculate the federal excise tax, as well as other changes with regard to the sale of wine, beer and spirits. The additional cost would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and would make their business very difficult. Such is the puritan ethic in this country that the government has the freedom to do anything it likes as long as it goes after alcohol. In other words, the end justifies the means. Of course, precisely the same steps were taken with regard to old demon tobacco.
It is not only the calculation of the tax based upon the CPI in the subgroup which is affected; that in turn is affected by the general CPI, by variations in the Canadian dollar, by conditions abroad where wines and spirits may be purchased, and by all sorts of influences that are beyond the control of distillers, brewers, vintners and the liquor commissions. I have some things to say about the practices of the liquor commissions too, Mr. Speaker, as I think they are highly objectionable.
If the House accepts the principle of this tax, then 1 can guarantee that, as sure as the sun rises in the eastern heavens tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will index tax in some other sector because it is so convenient. It is made to order for the bureaucracy and it is made to order for a minister of finance such as the one we have at the present time who does not like to face the House or to discuss the parlous state of the country's finances openly with members of the House.
We could find that the system will be applied to building materials or to educational materials. In the bill, schedule V deals with construction material and schedule IV deals with petroleum products. There is a culprit for that one, the provincial treasurer of Ontario, who in his last budget fixed the provincial tax on an ad valorem basis and a quarterly index.
If the price of gasoline goes up quickly in Ontario we know that we can thank the gentlemen who have devised this system so that they can shrug it off, as the Minister of Finance proposes to do. They can say that Parliament voted this formula and that it is beyond their control. This Parliament should be ashamed of itself for even considering it. Members
June 4, 1981

of the government should be ashamed of themselves if they support the minister in this.
The protests were loud and long when it was proposed to index the tax quarterly. Then the minister indicated, just the other night, that he would need a ways and means motion in order to change it because on the basis of representations made by the industry-I wonder which brewers and which distillers got to the government-it was decided that the indexing would be annual. Since an annual indexing would mean a reduction of the tax, I insisted that there was no need for a ways and means motion. The minister, however, insisted that there would be more revenue. When I was shown the proposal, I immediately saw the shell under which the bean lies! The base period has been changed in the amendment.
I should like to read to the House what has been said about this move by the Brewers Association of Canada which put a fair assessment on the effect of the amendment proposed by the minister the other night. The minister was modest-immeasurably so-when he said that this would yield about the same revenues. A letter of yesterday's date from the Brewers Association of Canada reads:
The annual increase in excise levies on beer will increase a further $1.6 million, an increase of 10 per cent from the $16.5 million originally proposed by the indexing provisions contained in the October, 1980, budget. The increase in excise levies on distilled spirits will be approximately $6.0 million, an increase of 17 per cent over the original increase of $36 million,-
We see that as a result of this little deal in the excise tax on beer and spirits distilled in Canada the government is going to get some $60 million. That is the value of the tax and we have not even gone into the wine area yet. The letter continues:
These increases arise not because of the change from quarterly to annual indexing, which would have resulted in a decrease in revenue, not an increase, but because of a change in the timing of the changes and the base for calculating the increases.
Tables are attached to show this. The letter goes on:
Had the point of indexing on an annual basis been set at October 1, rather than September 1 (still using the relationship of the Alcoholic Beverage Consumer Price Index for the year ended June 30, 1981, compared with that of June 30, 1980, for adjusting the excise rates), the inequity caused by the method chosen as outlined in the most recent amendment would not have been as great. From Exhibit C attached, it may be seen that the revenue from beer would be virtually the same as it would have been under the original Bill C-57. For spirits, the increase in revenue would still be higher, but probably only half as much as a September 1 date for annual indexing would cause.
Since the minister listened to industry once, perhaps he would listen a second time. It asks that the amendment put forward by the minister be amended to change the date of annual indexing from September 1 to October 1. This would diminish the tax. We must look after the Canadian public after all. Some Canadian beer and spirits are sold abroad but, strangely enough, the excise tax is not charged on spirits sold abroad. It is Canadians, and Canadians only, who have to pay the shot.
The minister will come back echoing the words of his colleagues in cabinet who say that the government needs the money. That is piffle. It is the minister's proposed spending
Excise Tax
programs which come out as "we need the money." The cart is before the horse, somewhat like an individual who might say "I am going to buy a $13,000 car. Now I have to earn a salary, and earn that much in order to pay for it." That is about the same logic. The average individual conducts his affairs on the basis of, say, a salary of $15,000 a year, that it costs him so much to live, and he can do this and that with it. In other words, you tailor your suit according to the cloth you have.
The government does not do that. The government and its bureaucrats lay out spending programs. Right now we are listening to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and other ministers proposing to spend money like it never was in style. Then the government turns around and says, "We need the money." What do you think it is going to do? The government is going out to raid and plunder the resources of the western provinces, as it is doing. It is doing this because it is strapped for money. The Liberals are the ones who brought in this petroleum products equalization program encouraging people to consume offshore petroleum at prices up to $43. In order to compensate for that, the government tells the people of Alberta that they will get $17.75 per barrel of oil. Oil is a disappearing, non-renewable resource. If there ever was an idiot's program, this is it. I will define it for you. It is the bread and circuses of emperor Trudeau for the mobs in central Canada, as was done in old Roman times. The Liberals' popularity is bought on the backs of the resources of the western provinces. The government would not dare do it on the resources of the central provinces. This philosophy leads the government to that end.
The government needed $3.5 billion this year to pay for subsidized offshore crude. Where does the government get that money? The government takes it from the hides of all Canadians because so much a gallon is being tacked on. But the government did not do that; it is part of the blended Canadian price. Then the government takes some more. Hon. members should look at how much the federal share has gone up. In this bill we see an 8 per cent tax on revenue from petroleum and natural gas. This is an illegal tax on natural gas owned by the province, says the appeal court of the province of Alberta. But this bill says nothing about that. It just asks us to go ahead and legislate in the face of that opinion.
There is no need for this insatiable appetite for money by the government, that every dollar earned must be taxed, that every service performed must be taxed. I have had national revenue officials write articles and tell me personally that every day I earn my salary there is a portion caught by the Income Tax Act, and at that moment I owe it to the Crown. In the government's mind, that is the subservience of the individual to the state. How totally wrong that is. It is the state which is the servant of the people. The individuals, whether corporate or personal, are not the servants of the state. Nor do they exist for the glorification of the state. Nor should they accept greater direction. We now see a strong central government. They say-

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax

-a planned economy worthy of Caesar, that is all it is. It is a type of state control with which socialists are rather more familiar, but they are interventionists and economic planners.

Those words sound so much better in French than they do in English!
That is why I ask my colleagues to help me oppose this pernicious tax. It is the principle of levying an indexed tax.
The government is interested in inflation. I see some members opposite shrugging their shoulders as though they do not know what is contained in the bill. So what, they say. Of course this government is interested in inflation. It would be far better for the government if inflation were at 100 per cent because government revenues would rise. The government could spend more and more money.


An hon. Member:: The minister would be happy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Pretty soon, as in the Weimar Republic, people would be taking home their week's pay in a wheelbarrow, losing 10 per cent on the way.
I find this reproachable, which is a mild term. I am disappointed. It is an abdication of the government's absolute duty to fight inflation. But what does the government do? It kneels down with inflation and says "Let's go along together, sweetheart." Why do I say this? Because the more inflation there is, the higher the revenues to the government. This government's philosophy is a total abdication of the government's responsibility.
This trend started in 1969. At that time the government began indexing old age pensions on a modest basis. Then the old sheer started cutting into the salami sausage. The increase was to be 2 per cent if the cost of living increase exceeded 4 per cent. The 2 per cent was the maximum. Public service pensions were fixed that way at that time as well. Then the figure of 7 per cent came in. It would be the amount of the annual increase for the OAS, GIS, war veterans, what have you. Cushions under everybody, public servant superannuates as well as the superannuates of the armed services, except they had limitations on age.
We have now reached the point where the OAS and GIS are indexed quarterly and war veterans disability pensions, POW compensation and other pensions from the government are indexed annually on the total amount of the CPI increase of the year before. Cushions. Yet we hear fatuous statements from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) such as that they have wrestled inflation to the ground. He would not know inflation if it stared him in the face!
This is their answer. This is the ultimate. This measure should never pass. If the federal government does it, the provinces will do it. Some of the provinces are already emulating the federal government. It does not make a bit of difference; that does not make it right. John Q. Public is not only
getting stomped on the neck but is getting his backside kicked doubly by this proposal.
As far as I am concerned, this shall not pass. Why do we get it at this time? Is this a ploy? Already we have seen some bargaining from quarterly indexing to annual indexing, which would have been a reduction. However, as I say, the bee moved under the shelves and they changed the base period, with the net result that the Canadian public will pay more in taxes. Why? So that the government can design more and bigger spending programs in the future.
I was looking over some schedules supplied to me in great detail by the Brewers Association. Presumably there will be some from the distillers as well as from the wine industry. The Ontario government is doing something to help develop the wine industry in its province. Strangely enough, we look upon our wine industry as part of a booze industry, as though there is something wrong with it. European countries, and in fact any country worth its salt, considers it a part of agriculture. I am sure some members opposite from the Niagara peninsula will say that their grape growers are as much a part of the agricultural industry as the orchard-the apple growers, peach growers, cherry growers and vegetable growers.
Ontario is trying to develop a credible wine industry, as is British Columbia. More power to them. There is nothing wrong with wine, taken in moderation. However, when a province takes artificial steps, as Ontario has done, by imposing a tariff on non-Ontario wines, I find that reprehensible. It is an open breach of the spirit of confederation. Having listened to the stuff that came from Queen's Park during the constitutional debate about the spirit of confederation, to my mind their remarks are pretty shallow. Our bucolic Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) should do some of the showboating he has done in other areas in the area of agriculture.
I next want to deal with the change in the tax on wines. I quote from the bill:
24. (1) There shall be imposed, levied and collected the following excise taxes:
(a)	a tax of sixty cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing not more than seven per cent of absolute alcohol by volume; and
(b)	a tax of one dollar and twenty-five cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing more than seven per cent of absolute alcohol by volume.
Further:
24. (1) There shall be imposed, levied and collected the following excise taxes:
(a)	a tax of thirteen and two-tenth cents per litre on wines of all kinds containing not more than seven per cent of absolute ethyl alcohol by volume; and
(b)	a tax of twenty-seven and five-tenth cents per litre on wines of all kinds containing more than seven per cent of absolute ethyl alcohol by volume.
In the original act, we see there is a tax of 25 cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing not more than 7 per cent of absolute alcohol by volume and a tax of 50 cents per gallon on wines of other kinds. This tax, goes up to $1.25. There is an increase of 150 per cent in the tax on wine stronger than 7 per cent. I am just wondering whether the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) will take part in the debate here regarding the brandy manufacturers and what is going to be done with all the domestic brandy manufactured from the
June 4, 1981

surplus grapes the government of Ontario bought in order to save the industry from an absolute glut two or three years ago.
Those are the things you see when you start examining this terrible bill. The people of Canada are being taken to the tax cleaners. We have only started; wait until we get it all. Even with educational tools and equipment this tax applies. You should read the words used, Mr. Speaker, because what you have been accustomed to considering as educational equipment need not now be so considered and therefore be subject to tax. All this turns on is the word "designed". These are the things one finds so objectionable in this particular bill.
Having said all these things on this question of the indexing of the excise tax, I plead with my colleagues in this House, particularly those on the government side, to pause and recognize the nefarious results of the acceptance of the principle contained at the top of page 4, subsection (6) of clause 1 of this bill. I certainly hope all hon. members of this House would unite and accept the amendment I have put forward on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Department of Employment and Immigration-(a) Promotion of officers serving at airports; (b) Difference in treatment of senior officers; the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-National Capital-Delay respecting Rideau Centre development project; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Employment-(a) Training agreements with industrial associations; (b) Need for co-operation with labour unions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a
Excise Tax
revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motion No. 4 (Mr. Blenkarn).
Bob Rae: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 1 by striking out lines 1 to 23 at page 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to follow the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) because he certainly covers the waterfront on these particular issues. What I want to do with regard to this amendment is to come back to some fundamental principles in relation to the taxes we are discussing in this bill.
It is important to remember that the taxes we are discussing today are excise or sales taxes, and federal excise tax has been a matter of some controversy when one reflects on events over the past couple of years. Excise taxes are by their very nature controversial because they are extremely visible and can also be extremely regressive.
I want to deal in particular with the tax on beer and the effect indexing that tax will have on the average Canadian consumer. We always approach this subject with some ambivalence, because part of the Canadian ethic, as has been described by many people, and most recently today by the hon. member for Edmonton West, is that our attitude to alcohol in our culture is an extremely ambivalent one. Overconsumption of alcohol causes tremendous problems for individuals who suffer from that problem, and it causes tremendous difficulties for the families, the people close and dear to the people who suffer from overconsumption of alcohol.
Still, the consumption of alcohol in our society now is not generally regarded as evil. It is something that is regarded as a form of pleasure; it is, I think in a society which has, thank goodness, become less puritanical than that of our predecessors, something we can engage in without shame.
I want to express my support for what the hon. member for Edmonton West said about the wine industry. It is extraordinary that in Canada we do not regard the wine industry as part and parcel of our agricultural industry, something that should be given far more encouragement by the government than is the case.
The consumer of beer, I think, would be shocked to hear that 45 per cent of the retail price of a bottle of beer goes to his federal and provincial governments in the form of taxes. This puts us very, very high in the international sweepstakes on beer taxation. Spain is the lowest with 6 per cent, West Germany has 20 per cent, the United States comes in at the same, 20 per cent, the United Kingdom comes in at 35 per cent, Canada is on the high side with 45 per cent, with the highest being Ireland at 53 per cent. One can see by comparison with a number of other countries that Canada already taxes its beer industry at a very high rate.

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax
1 am focusing on the beer industry because it is an industry that is particularly hard hit by this measure. I am not excluding the effect it has on the hard spirit or wine industries. Other members of my party will be focusing on the effect on the wine industry as this bill progresses, but I want to focus on the beer industry.
It is important to note a report submitted to the Department of Finance by a commodity tax review group in 1976. Quoting from this report, it states:
Beer is consumed by approximately 12 million persons in Canada each year who are predominantly in the lower and middle socioeconomic groups. Because excise taxes are regressive, it is these persons (particularly in lower income groups) who pay the greatest proportion of the taxes on beer. These are also the families who would benefit most favourably, financially, from a reduction in taxes on beer-in some instances more than from an elimination of the personal income tax.
It is that regressivity that I think we should put at the forefront of the question. If it can be shown, and I think it can, that excise taxes have a regressive effect as a form of taxation, and if it can be shown that these taxes fall more heavily on the working people and people who are earning less than $15,000 a year, then we have to ask ourselves why does the government decide that this particular form of excise tax on alcohol, beer, wine and spirits is going to be subject to indexation, an automatic increase regardless of the impact it has on the industry, regardless of the impact it has on consumption patterns, and regardless of the relative burden of taxation as between beer, wines and spirits?
There are really, I guess, two separate questions here which I would like to touch on. The first is the question of principle which was discussed at some length by the hon. member for Edmonton West, and that is the principle whether we should be indexing any of the excise taxes on alcohol at all, and whether the principle of indexation is one which we should endorse. The second is the impact of indexation on this particular industry. Does it really make sense at this particular time? It is with those two questions that I want to deal before the dinner hour.
The first question is the principle of indexation. At a time when the government is talking about the need to create an anti-inflationary psychology in the population and telling us that there is no quick fix but that we have to be determined to hunker down and to fight inflation in a real way, it seems to me ironic, to put it mildly-and I think in fact it is hypocritical, to describe it accurately-for the government then to turn around and say it is going to impose a system or notion of tax on this particular industry which is based on the phenomenon of inflation, which benefits from the phenomenon of inflation and which means that government revenues will automatically grow in response to inflation.
The government can say, and I have heard it said-it has been said in committee-that there is nothing wrong with indexation because we have accepted the principle of indexation, that it was proposed by the Conservative party, and so forth. It was accepted by the Liberal party, although now it is
starting to have some second or third thoughts about it if one listens to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). We have accepted the principle of indexation with respect to personal deductions involving personal income tax. But there is a very real difference, because that kind of indexation to increase deductions does two things. First, it guarantees that there is a limit on the revenue which the government can automatically receive from inflation, and at the same time it provides compensation to those Canadians who are suffering from the impact of inflation, the economic theory and the principle being that if Canadians receive some kind of tax relief, the chances are that by providing that kind of cushion all Canadians will not be forced to go to the private market in order to find their own private solutions to the very serious public problem of inflation.
So there really is no point comparing the principle of the indexation of personal deductions, which we accept, and the principle of indexation of the excise tax on alcohol, which has the opposite effect from that intended. The indexation of alcohol has the effect of increasing the price of the product in addition to whatever other increases in the cost of the product there are.
The cost of beer, wine or spirits can go up as a result of a number of factors. In the case of some industries it goes up because of the increase in the import cost due to the devaluation of the dollar or in the case of the beer industry it could be because of an increase in the cost of barley which is set by the Canadian Wheat Board. This is something we do not mind; we want the producers to get their fair price. Or it could increase because of labour costs or whatever other costs there are in the industry. But to add to those costs an automatic benefit to the government in response to inflation simply fuels inflation.
As I say, as far as revenue goes, when one looks at the whole range of the government's sources of revenue-and when we talk about public spending we are dealing with tens of billions of dollars-the revenue windfall to the government is not significant. What is significant, though, is that it is one of inflation's minor victories. It is a minor victory for the federal government in simply deciding it is going to get into the act and it is going to benefit from inflation, but the effect it will have on the consumer will be negative. It will simply increase the cost and will guarantee that costs will continually and perpetually be going up.
The second principle with which I want to deal is the other effect it has and the reason it is wrong. It is wrong because it takes away the discretionary ability of the government year in and year out to deal with the relative burden of taxation on any one of the industries in question. We know that in Canada the relative burden of taxation on the beer industry is high compared with the liquor industry, for a number of historic reasons. In other words, beer is taxed relatively more in relation to hard spirits in Canada than it is in most other countries. The figures are very clear. There are all sorts of factors. There are health factors. There are consumption factors. Employment questions are involved. All these consider-
June 4, 1981

ations should be dealt with on an annual basis by the government.
If the government is going to engage in a serious change- which I suggest to the minister indexation is-and if the government is going to lock in current taxation patterns, then surely to goodness the minister has an obligation to put before the House more information with respect to consumption and with respect to the relative effects on health of the consumption of beer versus the consumption of hard liquor. Surely to goodness the government has an obligation, if this is the kind of permanent regime in the taxation of alcohol that we will have, to conduct socioeconomic and health studies in order to justify this kind of change. The government has not done that. The government has simply introduced this tax for one very simple reason, and that is that it sees the Tory provinces doing it. The government sees that Quebec has done it. Just two weeks ago Frank Miller put in his budget the notion of an ad valorem tax and the notion of an automatic benefit to the province, so the federal government has said that in a world of sinners it will not be the only angel and will get into the act in order to guarantee it will get its share of the revenues as well.
What an illogical system! What an absurd justification for that kind of policy! What kind of impact will this have on the average consumer and on the industry? What study is being done by the federal government on the effect on consumption? What effect will there be on the health of the industry and on the health of the consumers of these products?
Before five o'clock I want to make one final point by saying that if the government is going to be introducing a commodity tax proposal before this House-as the Minister of Finance suggested in committee he would do-why introduce this year a change which has not really been studied, its impact has not been examined and the committee has not had an opportunity to look at all of the implications of moving to this system of indexation and making a significant change in our commodity taxes?
This matter has not really been examined by this House or by the committee. I say to the minister, put this measure off. We will debate it. We can keep on debating it. There is no need to introduce it this year. Let us carry on with the existing system. The government can increase the taxes of whatever industry it decides by two cents, a nickel or a dime. That is the way governments have always conducted their business. It is deplorable, but that is the way it is done. However, the government should not introduce such a major change respecting the taxation of commodities which are important to employment and providers of what I still think are innocent sources of pleasure for the Canadian public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the case that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) has completed his remarks?


Bob Rae: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have completed my remarks.
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case I have to determine whether the House is ready for the question. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two members on this side of the House who still want to speak to that particular clause.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Well, there is a difficulty; I am caught by the clock. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood indicates he has finished his remarks. I have put the question and I do not see another hon. member standing to contribute to the debate. Does the hon. member for Bow River wish to contribute to the debate?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I move adjournment of the debate.


An hon. Member:: Call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We cannot go both ways. I simply need to understand whether or not there are other members who wish to speak. If there are, I have to see them.
Does the hon. member for Bow River wish to rise and speak and be recognized on motions Nos. 4 and 5?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Has the hon. member spoken before on-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Not on those clauses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case I will recognize the hon. member for Bow River, which is to say that debate can go on.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the usual consultations have taken place, perhaps the Chair is aware of it, and rather than moving to private members' bills, there is some agreement, I gather, among the various elements of the House to move to public bills and consider Bill C-246, in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has no information whatsoever in that regard. If the minister indicates there is a House agreement, I would obviously look to the House leaders to indicate whether or not that is the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the bill respecting the Official Secrets Act?


An hon. Member:: Yes, it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what we agreed to.

June 4, 1981
Official Secrets Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think we will dispose of the matters ordinarily related to private members' hour at this point, and then 1 will move to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Official Secrets Act. I gather that is the nature of the agreement among the House leaders?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills. Does the House agree to stand all items under the heading notices of motions (papers)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading "Private Bills", the House will proceed to public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Items Nos. 18, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 43, 44 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River) moved: that Bill C-246, to amend the Official Secrets Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in taking this opportunity to speak on this bill, to amend the Official Secrets Act. I do not think it is any secret that although the bill bears my name it really is merely a carbon copy of a bill introduced many years ago by my predecessor, Mr. Gerald Baldwin, Q.C. I think he is well known as the father of information and the surgeon general of official secrets.
This bill was introduced by that distinguished parliamentarian in 1977, but that bill's lot was not as lucky as this one. It did not make the list of bills debated during that session of the Thirtieth Parliament. Today it has finally made it and here it is up for debate after many years. I see in fact that Mr. Baldwin has come here in order to see that the government members do not talk the bill out, and it is a pleasure to have him with us in the House today. I just hope I can do the justice to the subject that I know he would.
I say the bill is up for debate but I really do not think there is much room for debate. I believe it is worthy of speedy
passage and that tradition should be dealt a severe blow today and this private member's bill should not be talked out of existence. It should proceed through second reading and on into committee stage.
However, Mr. Speaker, I may be an optimist but I know that the government will not likely let it go. We would love to watch a member from the government benches get up and say: "We see no reason for this bill not to proceed. We feel it is in the best interests of the entire body politic." We would love to hear that and to read it tomorrow in Hansard. It would be a great pleasure to hear government spokesmen plead with us not to talk this bill into obscurity. I am a realist, however, and I doubt that will happen because the government in fact cares more about its own self-interests than the interests of the people. Government members care more about covering their behinds with official secrets acts than about giving the people of Canada the information that they have a right to see, a right which in fact should be heard.
I do not think Mr. Baldwin will be surprised when the government says, for one reason or another, that the bill cannot go forward. I will not be surprised, the party will not be surprised, in fact I doubt if any members on this side will be surprised if the bill is not sent forward by the government. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we would like to see the government surprise us and let Mr. Baldwin's bill go through.
In looking at the bill we can see that it is neither lengthy nor complicated. The subject matter has received a lot of attention over the years. In fact, it was mentioned by the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) recently as an area which needs revision. Perhaps that in fact will be the excuse for not allowing the bill to proceed today. We have heard that before. We heard it in the Thirtieth Parliament when the then minister of justice, now the minister of energy, mines and "nationalization", said it would not be long before revisions would see the light of day. That was quite a while ago. We have seen no revisions, and if we look on the Order Paper today we will see there are still no revisions by this government.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), when he was the government House leader, wanted a revision of the antiquated act that was before Parliament and he realized at that time that for the freedom of information bill, which he had introduced as Bill C-15, to be meaningful legislation it had to incorporate the changes to the Official Secrets Act. In fact, he had the guts to say at that time, and I quote from Hansard of November 8, 1979:
1 should report to the hon. member that in fact there is a motion prepared. It is my hope we can deal with it at the same time as the freedom of information legislation. I hope so. I could not put that down today because, quite frankly, I have not had time to consult with the hon. member for Peace River, but I have talked to him about the actual wording of the motion. He knows the intention of the government. Now that he has raised it, and I was going to raise it later, I want the House to know that we will probably be putting that motion on the Order Paper, I guess within a day or so, so that the House can see what we have in mind.
We can see very clearly that my colleague's intentions were to get this done and to see the Official Secrets Act part of the freedom of information bill. Unfortunately, the now famous
June 4, 1981

Liberal-NDP coalition got together and decided that that was not to come about. Instead we have today economic ruin, energy collapse, and of course no revision to the Official Secrets Act. This government seems much too content to continue with its cloak and dagger syndromes of secrecy to come and say the same as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton did. They just do not have the courage to see that kind of thing come through.
I should like to address the purpose of the bill. In fact the bill does very little; it only proposes to amend two sections. It proposes to do very little, but in fact it means a great deal. The two sections it proposes to amend are sections 3 and 4.
First I should like to look at section 3. It is amended in order more clearly to define what is an act of espionage. It would not weaken the powers of prosecuting a true agent of espionage, but it would make the section applicable to actual cases of espionage. In fact, I think this is actually the intention of section 3.
Looking briefly at section 4, the amendment to this section is to rid the statute of the unreasonable and unjustifiable clause which makes it an offence to leak information that is deemed to be anything on which the government has its name. Presently it is an offence to have this information, to hold this information, or to divulge such information, if it is felt by the state that it is "prejudicial to the interest or the security of the state".
The term is so vague and so meaningless that it has come to mean that almost any petty document or anything covered by the act in fact can constitute an offence under the act. Therefore, the purpose of the bill is to implement a few necessary amendments in order to prevent the government's discriminatory use of power through the Official Secrets Act.
Also the purpose is to prevent the exposure of members of Parliament, public servants, the press, and members of the public in general, to prosecution and possible lengthy jail terms for the most trivial exchanges of information. Another purpose is to prevent the government from using the threat of prosecution to prevent embarrassing leaks of information. We must face the fact that public servants, members of the press or even members of Parliament may be wary of discussing anything if they fear prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.
Of course, the government tells us that it would never use this power under section 4 unless it was absolutely necessary. The government indicates that the section is necessary for the good of the nation. Thank goodness the government is so concerned about our well-being! After all, if it were not for the government's concerns and the existence of section 4, many evil corrupters of state would have never been prosecuted. I am referring to evil people such as the dangerous person who endangered the entire welfare of Canada, the infamous Dr. Treu! We can thank our lucky stars that we had section 4 and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to ensure that he would be taken care of.
Official Secrets Act
Then there was the sinister publisher of what the Prime Minister called "that piece of garbage", The Toronto Sun. Thank heavens we had section 4. They made sure that Peter Worthington, Dr. Treu and that piece of garbage were not allowed to bother us; it was all put in its place. To think that without section 4 these people and that piece of garbage would never have been taught a lesson! They would have got away with actions which were harmful to our well-being. It does not matter that both cases were eventually acquitted by the courts! We still showed them: "Don't mess with the state or the state will mess with you"!
So we have the word of the government that section 4 will be used only when necessary. We all know just how good that word is. If we do not, perhaps we should ask Dr. Treu or Peter Worthington. I think they will tell us.
We may all breathe easy with section 4 around; we do not have to put up with undesirables who go around acting against the interests of the Privy Council. We can be saved from having to put up with the "oh, so embarrassing" situation of seeing members of the Privy Council embarrassed. No, sir. There will be no Watergate in Canada; there will be no Pentagon papers in Canada. Section 4 will see to that. There will be no uranium cartel scandal up here! Sure, we can kick and scream that something is afoul in government, but section 4 ensures that nothing is leaked. There is no chance of embarrassment for cabinet on uranium.
We must ask ourselves if it is better to have section 4, so that the government is better able to protect its honour from goof-ups and costly mistakes, or would it be better if the people of Canada were informed? Surely we would all agree that it is better for the people of Canada to be informed.
It is not a matter which is open to debate. I think the government admitted as much through the introduction of the freedom of information bill. Even the judges who sat on prosecutions under section 4, both in Canada and in the United Kingdom, with one notable exception, said that not only were the defendants not guilty, but the Official Secrets Act itself was the guilty party.
I should like to take a close look for a moment at the Peter Treu case. This will demonstrate why the act must be revised, not tomorrow, the day after or the year after, but today. Of course, Dr. Peter Treu was a matter of great discussion in the House. It was before my time, but in reading the record I found that it was all there. I think what took place is astounding.
I was amazed to see that a member of Parliament was chastised by a provincial judge for remarking in the House on the question of circumstances surrounding the prosecution and conviction. I was amazed to read the words of the minister of the Crown who answered the query of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) as to whether or not Treu's prosecution was linked to espionage. The reply of the minister was that Treu was not prosecuted for such deeds; yet he was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.

June 4, 1981
Official Secrets Act
This seems somewhat strange. Also it was amazing to discover that that prosecution, although not linked to espionage, could be tried in camera or, in other words, in secret. I thought that only happened in the days of the Star Chamber. I was amazed to discover that Dr. Treu was warned, after his prosecution and sentencing of two years in jail, that he could not discuss his trial with anyone aside from his own legal counsel. Also I discovered-and this is very important-that anyone discussing Treu's case or trial with him could be in violation of the Official Secrets Act. I am sure we could understand all of this if Treu were indeed an agent of espionage, working for the forces of evil in attempts to destroy our country. But I think it is a little hard to believe that of Peter Treu.
I should like to quote a few passages from the thus far unpublished memoirs of Mr. Baldwin. In his file Mr. Baldwin devoted two chapters to the Official Secrets Act. By reading his words into the record, I hope hon. members on all sides, especially those on the government side, might be enlightened on the seriousness of the bill and what it is trying to accomplish.
Very simply, Mr. Baldwin said:
In retrospect, as I look back in leisure, I have a feeling of anger, as well as sadness, that our system has been allowed to degenerate to such an extent that those who feel they have a grievance are liable to be intimidated as was Treu to prevent him from making complaints.
He continued further on the page:
After listening to what he said and adding to it what I had learned from his friends-
Of course, he was referring to Dr. Treu.
-plus all I had from documents I had obtained, and reading the court records, 1 ultimately pieced together a very bizarre tale. In my life in Ottawa I had learned much of the slithery, self-protective devices used by those in power to cover their flanks and protect their tracks when they felt they must do so, but this case was in a class by itself.
Then Mr. Baldwin proceeded to relate the actual circumstances surrounding the Treu case. He tells an incredible story: how the state went out of its way to persecute and prosecute a man who did not deserve such treatment. It is good reading. When it is published I hope all hon. members of the House will consider reading it, because all of us can learn something about ourselves from it.
On the actual charges which Treu faced, which were the possession of classified material and that his storage of those materials was somehow endangering the security of the state, Mr. Baldwin had this to say, which I think is relevant to the matter:
How did these ridiculous charges come to be laid? On whose advice? What documents were produced to the Attorney General to persuade him that the safety of the realm depended on the prosecution of this man on such trumped up and silly charges? I'm afraid these and many other related questions may never be answered unless we get a freedom of information law which will permit a court in the fullness of time to approve the disclosure of such facts which could provide the answers.
Thus we see the connection between the Official Secrets Act and the Freedom of Information Act, albeit in a slightly different way. Then Mr. Baldwin said:
The case became something of a cause celebre, and focused much attention on the Official Secrets Act, so much that in spite of opposition in certain government quarters it was pretty well conceded that for there to be a useful freedom of information law, there has to be radical surgery on the Official Secrets Act in general, and section 4 in particular.
Here it is, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-411 has come back to haunt the government as Bill C-246, with its ghost looking down from above. We cannot escape it this time. The time has come to answer to the people of Canada. If this government is truly sincere about freedom of information, about the right of the people of Canada to have and to hold information which rightfully belongs to them, then we must let this bill proceed. It is surgery which is needed. Let the government spokesman rise to close the incision which was opened by my predecessor. I hope he will do that.
It was not long ago that I rose in my place to give my first speech, my maiden speech, in this House. At that time I was speaking on a motion to refer the Official Secrets Act to committee. The government refused this simple request, even though an identical motion, or an almost identical one except that it was toned down to meet the expected objections of the government, was agreed to one year earlier when the present government was in opposition. I still wonder why they changed their mind. The reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Desmarais) was as follows:
The wording of the motion is quite wrong. It prejudices the work of the standing committee. I also believe that this is not a suitable time to refer the Official Secrets Act to a standing committee of this House.
The reason he felt that the timing was wrong was, I believe, that the McDonald commission had yet to release its final report. I do not think that excuse holds water for two reasons. First, the McDonald commission released an interim report which was specifically on official secrets and security matters. I wonder if the hon. member for Dollard read that report. In speaking to my motion, in October of last year he said:
The McDonald commission has been examining the policies and practices which now apply to the protection of the security of Canada-
Later on he said:
But we have yet to receive a comprehensive report from the commission of inquiry on matters of security policy-
I do not think the hon. member could have read the interim report. It is lengthy, very comprehensive and, in fact, contains many recommendations.
This brings me to my second argument against his objections of October last, which is the fact that the McDonald commission did not do a truly non-partisan job on the matter and the report should be viewed in that light. This can be exemplified through another quote from Mr. Baldwin's memoirs, which are receiving much attention today. Of the commission's interim report he said the following:
In a portion of this report so worded as to make it clear that only the government side has been heard, special mention of the Treu case was made and it was suggested other charges could have been laid on which he could have been convicted but the government couldn't find witnesses! This is exactly the same sort of vague statement which had been relayed to me and to members of the press gallery in an attempt to persuade us to lay off this case and leave Treu to
June 4, 1981

the government's tender mercies. This should never have been said! In effect it constituted a trial of Dr. Treu on a charge never laid against him, and on which he was never called to defend, and to which he could not effectively reply, especially with the wide publicity given to the report.
The parliamentary secretary's other reason for refusing to allow the motion of last October to go through-which I again remind him he and his party had agreed to unanimously and defended with such fortitude before-was that the motion prejudiced the committee's work. That is nonsense. If it was so prejudiced, why did he vote for it the time before? Is his party of such hypocritical nature that it believes his excuse washes down with a bit of governmental backwash? I do not want to hear those excuses today. We want the government to come clean, either to say that it likes the Official Secrets Act the way it is-that is, firmly entrenched in the secret passageways of governmental administration-or, if it means what it says, that it should come clean and let this bill go through.
Failing this, there is still one other alternative, and that is to lay its own bill on the table today. I think the government has one ready, but I do not think it knows if it wants it. The government may think that it can hoodwink the public with a watered down freedom of information bill and say that it is enough. I know what the government will say. Someone from the government side will probably get up and say that the timing is bad. He will say that Bill C-246 is not right and that the government will not let it proceed. The government will not let the people go. It could not wrestle inflation to the ground, so it will be content to wrestle the people of Canada to the ground.
I ended my speech on this subject last October with a favourite quotation which my predecessor uses on many occasions. It is from the Bible. I think that it is very timely and pertinent to the particular piece of legislation we are debating today. Once again I would like to close with that quotation and say to the government: "The truth shall set you free".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) for once again bringing this very important topic to the attention of the House.
The Official Secrets Act was passed in 1939. Prior to that time the legislation concerning this area was really an English statute which we had adopted in 1911. There were very minor changes to it in 1950, 1967, 1970 and 1972. Over one half of the prosecutions under the act were as a result of the defection of Igor Gouzenko in 1946. At that time he tried to set up a network of spies in Canada.
The hon. member for Peace River is trying to make much of the amount of activity there has been under this act since then. As the hon. member knows, there has not been much activity. There have been only four cases prosecuted under the act. There was the Biernacki case in 1961, the Featherstone case in 1967, the Treu case in 1978 and The Toronto Sun case last year.
Official Secrets Act
As far as Biernacki goes, he was a Polish landed immigrant who tried to set up a spy network in Canada. He was acquitted, and in the words of the learned trial judge the information was "insignificant, worthless public information".
As far as the Featherstone case goes, we were lucky with him. He was sending charts of marine wreckage to the Russians, I believe it was. Apparently submarines can hide behind this wreckage and go undetected by radar. This was an open and closed case and Featherstone received a two and a half year sentence.
All members of the House are familiar with the Treu case.
As far as The Toronto Sun is concerned, they had an alleged top secret report which showed suspected Russian spy activity in Canada. The editor of the paper was acquitted because the document no longer, if ever, was secret.
So, as I have outlined, there really has not been that much activity under the Official Secrets Act. This sometimes makes me wonder whether we are, perhaps, allowing too many of our state secrets to escape to the enemies of Canada-and we have several, economic and otherwise-without recourse. It is important that we discuss the Official Secrets Act, but it is also important that we not say that it is part and parcel of what is going on in a parliamentary committee. Surely the hon. member would agree that we must have some sanctions against those who sell our state secrets or give our state secrets to foreign powers, allowing them to become threats to our economy and to our nation as a whole.
We must decide-and we are-how broad or narrow the access to information legislation should be. We must also decide how broad or narrow the Official Secrets Act should be. Are we making it more difficult under the access to information legislation for the public, members of the opposition and members of Parliament to obtain information? Are the Prime Minister's guidelines sufficient if they are adhered to?
The other day a member of the opposition said that perhaps we should have a preamble to the access to information legislation which basically incorporates the concept which the Prime Minister was alluding to last April when he established five simple guidelines. We must decide-and we have discussed this before in the House-whether to take the espionage section out of the Official Secrets Act and place it in the Criminal Code, with a proper sentence. We must decide whether to take the unintentional or the leakage sections out of the Official Secrets Act and place them in special legislation, and repeal the present act.
Basically, all I have heard today is the same rhetoric I heard in earlier discussions. There has been nothing in any concrete form. There have been many allusions to measures we have taken, but more to the state of the economy, the energy plan and the Constitution.
If we are to discuss access to information and the Official Secrets Act, then let us discuss them. Let us not enter into other topics of discussion. It is important that members of Parliament understand what must be done and what we are doing under access to information legislation and under the
10276

June 4, 1981
Official Secrets Act
Official Secrets Act. It is also important that bureaucrats understand what is being done and, finally, that the public also understands.
I think that the hon. member opposite does not understand the act because his definition deals with the security of Canada. Even members of his own party have criticized that definition in this House, yet he proposes it in his bill today. I agree with those members of his party who believe that by putting that forward he may be extending the scope of the legislation that narrows the bill. I do not think he intends that, but that is exactly what members of his party are saying. I would not support what he is saying even if he extended the definition.
The explanatory note to the bill reads as follows:
This bill is necessary for freedom of information to become a meaningful piece of legislation. Unless amended, the Official Secrets Act and the access to information act will contradict each other.
What is the contradiction, Mr. Speaker? First we have to see if there is a conflict, and if there is, whether it is contradictory.
The access to information act provides for access to records. Clause 4 of the bill defines the word "record" very broadly, as follows:
-includes any correspondence, memorandum, book, plan, map, drawing, diagram, pictorial or graphic work, photograph, film, microform, sound recording, videotape, machine readable record, and any other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, and any copy thereof;
Section 4 provides for a number of limited, narrowly-defined exemptions. Under the access to information act the civil servant who issues the information requested, is protected if he follows a certain pattern of notice. This is not the case under the Official Secrets Act; something is either an official secret or it is not.
Clause 71 of the access to information act protects the public servant. It reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other acts of Parliament, no civil or criminal proceedings lie against the head of any government institution, or against any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the head of a government institution, and no proceedings lie against the Crown, for the disclosure in good faith of any record or any part of a record pursuant to this act, or for any consequences that flow from such disclosure, or for the failure to give any notice required under this act, if reasonable care is taken to given the required notice.
We have to remember that we are dealing with records under the access to information act. I would ask the hon. member to read Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act to see if there is a conflict. It reads as follows:
Every person is guilty of an offence under this act who, for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state,
(a)	approaches, inspects, passes over, or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters
any prohibited place;
There is no conflict between that section and the access to information act which is being examined in committee. The section continues:
(b)	makes any sketch, plan, model or note that is calculated to be or might be
or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign power;
Again, there is no conflict between to the access to information act and the Official Secrets Act. Subsection (c) may have some relevance. It reads as follows:
(c)	obtains, collects, records, or publishes, or communicates to any other person any secret official code word, or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information that is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign power.
There might be some relevance at first blush but I assume no one in this House would want to release state secrets, as password or a code word, under the access to information act, that would be useful to a foreign power.
Moving to Section 4, only 4(1 )(a) and 4(4)(b) have any relevance to the disclosure of government information.
Section 4(1 )(a), makes it an offence for an individual to disclose information to any " ... person, other than a person to whom he is authorized to communicate with, or a person to whom it is in the interest of the State his duty to communicate it;".
This would not, of course, conflict with the access legislation which authorizes disclosure of information to the public in general.
In Section 4(4)(b), the only relevant provision makes it an offence if someone "allows any other person to have possession of any official document issued for his use alone, or communicates any secret official code word or pass word so issued, or, without lawful authority or excuse-".
Again, the same argument can be made as in relation to paragraph 4(1 )(a), that this is overridden by the authorization provided by the access legislation.
I believe there is need for an overhaul of the Official Secrets Act and I shall deal with that later, but I cannot agree with the proposition put forward by my hon. friend. However, I believe that the approach proposed by the bill is quite inappropriate and I do not accept the argument that we do not have time to do a proper review of the act.
As I have explained, I do not accept the position that the Official Secrets Act must be revised in this piecemeal fashion in order to avoid conflict with the access to information act. 1 think there is a proper time for debate on the access to information bill and that is when it comes out of committee. We are pressing to have it out of committee, back in the House and passed before the summer recess. If that does not happen, the official opposition and perhaps the NDP will be to blame.
In the new bill there are seven pages of government entities in which the public will have access to information. In certain entities there will not be that same openness. These could be put into the competitive group, first, and then into the group where we have a small interest. We do not think it is fair that a company which competes with a government company should have an unfair advantage, and we do not think it is fair that other companies competing with government companies, do not have the same cost in keeping up with the access to information act. We have left alone the entities in which the government has only a small interest, but some of them may be brought in. For instance, the Canadian Development Cor-
June 4, 1981

poration is not included, nor is a motel in the maritimes in which the government has a small interest.
With regard to environmental information that has been requested, it is now the objective case that is being used. Due to the recent amendment, the minister will no longer be able to say, on a subjective basis, "I think you should not have access to this environmental testing information." An object test will be used and if the applicant for the information is not satisfied, he can apply to the court.
1 should like to quote from an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on June 3 by Robert Sheppard as follows:
The new tack is part of a series of amendments Secretary of State Francis Fox announced yesterday that he is prepared to accept when the bill comes up for final reading.
It represents a marked departure from the first draft (not to mention briefs by the Canadian business community), which would have allowed the withholding of financial or technical information supplied the government in confidence by private firms on the grounds that to allow access to such information could result in financial loss or prejudice competitive positions.
I only quote from The Globe and Mail because, as everyone knows, it is probably our most severe critic. I think that is a favourable comment.
To go back to my other point, 1 think the Prime Minister's guidelines of April of last year are excellent if their spirit is followed. We have no access to information, and we still do not have the legislation. In April of last year, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) set five guidelines for all civil servants. The first guideline sets out that part of their duties is to discuss the goings on of government with the public and people who want access to information. Under the second guideline it is stated that public servants must be frank in their discussions. I will not read all the guidelines because they have been circulated. But under the third guideline it is stated that public servants are not to speculate on policy deliberations or future policy decisions. Under the fourth guideline it is stated that it is normal for public servants to be quoted by name and the individual can be interviewed for radio and television as well as for the print media.
The fifth guideline gives me the most problem. It probably gives the bureaucracy the most problem also. It reads:
These guidelines cannot and do not authorize the disclosure of information which is specifically prohibited by law. Public employees acting in good faith under these guidelines will not be considered as having violated their oaths of secrecy.
We are hoping that the seven pages in the access to information bill listing the entities which are mentioned and the guidelines which have been set down will make it much clearer to the bureaucracy and public servants just where their duties lie vis-a-vis the public, without having to worry about being chastised by their superiors, the deputy minister or the minister.
In the four minutes I have remaining I shall discuss parts of the Official Secrets Act that I hope will be amended in the near future.
Official Secrets Act
Under the penalty section, which is Section 15, it is now left to the discretion of the Crown attorney, who takes the case, or the ministry of justice as to whether they should proceed summarily or by way of indictment. If the Crown proceeds by way of indictment, the maximum term is 14 years. If the Crown proceeds summarily, the penalty is $500, 12 months, or both. That is under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act. In my opinion, it gives too much discretion to the individual Crown attorney. One responsible commission suggested that in relation to espionage, the maximum term be life. As far as the intentional and unintentional leakage is concerned, that same commission suggested the maximum term be six years and the discretion of indictable or summary process be taken away from individual Crown attorneys.
As far as presumption is concerned, perhaps the charter of rights will say, when it is passed, hopefully, by the fall of this year, that everyone who is presumed innocent before the law can challenge the presumption that we have passed as a federal government under the Official Secrets Act.
There is an excellent article by Mr. M. L. Friedland of the University of Toronto who reported to the McDonald commission. This article is entitled "National Security: The Legal Dimensions". In it he goes through the different presumptions. They really are archaic and, I think, dangerous. To give an example, if presumptions A and B are true, therefore, C and D are true. These are presumed true without having to be proven or called in evidence. Not only are there presumptions, there are double presumptions, and that is probably the worst example in any federal act of the presumption of innocence being taken away.
There is no right to a trial by jury under the Official Secrets Act. I think there should be a right to a jury. A jury could be an optional choice, as the McDonald commission suggested. In other words, the accused could ask for it. Second, the onus is on the crown, namely the government, and it must show by trial that it would not be in the best interests of the country to have a jury. If there is any doubt though, that doubt should go to the accused. Finally, the jury should be sworn to secrecy. The procedure is, therefore possible.
I think we can get carried away with freedom of information. There is a responsibility for government to handle the massive amount of information that we accumulate from the public, usually because it is mandatory.
In England in 1972 the Franks report was issued. It is very relevant to our situation because our legislation is based on the English legislation. It reads:
We have so far indicated these wider issues in the most general terms. But they can be more simply expressed. Even a democratic government requires a measure of secrecy for some of its functions, as a means whereby it can better carry out its duties on behalf of the people. Among the primary tasks of government are the defence of the nation from external threats, the maintenance of relations with the rest of the world and the preservation of law and order.
Once again I commend the hon. member for bringing this matter to the House. But I would think that at this stage as a government we have proceeded closer to reality than ever before in the history of our country. Very shortly we will have

June 4, 1981
Official Secrets Act
an access to information act that, in the words of many witnesses who came before the parliamentary committee, is much superior to the U.S. model from which we derived the original concept. I am very proud of it. I am very proud that we, as a government, are putting it forward. I think it is unjust criticism to suggest that we are doing nothing. It is always in the best interests of the government, because it is easier, not to give the public information. We are giving the public that information. We are standing on that bill and I hope that in the fall the hon. member will acknowledge that something is being done.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, first I shall say a few words in support of the bill presented by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) and to commend him for continuing in the tradition of his predecessor, Ged Baldwin, who distinguished himself not only in this area of the Official Secrets Act and by pointing out to Canadians the terrible manner in which the Peter Treu trial was conducted but also for his outstanding work in the area of freedom of information legislation. As I say, I must express my gratitude to the hon. member for bringing this important subject before Parliament today.
Just a few moments ago I came from the hearings of the justice committee dealing with freedom of information legislation and access to information legislation. I think it should be stated very clearly that there are a number of major flaws in that legislation including, among others, that there is a transitional period which renders largely ineffective the provisions for a review, presently contained in the bill. Unless that transitional provision is changed and unless there are certain other changes made to sections of that bill which are so central to the issue, we will have great difficulty in recognizing it as being a bill which moves us forward in the area of access to information.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) stated that many witnesses who appeared before the committee indicated that the bill was superior to the American bill. I attended those hearings, and I would challenge the hon. member to indicate any witness who appeared before that committee, whether representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, representatives of access, representatives of the consumer association or any other witnesses, who stated that this bill was in any way superior in its exemptions, or in any other way, to the U.S. legislation. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has been listening to departmental officials, because he certainly was not listening to the witnesses who appeared before our committee.
We are dealing here with a proposal by the hon. member for Peace River to get rid of a bill which is surely an anachronism and one of the most archaic bills presently on the statute books of Canada. Frankly, it is a bill which tends to bring into disrepute the administration of justice generally in this country.
The McDonald commission purportedly examined the effects of the Official Secrets Act. In so doing, it vilified, in a manner which I found shocking, the reputation of Peter Treu.
He was not on trial before the McDonald commission, and yet that commission saw fit to cast very serious aspersions on his activities. I might say, if that is any indication of the calibre of report which the commission will be submitting to the Government of Canada, then the taxpayers of Canada have had some $10 million of their money wasted.
Why is it essential that this motion be supported? Primarily because we have a government in Canada which is wedded to a concept of secrecy. The government suggests that freedom of information is being brought in. Indeed, all parties in this House support the principle of freedom of information legislation. However, the bill leaves a great deal to be desired. There are still far too many statutes which contain secrecy provisions. The most odious of all of those statutes is the Official Secrets Act.
Nothing is being done by this government to remove the sweeping sanctions which exist under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act for disclosure of information, in some cases trivial information. Under the ambit of section 4 of the Official Secrets Act, it is an offence to disclose any information, no matter how minor. That flies in the face of the government's supposed commitment to open access to information.
There have been many recommendations for changes to the bill. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie pointed out some of the concerns. What we are looking for on the part of this government is an indication that they are at least serious about having this matter studied. That is all that is being asked for, that the justice committee have an opportunity to examine the defects in the bill, which are admitted by members from the other side. For example, the right to trial by jury, which is surely fundamental, is denied to those persons being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, as well as the fact that the sanction of the criminal law in its full force applies to activities to which surely it should not apply in this day and age. As the hon. member for Peace River indicated, there are many other weaknesses in the bill.
What we suggest is very much along the lines suggested by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in their excellent presentation to the McDonald commission, focusing particularly on section 4 of the Official Secrets Act. They urge that the test that should be applied is one of a reasonable expectation of serious injury to the physical safety and defence of Canada, but beyond that the criminal sanction should not apply to the unauthorized disclosure of government information and that certainly that criminal sanction should not apply to those who may receive that information, whether it be in the press, Parliament or elsewhere.
They urge a number of safeguards, even within the range of safety and defence secrets, including the fact that the material must not have previously entered the public realm, or the fact that the accused knew or had reasonable ground to believe that the material at issue fell into the requisite category or that the document in question was improperly classified. The offence of
June 4, 1981

receiving such information should be removed from the statute books.
As I indicated, some of the safeguards are lacking now, such as the absence of the right to trial by jury, the Draconian penalties in many cases, and the failure of the bill to accord the right to a public trial. These are the kinds of things this motion urges be changed.
We welcome the motion. We urge the government to accept the very reasonable suggestion that this bill, which has been condemned so roundly by many groups going back to the 1969 McDonald commission and a similar bill which was thoroughly condemned by the Franks committee in Britain, be studied to bring our legislation into the twentieth century.
If the government is serious about its commitment to freedom of information-a commitment given, we suspect, because of the weakness of their bill on access to information-hand in hand with that legislation must come the obligation of the government to overhaul substantially this archaic piece of legislation, the Official Secrets Act, so that the government is not giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
In conclusion, we strongly support this motion. I commend the hon. member for Peace River for once again drawing the attention of Parliament to the importance of this subject matter. I sincerely hope the government will see fit to support the motion.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will only say a few words on this so that there will be time left to vote on it. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) said that there are some shortcomings in the bill. If that is so, it is all the more reason why it should be sent to committee where any shortcomings can be corrected. There is no reason to talk out a bill because it has one or two shortcomings. It is the job of the committee to find if there are any and, if so, to correct them.
There are two things the Official Secrets Act should not do. This bill will correct that. If necessary, it will be even further corrected by the committee. First, it should not be used to hide information. There are grave suspicions today that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is using the bill to hide information in connection with the uranium cartel. It should not be a case of hiding information to which the public is entitled. The Official Secrets Act is to stop information which, if made public, would endanger the country, not to hide information from the people in order to protect the government. That is very important.
Second, this bill should not be used to threaten the citizens of Canada. There have been threats against a number of people, including a bus driver and Peter Treu. If something improper is done, a charge should be laid. There should be none of this threat business. The bill uses such loose language as "is calculated to be". That is like using the word "deemed" in the Income Tax Act. You can deem this and deem that. Here we are calculating. There should be proof before someone is charged under the Official Secrets Act.
Official Secrets Act
I have only a minute or two remaining to me. I want to leave time for a vote on this bill because the subject matter should be sent to a committee. If government members are serious, they will support the bill. If they are trying to fool the people, they will talk it out.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the present government is most responsible, and that is why it will not support this bill. After hearing the comments of my friend, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and examining the bill introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), I studied the Official Secrets Act carefully, and it seemed to me that the wording, and especially the explanatory notes of the bill, were somewhat misleading. It seems to me that the changes sought by the hon. member merely deal with the manner in which evidence must be produced under the act. The explanatory notes state, and I quote:
This bill is necessary for freedom of information to become a meaningful piece of legislation.
It also says:
Unless amended, the Official Secrets Act and the Access to Information Act will contradict each other.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with this statement because when one looks at the Official Secrets Act, in Chapter 0-3 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and at Bill C-43 now before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and makes an in-depth study of their contents, one realizes that they deal with quite different matters. I believe that the hon. member is confusing the two principles involved because the Official Secrets Act-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is going to see the clock. Before I so indicate, I might point out to hon. members that the House is honoured to have in the gallery a man who for many years was associated with the bill dealing with freedom of information. I refer, of course, to the previous member for Peace River, Mr. Ged Baldwin. On behalf of the House, I would like to express our pleasure at seeing him again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Excise Tax

[Stage Direction]
June 4, 1981

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 4 (Mr. Blen-karn) and 5 (Mr. Riis).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted earlier at five o'clock the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had been recognized. The debate was on motions 4 and 5 in respect of Bill C-57. Shall the Chair recognize the hon. member for Bow River?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure tonight and some agitation in speaking to motion No. 4 because it deals with a tax that I think should never be allowed in a democratic country.
In dealing with indexation of tax I want to go back to the basis of British liberty. Hon. members who know their history will know that King John had the habit of demanding taxation from his people, to the extent that his people just could not afford to pay. He was ruining his country, and even though it was a feudal system at the time, the demands were so great that the people just could not stand the burden. Consequently, on June 15, 1215, when King John returned from a trip, a group of English people were there to meet him. After discussion, they forced King John to sign what has become known as the Magna Carta, or the Magna Charter. Throughout the world, and especially throughout the British World, 1215 at Runnymede was the time when the fundamental bases of the rights of people were established.
I want to deal with just one aspect of that charter. The great council forced King John to agree that when financial aid was required by the Crown and the Crown wanted an additional amount, the Crown could not levy taxes on barons or on estates. Rather, the great council had to be called together, and the great council would determine how much the king would receive. King John did not sign the Magna Carta readily, but he had to sign it. The great council of that day made certain rules and regulations so that the many provisions of the Magna Carta could be enforced. The Magna Carta of Runnymede of June 15, 1215 contained the basic rights certainly of the British people and probably of people who love freedom all over the world. It was a great charter of English personal and political liberty which was obtained from King John. There were 61 or 63 sections of the charter, but the meaning of the charter could be summed up by the term "no taxation without representation". I think that is the real
history of the success of democracy. The right to levy taxes without representation was taken from the king.
Parliaments and governments evolved, and when governments wished to levy taxation, that was not permitted without representations from the people. Parliament had to be called annually so that those representations could be heard. That was the only control over governments wanting to increase taxation. They had to bring such matters before the representatives of the people so that they could be debated. That practice, of course, has carried on to this day.
Today there is a necessity to call Parliament and every legislature in Canada at least once a year, not necessarily to pass laws, although that is done, but to make sure governments have money to operate and to make sure representations are heard before taxes are increased. This does not involve taxation already in place, but it does affect proposed tax increases. Any proposed tax increase must be dealt with in that way.
Motion No. 4 deals with clause 1 lines 1 to 23 at page 4. It is proposed that there be an arrangement whereby it will not be necessary to have representation with respect to increased taxation. I want to emphasize that. If that indexation of taxation goes through respecting the items to which it is to apply, it will no longer be necessary to call the representatives of the people together. It will not be necessary to include this matter in budgets. It will not be necessary to have it carried in the press. It will simply be done by the government without hearing representations from the representatives of the people. This government wants to do the same thing for which King John was called to account. It wants to impose taxation without representation. In the days of King John, any additional levies on the people had to be discussed with the great council.
I would like to deal with indexing for a moment. This party has made indexing of pensions part and parcel of our policy. Hundreds of people across the country agree with that policy. I remember attending a forum in 1979. All candidates were asked what they would do about indexing pensions. It was easy for me to answer. When a pensioner secures a pension, that pension is to pay for his food, clothing and shelter. Then, if food prices, rents or clothing prices increase, how can a pensioner meet those costs with the pension he was granted before those increased costs came into play?
Indexing adds something. Perhaps it is not enough, but it adds something to the amount of a pension so that the pensioner can meet increased costs which arise through no fault of his own. Those costs may rise because of inflation, because of taxation or because of any of several other causes. Indexed pensions give pensioners something additional with which to meet those increased costs.
I come now to what happens when taxation is indexed. The very reverse happens. Pensions which are indexed increase to meet increased costs. That is very helpful, but when there are unusual price increases such as increases in the price of heating oil, gasoline or rents, even indexed pensions are not sufficient. It becomes very difficult for pensioners to survive. However, when we index taxation as well, we aggravate the
June 4, 1981

problem. Taxes are a charge on the individual, and pensioners and veterans are included with everyone else. When we increase taxes, we take away from pensioners and veterans part of what they need for a living. When additional taxation is levied, that increases the cost of goods. Consumers must pay increased costs for goods plus increased taxes. That is what motion No. 4 is all about. I refer here to subclause (6). That is what 1 claim is contrary to the very spirit of British law. It is taxation without representation.
I want to emphasize that, Mr. Speaker, because 1 believe that the Ontario legislature and now the House of Commons are embarking on a plan of taxation that cannot be authorized in a democracy. If we authorize it, we are defying the very basis of the Magna Carta. We are saying to the government: "Go ahead and increase taxes without representation." That is neither sound nor right, and I violently oppose the inclusion of indexing of taxes in this bill. Taxes are a charge on the individual and when they are increased without even a debate, without the press carrying the story, without any chance of dealing with it at all, that is wrong. Whether or not the House of Commons or the legislatures are able to reduce the normal tax, at least it is debated and people have a chance to prepare for the increased deductions from their pensions or wages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have listened to the hon. member with a great deal of consideration and patience and I do understand the philosophical points of view the gentleman is making, but I still have a problem, which is that motions Nos. 4 and 5 relate to the revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas. And as 1 understand it, earlier today the Deputy Speaker made it clear to the House that he was going to require members to be relevant to the motions in front of them.


Bob Rae: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 will deal with the point of order in a moment. 1 repeat, as I understand it the Deputy Speaker made it clear that members would be asked to be relevant to the particular motions before them. I have no choice but to be consistent with the ruling made by the Deputy Speaker.
The motions here are with relation to revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas. That is the matter that this House should be considering now.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the only concern I have was that you mentioned the tax on petroleum and gas. It seems to me that we are at the moment debating an amendment which would have the effect of taking out all the definition sections dealing with the consumer price index and its relation in particular to the indexing of alcohol and tobacco.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I see that other hon. members want to raise a point of order as well and I will listen to them.
Excise Tax


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think you have misread the motion. You seem to regard the words:
-and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas-
-as describing what this particular amendment is about. Those words, Sir, are part of the title of the bill. Bill C-57 is an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas. If you look through the entire 135 motions you will find those words in every one of them. What you have to do is go a bit further and see what happens if you strike out lines 1 to 23, for example. It becomes quite different.


Gordon Edward Taylor: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that motion No. 4 as prepared, and allowed by Madam Speaker, would amend clause 1 by striking out lines 1 to 23 at page 4. And when I go to page 4, lines 1 to 23, the provision deals with alcoholic beverages and the consumer price index.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Gordon Edward Taylor: If I am out of order it is because I am using the word "food". However, I am now going to refer to beer and wine, if you like, but I am afaid that if this principle is accepted for beer, the next thing we know it is going to be placed on red meat.


Mr. Epp:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think I can answer the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) as well. This matter of King John and the Magna Carta, the Chair has some difficulty in relating that to the issue of petroleum and gas. That is the difficulty the Chair has.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Now I understand that the principle may be the same but I would ask the hon. member to try to address himself more particularly to the section on petroleum and gas. As I said before, I understand that the Deputy Speaker earlier today did request members to try to address themselves more particularly to the issues involved.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Repeat the words every five minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, it will not do to repeat the words every five minutes.


Walter David Baker: How about "magnum carta".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It would be appreciated by the Chair if the hon. member, who is rather well respected in the House for his contributions, could try to address himself more particularly to the motions in front of him.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly try not to make it difficult for the Chair. I think you have enough difficulties as

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax
it is. And I will not say beer, wine and spirits every five minutes, but I do want to deal with the principle of this indexing of taxation. The very clause that we are discussing, clause 1, lines 1 to 23, deals entirely with the consumer price index and its application to cigarettes, tobacco, wines, spirits, beer and that type of thing.
Before our short interlude, I was endeavouring to show that indexing of taxes is unsound, and now I want to deal with that for a moment or so. Let us take the case of beer. The liquor Control Board of any province, but let us say of Ontario because that is where they used this principle just recently-


An hon. Member:: Those Tories in Ontario.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -or the one we have right now in this House, which is, in effect, in Ontario.


Walter David Baker: Budgetary.


Gordon Edward Taylor: From now on, with this principle of indexation of taxation on gasoline at the pump in Ontario, which is the same principle, no longer will the treasurer have to bring this matter before the Ontario legislature, or, to make it applicable to what King John was doing, the great council will not have to be called. The Ontario government will simply increase the taxation without representation, and that is the part I object to in this particular bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Now I do not want to prolong this debate but I want to deal with the matter of indexation of taxation long enough so that the Canadian people will know what we are talking about. If this principle is not accepted, then the government of the province or the country will have to bring its budget before the House or legislature before it can increase the taxes. There is no other way they can do it; they have to bring it before the representatives of the people. In other words, a great council must be called.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: And here we are saying in this bill that no longer will the great council have to be called, no longer will the representatives of the people have to be called, we will do it all by ourselves. We will increase your taxes.


Walter David Baker: Shame.


Gordon Edward Taylor: If this bill is passed in the House, 1 urge Canadians to challenge it in the courts. It is unsound and contrary to democracy; it will destroy the very essence of our democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Governments cannot go hog-wild today. There must be reins on them. Debate in the House and the press can slow them up somewhat, but if this bill is passed, all reins will
be cut and the horses will gallop home with any increase the government chooses.
We expect the wages of employees to increase. Then what happens? The people pay the increased cost of beer, for example, and the government uses the increase to add another tax increase. Therefore, the people pay the extra taxes without representation and the incomes of people decrease. Indexing of pensions is to increase pensions so that they can meet increased costs; indexing taxation will decrease the amount the pensioners or people have with which to buy their daily bread.
What if the cost of transportation increases? This is something over which the government, the legislatures or the governments of the provinces have no control. If the cost of transportation increases, that increased cost is added, for example, to the cost of beer. Then through this iniquitous tax, the government adds an increase on top of that. So the people pay the increased costs of transportation, and they pay the increased tax without representation. Again the incomes of people are decreased.
If the liquor board increases the price of beer, as it does periodically, to perhaps meet the cost of malt so that farmers will receive a little more, then the people who consume the beer have to pay the increased cost. If the farmers receive a little more, I am glad because they need a little more. Then the government can add another sum to that increase without representation.


An hon. Member:: Pyramiding.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Pyramiding is correct; it is an undemocratic principle.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is wrong in the private sector.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, it is wrong in the private sector, as my hon. colleague says. I know I have only two minutes remaining, so I will talk fast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Another point which aggravates me is the manner in which the bill is written. However it is written, it is wrong. For example, if there is a 10-cent increase in the price of malt, the government does not have to go by it. According to clause l(6)(a), the government can adjust the tax or alter it "in such manner as the governor in council may, by regulation, prescribe". Perhaps the government would reduce the tax, but the point is that it may increase it. This is another section which allows the government to pyramid again.
I contend that this tax is undemocratic. It should not pass any legislature without the representation of the people. It will destroy our democracy. I ask Canadians to rise up and ensure that we do not pass this. Democracy will be destroyed if taxes are passed without representation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 4, 1981


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for alerting the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: I am glad to see such a large attendance in the gallery tonight. I hope they will all go home tonight and write letters to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) protesting automatic increases in their taxes for years to come, whether it is taxes on beer, wine, petroleum, gas or whatever.
Apparently we are covering all sections of the bill tonight, as Mr. Speaker pointed out earlier. We must ask ourselves why we are into this. We have a very devious Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I have given a lot of thought as to why the Liberal party would want to bring in huge increases in the cost of gas. The Liberals tried to remove the indexation on income tax, and now they are trying to implement automatic indexing of tax increases for the future. This will just destroy the parliamentary system; there will be no point in any of us coming here.
I have it figured out. The Prime Minister is setting up the Minister of Finance as a patsy. The Prime Minister has always recognized-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have the benefit of the advice of one of the more well-known members of Parliament in the House. I tried to express this earlier, but I will repeat that motions Nos. 4 and 5 relate to clause 1(6) which deals with the following:
-the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup or the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index-
That is what the hon. member must address himself to. Short of that he will be called out of order.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, are you correcting your earlier statement that we are dealing with oil and gas? Your Honour said earlier that we could discuss oil and gas; you have not corrected that.
I have already spoken on beer and spirits. If Your Honour is saying that I can be recognized again on beer and spirits, then there is complete confusion in the House tonight. Your Honour will have to allow me to speak on gas increases. That is why I am up for the second time. I have already spoken about the government getting on the backs of the little guy by putting the price of beer out of his reach.
Bill C-57 reads as follows:
-to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas-
It does not say that it is only in respect of beer, wine and spirits. Your Honour said that you were getting your advice from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, I did not.
Excise Tax


A. Daniel McKenzie: He is not always right on what goes on in the House.
As I was saying, the Prime Minister is setting up the Minister of Finance as a patsy, directing him into these different things because he has a way of removing aspirants to his job.
We are paying $40 to $50 per barrel for imported oil. We could be obtaining it in Canada over a phased-in period of about three years at 75 per cent of world price. In three years' time we would be paying the provinces $33 per barrel. The provinces cannot survive with the federal government paying $17 for a barrel of oil. This is why 1,400 wells have closed down in Saskatchewan and they are losing 40 cents per barrel.
The Minister of Finance informed us during question period this afternoon that at the Conservative convention in February of this year we passed a motion that we work toward 75 per cent of world price. That would certainly be far more advantageous to the Canadian people than paying world prices to the OPEC countries of Venezuela, Mexico and all the rest. If it were phased in over a three-year period, it would be very advantageous to the Liberal government to pay, for instance, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta $25 a barrel next week. Then we could get on with the tar sands, and the government would not be automatically indexing tax increases to pay for the sending of more money to the Arab countries. That is a ridiculous argument. As I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister knew how to get rid of John Turner and Mr. Macdonald. The news media praised the Minister of Finance for being a brilliant debater. I do not think he knows what the Prime Minister is leading him into.
We have seen how the Liberal government has dealt with the Canadian people over the years with regard to solving all their problems. The Liberal government introduced blank cheque spending in 1968-69 when the Prime Minister changed the rules. There was no more parliamentary control over expenditures. Since that time, the only solution to any problem has been to spend more money, print more money or borrow more money. Of course, the government has added two new dimensions-it now has a scheme to try to take over provincial revenues on resources. And now, of course, automatic indexing of taxes has been introduced. This is nothing but a licence to steal, Mr. Speaker. The motion before us clearly states that it is an act to amend the Excise Tax and Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas. This evening the latest news was that Canadian drilling rigs are leaving for Australia. In the last two weeks we have driven another 60 rigs to the United States, for a total of 205 which have been driven out of the country. This means a tremendous loss in revenues. This is why the Liberals must bring in this ridiculous indexing of taxes.
If you want me to spend some time with respect to beverages, beer, wines and what-have-you, Mr. Speaker, I will. I want to point out that indexing does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. For example, indexation of personal income tax

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax
was introduced at the request of Mr. Robert Stanfield to protect taxpayers from inflation and to attempt to instil in the government better fiscal management and discipline. The government was not to profit from inflation by automatically getting higher revenues from people because they obtain cost-of-living increases to keep up with inflation. By indexing personal income tax, the government forced itself to manage the economy better so that it could obtain more revenues based on real wage gains. As hon. members know, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, the government has been trying hard to do away with the indexation of personal income tax. We in the official opposition have been trying to stop that move. 1 intend to speak at every opportunity I am afforded on Bill C-57 in order to filibuster and block this ridiculous bill until we get the message across to the Canadian people. It is nothing but a licence to steal, as I mentioned earlier.
Why must we have this indexing? I think we are entitled to an explanation as to why the government is bringing in a measure as horrendous as this. The Liberals promised energy prices below those proposed in the Crosbie budget. However, gas prices at the pumps have risen by as much as 60 cents to 70 cents a gallon since the beginning of 1980. The government now says that it wants to encourage Canadians to switch from heating their homes with oil to heating them with gas. Then it turns around and slaps an excise tax on natural gas which will be equivalent to about 12.5 cents per gallon of gasoline by 1984. To raise the amount of money which the Liberal government plans to raise by taxing consumers through the petroleum compensation charge would require an excise tax greater than a dollar per gallon of gasoline.
We must also look at the increase in unemployment insurance premiums. They are up 33.33 per cent. This is why we must have indexing of taxes. This is the position in which we have been placed by the Liberal government. Spending under the Liberal government will be $6.2 billion per year higher by 1983-84 than it would have been under the Conservative government. This government will spend a total of $16.8 billion more between 1981 and 1984 than planned by the Crosbie budget. That amounts to $1900 per taxpayer. And we heard the Minister of Finance telling us that he is planning to cut back and curtail spending. The government has no intention of doing any such thing.
The Liberals also promised the Canadian people a progressive reduction in the size of the deficit. In 1983-84, the deficit will be $500 million larger than last year's deficit and $2.7 billion larger than the deficit projected by the Crosbie budget for 1983-84. That is a fantastic amount of money, and the government's only solution to this is to automatically index taxes. Over the next four years the government's total cash requirements will be $12.7 billion higher than what was projected in the Crosbie budget. To meet these requirements, the government will either have to borrow more money, thus driving up interest rates, or print more money, thus driving up inflation.
The Minister of Finance also tells us he is exercising restraint. He does not even know the meaning of the word. If
he were exercising restraint, he would be restricting the growth of government. The following is a classic example of nothing being done to restrict the growth of government, which is why we are indexing tax increases. It is the unchecked growth of government which has allowed the number of Crown corporations to increase from 35 in 1962 to over 400 in 1980. I believe the figure today is something like 437 Crown corporations. If you asked a Liberal how many Crown corporations we have, he could not even tell you. We have tried to do that in committee and they only guess at 200 or 300. They could not care less. This growth in the number of Crown corporations also explains part of the reason for the huge federal deficit. The government is encouraging empire building within the civil service.
Another thing we are lacking in this country with this government is honesty. The type of answers we receive to legitimate questions asked in this House are an absolute disgrace. I was one who was opposed to televising the proceedings of the House of Commons, but I am glad they are being televised today since 1 receive feedback from my constituents when I return to my riding on weekends. The people who watch the televised proceedings tell me about the dishonesty and the deceitful answers given by the Prime Minister, the finance minister and the energy minister. In a question addressed to the energy minister on June 1 last, he was asked about the huge increases in gas prices and about a billion dollars going to Belgium and about a million dollars going to Switzerland to buy oil companies, which does absolutely nothing for Canadians. The minister answered that we should refer to the U.S. experience. He said that at the present time the consumer in the U.S. is paying about 50 cents per gallon more than the Canadian consumer. That is true.
An American who lives very close to the Canadian border is in a very fortunate position, at least he was until this latest 9-cent a gallon increase. This is what is happening under Liberal energy policies. Figures show that some 24,000 U.S. motorists crossed into Canada at the Fort Erie-New York border crossing in a single day just to buy our gas. You can imagine what the figures would be like for all of Canada.
The problem is that it is costing Canadians over $100 million a year so Americans can fill up at our stations. The more gas they buy, the less we will have for our own use, and the more expensive it will become for us to use it. The situation in Fort Erie has become so bad that residents of the area cannot get out of their driveways because of the line-ups of Americans waiting to fill up.
That $100 million is a very conservative figure, Mr. Speaker, and the government's solution to that dilemma is to index the excise tax.
I offered a solution to all of this on January 28 this year and I should like to read to you what I proposed as a sound alternative when I said:
Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is costing Canadian taxpayers $12 million daily to import foreign oil, an increase
June 4, 1981

of $6 million daily since January, 1980, which is creating jobs and great wealth in OPEC countries-
And I should include Mexico and Venezuela. I went on:
Therefore I move,-
That this House instruct the government to withdraw its energy policy, which is counterproductive to Canada's becoming energy self-sufficient, and that it revert to the energy policy outlined in the PC budget, which would make Canada self-sufficient, encourage investment in Canada, keep Canadian oil companies from moving to the United States-
And Australia, Mr. Speaker.
-and put a halt to the exodus of millions of dollars leaving the country.
I would suggest that that is what the government should be doing instead of introducing a ridiculous bill to index more taxes.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I shall speak on the next amendment and the next one and the next one. I am going to filibuster this if I have to stay here until the end of August.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, there is a place for philosophy and respect for the principles of government, but there is no place for either in the hands of the government of this day. I am rather surprised that my highly respected friend, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would expect that this government would consider that justice had anything to do with taxation and its procedures.
During report stage of Bill C-57 a great many remarks were made which related somewhat to the excise tax on a wide range of products and services. In general terms, this legislation could not be called anything but repugnant.
The fact that it will increase government revenues is contrary to the election promises of this government, but promises are only to be made during campaigns and not during government, according to this one. That is not the primary source of objection, but rather it is the scope of changes that this bill will effect on the revenue-gathering process that is so utterly objectionable. Taken in its entirety, this document emphasizes the fact that the government is virtually bankrupt. It is going to ask the taxpayer to bail it out. Bill C-57 is an excessive money grab, and it is when one scrutinizes the bill clause by clause, that one discovers the truly insidious nature of this revenue grab.
While I only have time today to speak on a few problems that this bill presents, I want to make it perfectly clear that there are a great many more sections of this bill that concern me. I am confident that my colleagues on this side of the House will be making full and adequate representations on these further clauses on behalf of taxpayers as did the previous speaker.
A number of people have made representations with regard to the portion of Bill C-57 that imposes indexed excise taxes on alcoholic beverages. The Canadian Brewers Association, the Canadian Association of Provincial Liquor Commissions, and
Excise Tax
Ontario winemakers have made appeals to many members of this House for changes in this portion of the legislation.
Particularly upsetting to these groups has been the proposed indexation of these excise taxes to the consumer price index. Objections to this proposed practice have been both philosophical and practical in nature. Let me make it quite clear that while no one objects to the federal government's right to collect revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages, it is the fashion in which it proposes to do so that has thrown this industry into a turmoil, and people who respect democratic government into a state of fright.
For myself, I have some trouble with the way in which it abrogates the right of Parliament to consider appropriation bills. If this measure is in fact accepted-and I am repeating what others have said, but it bears repeating-it will no longer be necessary for the minister to stand up in the House when presenting the budget, and say "I am going to change the excise taxes on alcoholic beverages by a specific amount." He no longer has to come before Parliament; he no longer announces to the people that the tax rate is going up. That is the principle of government and has been since King John, since the Magna Carta and since Runnymede. That is the principle of democratic government as we have known it. To me it is just another example on the long list of affronts that those opposite have made to the rights of Parliamentarians- taxation without announcement, taxation with deceitful representation.
As well, it joins the growing list of ways in which the government is trying to deceive the Canadian public on matters of revenue gathering. Some would argue that any provincial sales tax is, in fact, an indexed tax, and while to a limited degree that is true, a provincial sales tax does not have the same effect as would this proposed indexed excise tax.
In order to make this point more clearly, let me review the fashion in which this indexed tax will be administered. Prior to the introduction of this budget, excise taxes on alcoholic spirits were at a fixed level of $17.15 per proof gallon. Prior to April 1980, the level was $16.25 per proof gallon, and had been at that level for a number of years. With its excessive requirements for revenue, the government decided that alcoholic beverages was an area in which taxation was not keeping pace with the need for revenue. Therefore, in Bill C-57, it proposed a change whereby the amount of excise tax collected would be indexed to the alcoholic subgroup of the consumer price index. It was proposed that the taxes be adjusted quarterly.
With that brief understanding of the way in which the tax would be administered, one can quickly see that the tax would generate its own increases. An increase in the excise tax prompts an increase in the price of alcohol, which in turn moves the consumer price index up, which prompts an increase in the excise tax. The provincial sales tax may generate further revenues when there is a jump in the consumer price index, but the tax itself, however, does not generate its own increase, as would be the case with this proposal. It is pyramiding the impact of the indexing of a tax. The indexation of excise taxes

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax
on alcoholic beverages not only escalates inflation, but it gives the government an overwhelming interest in inflation. It puts the government in conflict with its own policy because the higher the price, the greater the revenue, the more it spends. And they coax people into thinking it is a good government!
Now what of other objections that have been raised against this proposal. One is that it would create inequalities between various product types in the industry. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said in his speech that he was particularly sensitive to changes in the weight of taxation between the various products. However, this is not borne out in this particular part of the bill. It is widely known that consumers have only a certain portion of their disposable income to spend on any particular facet of their livelihood.
If a bottle of beer costs SI, and a mixed drink costs $2, then it is obvious that the consumer will take more of the lower priced product. However, because changes in excise taxes will be indexed to a percentage change in the alcoholic subgroup of the CPI, a producer of a lower priced product is able to gain a further competitive edge over those of higher priced products simply by raising the price of his product. That is to say, if the price of a bottle of beer goes to $1.10, then the percentage change in the excise tax would be felt more heavily by those selling the higher priced product. If one were to speculate, one would expect that a failure of the grape crop in Italy would give a tremendous advantage to domestic wine producers in that year. On the other hand, the price of imported wines from Italy would greatly increase, and domestic producers would gain a distinct advantage. That is the way it would appear.
However, because of the fact that the increased price of foreign wine would reflect in the consumer price index and thus alter the excise tax, there would be an impact on domestic producers who would lose a proportion of their competitive advantage because the increment of tax would take hold. It is also true that rampant inflation in another country would have an across-the-board effect on the prices of alcohol in this country. The fluctuations in currency, exchange rates, etc, would not simply affect the imported product; they would affect all products that are sold when measured to the CPI.
One need not go abroad, however, to see the awful effects of this legislation. Ontario, for instance, by its very size, controls a very large portion of the sales of alcohol in this country. If the government in Ontario decided to alter the tax it collects on the sale of alcohol, then that would have a major impact on the CPI and, in turn, it would have an across-the-board effect on tax, and thus on prices all across the country. An increase of price in Ontario would have a definite and dramatic effect on the alcoholic subgroup on the CPI. In short, price mark-up in any jurisdiction could cause a price mark-up in every jurisdiction.
Looking at this whole question from an entirely practical point of view, the government may in fact be cutting off its nose to spite its face. Everyone is aware of the fact that there is a point beyond which no product can be taxed. That is to
say, taxation beyond a certain point will result in diminishing returns by virtue of a decrease in sales. I am afraid that that might just be the case in this instance. There is another factor. When the price of any product gets too high, no matter what the control, people may find ways and means to produce a product which is beyond the tax arm of the government.
Because of our recent economic hard time, the volume of sales in the alcoholic beverage groups is increasing only about 2 per cent a year. This is due strictly to the dollars and cents involved, and it has occurred during a time when excise tax remained largely unchanged. In 1977, the federal excise tax on alcoholic spirit was, as I mentioned earlier, $16.25 a proof gallon. Last April it changed to $17.50 a proof gallon, an increase of 90 cents. This change was made in the normal way of announcing a tax increment and it was voted upon in this House. The tax remained at that level until the introduction of the last budget.
By way of illustration, had the excise tax on alcoholic beverages been indexed to changes in the alcoholic subgroup of the CPI over the same period of years, the tax would have stood at $20.77 prior to the introduction of this budget. Rather than a 90-cent increase over a three-year period, there would have been a $4.50 increase which, in itself, would have constituted a 500 per cent increase in federal excise tax rates. That is how it multiplies. It feeds upon itself when aided by inflation. If one acknowledges that the growth rate in sales stood at 2 per cent when there was a 90-cent increase, one can only wonder to what level sales would have fallen had that figure been increased 500 per cent. I wonder, just as an aside, how many bootleggers we might have had in this country by this time.
One can clearly see from this that it will not require a very long period of time before the government finds its revenues declining as a result of these numerous and dramatic changes in the excise tax rate levied on alcoholic beverages. I have no sympathy in particular with either the tobacco industry or the alcohol industry. I am probably one of the heavier users of tobacco in this House. I am not proud of it, but I guess I am the victim of my own weakness. But the alcohol part of it does not bother me that much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: To get back to the philosophy, we are in a position where there would have been a 500 per cent increase in the taxation rate had we indexed it to the CPI. That is a very serious threat to the basic economy of this country. It is not because the government is taxing tobacco and alcohol that I complain. I say, go ahead, but it is the thin edge of the wedge to God knows what method of taxation as it feeds itself along. If this country accepts this thin edge of the wedge, then it can brace itself for tax rates which will be hidden, which will be generated without legislation, which will be unknown to the taxpayer and over which he will have no control.
Solutions to the problems created by this method of taxation are numerous. The liquor commissions have stated that their desire is to get away from any link to the CPI because of all
June 4, 1981

the anomalies it creates. But whether excise tax is indexed to the CPI or to the landed cost of the product at the wholesale level, or whether it is based on changes in price in individual products is not the chief concern. As I have mentioned, this method of increasing revenues is the insidious work of a near-bankrupt government. This government's lack of concern for winemakers and brewers and even for the level of its own revenues is unacceptable to those of us on this side of the House. So eager is it for greater revenues that it has charged ahead like a bull in a china shop. The government is acting in an irresponsible fashion that will, in the short term, satisfy its lust for money, but will, in the long run, do damage to domestic industries, put jobs on the line and affect government revenues in a way that was never intended.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I am happy to say that I support the amendment to remove the indexation of excise taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products because it is not good for Canada to have tax money raised without the knowledge of the people and without the people of this House.
I suppose we will see again the coalition government we presently have get together on this measure. If we do not, it will indicate very clearly that there is no longer concern in any party other than the Progressive Conservative party for the democratic process in this country.
I am not concerned about the vote on an amendment; I am concerned about the vote on this bill. But if the bill when passed, amended or otherwise, is supported by the New Democratic Party as they put their Cuban cigars in their ashtrays to cool while they slip and slide in to vote with the government as part of the coalition-


John Carr Munro: From Castro?


Fred Alward McCain: Probably from Castro, yes.


An hon. Member:: He is on his way back with a full package.


An hon. Member:: A commie troika.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) has the floor.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the problem with my colleagues to the left is that they have guilty consciences. It is just like pricking a boil. It bothers you when you are lying still, but when you start to prick it, it really hurts. So let us prick it some more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: This will really bring it down to the nitty gritty. Have they abandoned their principles to protect the taxpayers of Canada? Have they thrown away all the positions they ever had to continue as part of the coalition? What is their intention? We will watch with great interest how they vote not only on the amendments, but also when the final vote
Excise Tax
is taken on the bill, because neither the amendments nor the bill are any good.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I feel I have to say a few things about this bill and the amendment, although I cannot say what I want to say as eloquently as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said it on the topic I want to relate to this evening, namely what the concept of a parliamentary democracy is all about. It relates to the amendment we are discussing this evening to delete lines 1 to 23 of clause 1 on page 4 of the bill.
We are all here on behalf of our constituents. We see the government spending roughly $60 billion. Divide that figure by 282, and it works out that each one of us in this Parliament is responsible on behalf of our constituents for spending something like $200 million, a lot of money. It is an amount that none of us should take lightly in terms of seeing that it is spent in a proper fashion. Really, that is what a parliamentary democracy is all about. When we are elected to come here on behalf of our constituents, we do the best that we can to scrutinize government spending so that it is spent in the most desirable way possible.
That also has some implications with regard to how the money is to be raised. If this bill is passed without the amendment, we will have some very grave concerns in the future about how money is to be raised in the sense that it can be raised automatically without any regard for the concerns of members of this House and, therefore, the concerns of our constituents.
Something else to bear in mind in terms of treasury bills is that those responsible for initiating the spending of money are the members of the cabinet, of which there are roughly 32. If you divide $60 billion by 32, each cabinet minister is responsible for something like $2 billion of spending. That is a very sobering thought. When you look down the benches of the cabinet and think that each of those individuals is responsible for something like $2 billion of Canadian tax money, you get the willies, as should every taxpayer in Canada. To entrust the spending of $2 billion, as an average figure, to each cabinet minister is, I repeat, a very sobering thought.
They want to establish a principle whereby they can automatically increase the amount of money they raise without justifying where that money is to be raised. We saw that happen yesterday when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) tabled some supplementary estimates. One piece of paper accounted for over $2 billion of additional government spending, an amount equivalent to the total budget of my province of Manitoba. It seemed just like an afterthought following Question Period. There was no opportunity for the elected members to question the minister on where the money will come from and how it will be spent. That is what we see happening here.
As I said previously, a system will be put in place under this bill whereby that amount of money can be increased automatically without a proper examination by members of this House.

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax
That is the reason why the Senate is not able to initiate money bills or the spending of money. They are not elected and therefore not accountable to the taxpayers of this country as are members of this House.
If we continue along the line this bill will set as a precedent, this chamber will become as useless in terms of being a watchdog on government spending as the Senate. The Senate has a lot of shortcomings. I am somewhat of a defender of the Senate. It has a useful role to play in terms of being a watchdog and taking positions that elected representatives may find difficult to take at certain times. However, one of their shortcomings is that they cannot be responsible for government spending because they are not elected, and therefore not accountable.
That is contrary to the parliamentary system as it was developed and spoken about earlier this evening by my colleague for Bow River. It is a problem in terms of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He cannot speak in this House because he is not an elected representative. He cannot come to this chamber to speak even though the Canadian Wheat Board is set up in such a way that the only people who can really ask questions about it are the elected representatives. You could call him the minister unresponsible for the Wheat Board in the sense that he cannot speak in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member, I have been listening carefully to his arguments and I fail to see the relevance to the amendment before the House. I invite him to relate his argument to the matter under discussion.


Charles James Mayer: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect your judgment. Let me get back to the amendment before us. Clause (a) reads:
(a) aggregating the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroups or the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index, as the case may be, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act-
What we are talking about is the consumer price index and how it is to be used as a method of indexing the taxes in the subgroup referred to in that clause of the bill. I have some problems with the consumer price index. That is a topic that could be discussed at length on another occasion.
Very briefly, when we talk about a basket of goods as being static, that basket does not change as prices change. We assume that once a consumer buys the goods in that basket, he will continue to buy those items in the same quantity no matter what the price may be. We want to tie the index to something the validity of which I question. It goes on to say that this may be:
-adjusted or altered in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe, for each month in that period-
That means the governor in council, the cabinet, may decide that the consumer price index is not valid for purposes of this indexing procedure. It may change it at will without any reference back to the House of Commons. This is a deplorable type of clause to put in a bill. It further removes the accountability of the government through the elected members of Parliament to the citizens of this country who pay the tax.
As was pointed out by other speakers, you end up with a pyramid situation where you have tax on tax on tax. Let me give an example. An increase in the price of bread may come about as a result of an increase in the price of flour, presumably as a result of an increase in the price of wheat to the farmer. That could cause an increase in the consumer price index and therefore an increase in this tax. As the consumer price index goes up, the tax goes up, which could cause the consumer price index to go up again. You get a snowballing effect. It keeps going faster and faster. That is similar to the insatiable appetite this government has for money. It is in a frantic search for funds. When looking around for places to derive revenue, it starts looking at such things as are mentioned in this bill.
That, very briefly, is my concern. I do not want to take too much of the time of the House. Let me close by making the observation that this is a very large bill, 116 pages long with 132 clauses. It is very complicated in terms of the average Canadian trying to understand how our taxation system works.
When it becomes difficult for the average Canadian to understand how the taxation system works, he loses respect for law and order in this country. That is a very serious implication which can be drawn from this bill. I do not know how anyone going through this bill can really understand the total implications of what we are discussing this evening. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to take as much time as we require to look at each clause so that we as legislators can do the best job we can on behalf of those who sent us here to represent them.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I will respect your observation that I stay on the topic. I will certainly be up to speak on other clauses of the bill as they come before us.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had been tempted not to join in this debate until after the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) spoke, and then I realized the necessity of setting him straight. His speech was, of course, very interesting although somewhat irrelevant in parts, but in his final comment he wanted to know how the NDP was going to vote. I want to ease his mind lest he should feel the urge to go out and get drunk-not that he ever does- not knowing how we might vote on the final vote. The fact of the matter is that we are going to oppose it, and I would not want him to think otherwise. My comment about his going out to drink was made facetiously. I am sure he does not. However, I do-


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I do so on two bases. First, the remark was entirely irrelevant, and second, his implication as to my intentions or my inclinations was rather improperly stated before the television of this nation, and I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.
June 4, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) will take note of the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Ian Deans: I certainly do. In fact, before the member rose, I pointed out that my comment was intended facetiously, so I do withdraw it. I am sure that had he been listening-


Fred Alward McCain: I rise on a point of order.


Ian Deans: I withdrew it.


Fred Alward McCain: He withdrew it, that is fine. Thank you very much.


Ian Deans: There is no problem. I do not think my comment was any less kind than his comments about us at the end of his speech. However, let me say I had wondered why it was necessary to go on with this discussion ad nauseam. I had thought for a while that perhaps as a result of the representations that had been made to the government through the committee and the representations that had been made to the government here in the House of Commons during the course of the debate, the government might have indicated that it understood the basic and fundamental problem with which we are attempting to come to grips.
This is a twofold problem. It is not a matter of whether you support or do not support the brewers or the distillers. It is not a matter of whether you think beer should be cheaper or more expensive. Quite obviously those matters are important, and the argument made by the brewers in particular that as the price increases the sales volume decreases, could be met by some people, with applause, I suppose, and by other people with some consternation. We do not want to enter into whether or not that is the effect. Many of us could tell what the effect will be, although there is evidence to show that as the price of beer rises disproportionately to the incomes of individuals, there is a definite decrease in consumption levels. The unfortunate part about that is that probably the people who should be decreasing their consumption do not, and the ones who do, really do not suffer that much from it in any event.
Let me deal with the basic problem, which is this. Is it fair to index taxation in the way this bill does? This is not the only government in Canada which has chosen to index taxation. The government of the province of Ontario recently received an overwhelming mandate from the public and then proceeded to sock it to them, so to speak. The government made a decision, as has this government, to index its taxation system in a number of different ways, including indexing the level of tax it gets from the sale of petroleum and the sale of alcoholic beverages.
What is the effect of this? To begin with, the comments made earlier by one of the Conservative members, perhaps the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), were interesting to the extent that he pointed out that henceforth it would be unnecessary for the government to come to the House of Commons for approval of increased revenues, and if we were to carry this to the extreme, it would be entirely possible for
Excise Tax
the government to index every form of taxation to one escalator clause or another

to the cost of living or something else

and thereby eliminate the fundamental need and requirement for Parliament to ever sit, because there would be no need for Parliament. The primary purpose of Parliament is to pass judgment on the taxation imposed by the government from time to time, and on the way the government expends its funds.


Donald W. Munro: Annually.


Ian Deans: Annually, I agree, and that is from time to time. You may find that hard to believe, but it is so. The difficulty is this. My experience tells me that Parliament has lost the capacity to control expenditures. Parliament is not given the opportunity to deal with the expenditure levels of government until long after the government has spent the money. Therefore, that part of the two-pronged system intended to protect the public has already been lost. I suggest to members of Parliament that we should be vitally concerned about that loss and we should be devoting some of our time to looking at ways and means of ensuring that we can once again in the House of Commons exercise some control over the expenditure levels of government. However-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has again been listening attentively to the hon. member. The measure before us is a tax measure with an escalation provision. The measures by which the House deals with expenditures do not appear to be relevant to this particular amendment and debate.


Ian Deans: I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that on the other side of the argument there is the requirement for Parliament to exercise control over the taxing measures, so what I was saying is that on the one side Parliament must have control over expenditure, and on the other side Parliament must have final say over taxing measures.
What we are being asked to do is to give the government the right to raise taxes based on a formula which in itself is based on an index system over which the House of Commons has absolutely no control. If the House of Commons has not control over expenditures, then it can hardly influence the cost of living factors involving those expenditures, and if, on the other hand, the House of Commons has no control over taxation, because the government has assumed that control for itself and no longer is required to come back to the House for approval, then the very fundamental purpose of the establishment of the House of Commons in the first place has been undermined.
The reason, therefore, that I rose, and I suspect why other members have risen, is in order to allow the government time to think through and decide whether this is a principle it would want to enshrine in the legislation of Canada. There is a considerable difference between indexing the incomes of pensioners, on the one hand, in an effort to ease the burden of

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax
inflation as it affects those people, and, on the other hand, indexing the flow of revenue to the government itself.
I suggest to you that, without having gone through the historical records, and without having gone to all the precedents, I would wonder seriously whether legislation such as this is constitutional. I would seriously ask the question: can the government, without having come to the House of Commons for specific approval to raise taxes based on specific requirements, for all time establish an index from which it can derive additional benefit based on a tax established to meet a particular condition of a particular time? That is the fundamental question. It is a very serious legal question. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) might well take it under advisement.


Bob Rae: When he cools down.


Ian Deans: If he is over his fit of pique of this afternoon. This matter is much more fundamental than just the price of beer. It is much more fundamental than just the price of cigarettes. It is more fundamental than just the price of gasoline or fuel. It has to do with the very essence of parliamentary democracy. That is why I say this debate must continue. It is not a matter of taking one side or the other in the debate; it is a matter of trying to guarantee to those who will come after us and who will fill both government and opposition benches in this House that they will have the opportunity to do what they are elected to do and what they are sworn to do at the time they take their seats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I thank hon. members very much, and I will not say anything nasty. When hon. members take their seats, they are sworn to pass judgment on government proposals to levy new taxes or increase old taxes. Mr. Speaker, if you were not in the chair, I am sure you would be standing in your place arguing this very point on behalf of your constituents. I know some government backbenchers have an interest in the parliamentary system.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Ian Deans: I am surprised that not one-at least not one I have heard-has risen to defend this principle. They will not always be in government.


Mr. MacLaren:: What?


Ian Deans: I know that will come as a hell of a shock, but hon. members opposite will not always be in government. There will come a point when the Tories will want to raise taxes or the NDP will want to raise taxes. I may not still be here; I am prepared to admit that; but nevertheless there will come that point in time, and having once put in place this mechanism of indexing, there will be no opportunity for a single member of the Liberal backbench who is sitting in opposition some day in the future to rise and object or stop it.
That is what is wrong with this measure. It is equally wrong, regardless of what the levy is upon. It makes no difference. It happens that we are talking about beer, but we could be talking about almost anything else, and I think we have to look at this from an objective point of view. It may well be that some people's views are coloured because the measure before us deals with alcoholic beverages. We cannot allow that fact to interfere with this basic intrusion into the fundamental democratic process by the action of the government. We just cannot do it this way. Any government worth its salt would be prepared to come forward with legislation at the time it wants to raise a tax and put it before the House of Commons. Any government worth its salt would put before the House of Commons not only its proposal for an increase but also the reasons for the proposal. Any government worth its salt would have no hesitation in bringing such measures forward because it would be prepared to justify those measures before the public.
The hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) was just recently elected. If this procedure were applied across the board to every tax measure, can the hon. member for London West imagine the effect that would have on the parliamentary process of which he worked so hard to become a part? The hon. member would no longer have any say. Surely no one in this House would want to deprive the hon. member for London West of his say.
Therefore, it seems to me each one of us has an obligation to continue to make the point as forcefully as we can. If there is a reason to raise a tax, it should be brought forward. If we believe there is some reason for altering a tax, either because of an inability to spend money wisely or because, having spent it wisely, we feel we need more, then for heaven's sake, let us have the intestinal fortitude to come forward with our taxing measures when the time is right. Let us not hide behind blanket legislation because that kind of legislation is destructive. Though that kind of legislation applies only in small measure in the bill in which it is contained, if it is allowed to be carried forward as a precedent and as a practice, it would render the House of Commons unnecessary. It would make the House of Commons even more unnecessary than it seems to be at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think we are embarked this evening on a fundamental debate about the rights and privileges of Parliament. In fact, I think those of us on this side of the House who have risen so far have risen basically on questions of privilege. It is my understanding, having been a student of political science for a number of years, that there is a requirement on the government to come to Parliament once a year to raise the revenues it requires. It does this with estimates. It tells us how it is going to spend the money. It is also required, through budgets, to come back every 12 months and to lay out the manner in which it proposes to raise revenues. The measure we have before us tonight is a denial of the general tradition.
June 4, 1981

Someone used the right word this evening. This measure is repugnant. It is an insult to this House and an insult to every single member in this House that we should be asked to approve this authority now for all time and for the rest of the life of this government. That is what it could very well amount to. If hon. members opposite sneak in this indexing of the tax on beer, wine and tobacco, they will say, "Boy, we outfoxed them on those items; we will get them now on the rest". Indexation of all taxation will then be with us. Inflation will also be with us to stay because it looks very much as if this government had no intention or inclination, and certainly no ability, to deal with inflation. Inflation will be with us as long as this government is here. With inflation and indexation there will be no requirement, when this principle is spread to the rest of the taxation in this country, for this Parliament to assemble. It is that principle we are fighting tonight through this amendment. We are determined that that principle shall not be incorporated in the tax law of this country.
In an earlier intervention I quoted from a letter I received from the Brewers Association of Canada. I use this just as an example. That association is protesting against the proposal to index the excise levies on alcoholic beverages. That is natural, of course, because as inflation continues, there will be increases in levies on beer, and beer is what this association is concerned about. Let me read just a portion of this letter to indicate to the House, to the country, to those in the gallery and to those who read Hansard, just what this will mean in the next decade if this legislation is accepted now, becomes the law of the land and remains unamended for a decade. I refer to this letter dated April 24 from the Brewers Association of Canada. At the bottom of page 3 it says that the minister has also stated he did not believe indexing would affect the stability of the industry. However, one of the effects of the indexing scheme is that it would exacerbate the sales situation existing since the excise levy increased in April of 1980.
In my earlier intervention I indicated that from April of 1980 until January of 1981 there has been a decrease in the sale of beer of 0.36 per cent and an increase in the sale of distilled spirits of 4.6 per cent. I am not so much concerned with that, Mr. Speaker, as I am with this illustration. I come back to the text where it says that by 1991 the price of two dozen small bottles of beer will have increased by 157 per cent.
Let us not forget that indexation is compounded. It is not just a simple application of a percentage on the same base each year, it is the application of that percentage on the incremental base each year. The letter goes on to say that by 1991 the price of two dozen small bottles of beer will have increased by 157 per cent to $23.64, while the price of a 25-ounce bottle of inexpensive gin will have increased by only 100 per cent to $16.42. That is just one instance of what indexation is going to do.
I have in front of me the consumer price index as published in April, 1981, by the bureau of statistics, as we used to call it. The provision we are considering on page 4 of the bill has to do
Excise Tax
with the portion of the consumer price index-and I am very much in order, Mr. Speaker-which deals with tobacco and alcohol. I do not quite know what percentage of the index it is, but I will give you the change in the index between April of 1980 and April of 1981 for just that portion. For tobacco and alcohol prices in April of 1980 it was 178.0 on the basis of 1971 equalling 100. In April of 1981, one year later, it was 198.9. Let us say it was 199 for ease of subtraction. Therefore, the difference is 11 per cent.
Now suppose beer and tobacco cost $1. We apply the 11 per cent, and the price becomes $1.11. One year later, inflation has shown no signs of decreasing, so I suspect it would be another 11 per cent. This time the 11 per cent is applied not to $1 but to $1.11; we are compounding.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a mystic figure that somebody worked out. I wish I had been the one to do it but I was not. Happily I remember it. The mystic figure in compounding is 72. If you have, say, 11 per cent, you divide that into 72 and you get roughly 6.6. So what happens is that in 6.6 years prices double. That mystic figure of 72 is worth remembering. If the increase were, let us say 15 per cent, divide that into 72 and it is a little less than five. So that in 4.8 years the cost of a commodity would double if the index were increased by 15 per cent a year. Mark you, we are compounding, and this is a very staggering thought.
Now what is the total CPI during that period for all items? In April, 1980, it was 205, and one year later it was 231, a 30 point increase or about 15 per cent over that year. I am making a very rough calculation because we are working with a 200 base here. If this notion is transferred to other tax levies, we are going to see that in four and a half years at 15 per cent, the taxes will be doubled. I hope the people in the gallery realize that and I hope the people watching realize that these are the dangers we are facing tonight. We are facing a completely mute government; not one of the members of the government has risen to comment on any of these matters during the consideration of this amendment-not one of them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it will be a simple matter in two or three years for the government to say: "We do not really have to call Parliament because our taxes are rolling in at a pretty good rate". Because, mark my words, Mr. Speaker, if they get this principle installed here on beer, wine and tobacco, they have their foot in the door. This minister may not know it, but his Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) does and so does his Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They will totally disregard Parliament. They will have all the revenue they want without bothering to call Parliament. They shake their head, Mr. Speaker. They are incredible. They have been brainwashed. They just do not believe what has been going on in this country.


An hon. Member:: Puppets.


Donald W. Munro: Puppets is not the word for it. That requires pulling strings. Well, I guess they pull their strings and form their mouths into smiles and their heads wiggle back and forth saying, "No, it is not going to happen."

June 4, 1981
Excise Tax
Well, it is going to happen, it has happened and it will happen if this particular measure is accepted.
Therefore, I implore all hon. members of the House to look at it carefully in light of my comments and the comments of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). The comments were very, very pertinent-the government is attacking the very foundations of parliamentary fiscal control. It is not just expenditures, but revenue raising. If 1 am not mistaken, there has been more than one monarch in the world who has literally lost his head over this very matter, along with his wife. 1 do not know where that puts us here.


Walter David Baker: MacEachen is a bachelor!


Donald W. Munro: Then I will refer to both the king and the prince.


Mr. Ferguson:: Be careful what you say about the monarchy.


Donald W. Munro: I am all for parliamentary government. The Monarch does what her ministers advise.
I caution backbenchers to think about these matters very seriously. They should not be taken in or exhibit bland acceptance of the specious arguments of their ministers in caucus and in the House. They should stand up and tell us-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has done extremely well in keeping his remarks relevant to the motions up to this point.


Mr. Friesen:: Not only were they relevant, they were interesting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite him to maintain the high standard with which he started his remarks.


Donald W. Munro: Of course I could quote from the book entitled: "Select Documents of English Constitutional History". However, I do not think I have enough time to do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member believe these documents are relevant to the motions before us at this point?


Donald W. Munro: Yes, I do, because Parliament itself is at issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all respect to the hon. member, motions Nos. 4 and 5 are the issue before us.


Donald W. Munro: That is true, Mr. Speaker. I have stood corrected before this evening by Your Honour for having been irrelevant or irreverent-I am not sure which-on a previous intervention. I would not want to transgress further.
Aside from the stupid business about which I was talking earlier concerning pounds in this direction and kilograms in
the other direction, on page no. 4, a fundamental principle of government is at issue. I am afraid an unthinking majority opposite might very well be taken in by the arguments advanced by their frontbenchers, if they show up. If nothing else, we must preserve the rule of Parliament over the income and the outgo of government; it is fundamental to the parliamentary process. Our entire parliamentary tradition is built on it. If we let that slip through inadvertence, through thoughtlessness or because we are brainwashed, it would be a great loss. I am sure no one on this side of the House, even the hon. members at the far end, has been brainwashed in this particular matter.
If we allow this bill to go through, we might as well say farewell to the whole parliamentary process. I am sure Mr. Speaker would consider it to be a loss from which we would have great difficulty recovering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I contribute my modest remarks to the matter before us tonight. Personally I thank the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for their remarks. They were extremely important, although somewhat convoluted.
The problem before us has been addressed very effectively throughout the evening. It starts with the clause relating to alcoholic beverages and moves down to cover the question of indexing. The question of indexing, as it relates to this section and its broad, general implications, has been dealt with very effectively. There is another clause which is of great concern. I am referring to the simple phrase:
-adjusted or altered in such a manner as the governor in council may, by regulation, prescribe-
Frankly, this clause provides another example of a government ruling by regulation. We have carried this battle in the House since I have been here. Certainly I have been here only a short period of time, but repeatedly the question of the cabinet running the country by regulation and then imposing it without the benefit of the House, because of its Liberal majority, has arisen. This simple clause will provide cabinet with a further power to extend indexed taxation. It is another example of a government ruling by regulation. It is a small item, but it is one that we have opposed vigorously.
When the vote on this clause takes place, I have no doubt that the majority over there will put through this particular provision. Eventually we will wind up with another general statement which allows a great deal of discretionary power and then places that power in the government's hand in the form of regulation. We have dealt with this matter in many bills, whether it was the one my hon. friend brought forward concerning the Bank Act or other legislation. It is not an acceptable procedure in this clause; it is a portrait of arrogance. Literally the government does not know how to compromise or work co-operatively within the parliamentary framework.
June 4, 1981

We might be dealing strictly with a clause on alcoholic beverages such as beer, wine and spirits, but really what we are talking about, in a rather frank and direct form, is regressive taxation. This is the favourite of the government. Rather than trying to raise funds or revenue in an equitable and fair manner and basically dealing with a progressive taxation system, over the years the government has loaded the burden of taxation on those who can least afford to pay. There is no doubt about the track record of the government. It has displayed a continual moving away from a progressive and fair system of taxation where the raising of government revenue moves out of the corporate sector and into the personal sector. Then in the personal sector it moves down the income scale. Essentially, the rich get richer and the poor face more taxes. Now they are facing an indexed regressive taxation. It is amazing-rule by regulation, continued arrogance, lack of co-operation, and now more and more regressive tax where the burden is loaded on those who can least afford it.
May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
(A)	PROMOTION OF OFFICERS SERVING AT AIRPORTS
(B)	DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF SENIOR OFFICERS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) introduced a new policy on the basis of a so-called study by which he promoted immigration officers at four international airports from the PM-1 level to the PM-2 level. Those officers now working at Vancouver International Airport, Calgary, Dorval or, of all places, at Mirabel, are automatically working at the PM-2 level without ever having competed for a PM-2 level job.
As a result of a question I asked the minister, I found out that he is still not aware of the whole range of discrimination he has brought about by this change in policy. I questioned the minister in committee about the range of discrimination which he has introduced.
I would like to enumerate a few of the situations which have been brought about by this new policy. New casual employees, that is, those employees who come on staff as summer workers at these airports, immediately begin work at the PM-2 level, while senior officers working at inland ports remain at the PM-1 level just because they happen to be at inland ports. Part-time workers are started at the PM-2 level while fulltime, experienced officers remain at the PM-1 level.
Adjournment Debate
As a result of this policy, it is impossible to make a lateral transfer from an inland port to one of the airports I have mentioned, since transferring from a PM-1 to a PM-2 position would be involved, and the minister told me himself that one would have to compete for that kind of promotion. New recruits who come out of training programs and on to the staff at these airports as full-time employees in the immigration service are immediately senior to the seasoned employees who work at inland ports. The minister says that is all right since one has to compete for these positions. As the minister has said, one must compete for PM-2 positions unless you work at one of these aforementioned airports. Presumably, he is saying that geography is now more important than skill, experience or competition, as long as you are geographically located in the right place and you happen to choose an international airport when you go into the service, rather than an inland port. An officer at an inland port must be a specialist in many kinds of immigration problems, as a PM-1 officer. Meanwhile, the PM-2 officer at one of the airports I have mentioned specializes in only one or two areas, but he becomes a senior officer and automatically receives a higher level of pay.
When it comes to student visas, the PM-2 officer at the airport must only stamp the student's visa, which only takes a few minutes. This is because students who come into the country by way of airplane have had their visas processed by officers in a foreign immigration office who do all the work for the PM-2 officers at the airport. Meanwhile, the PM-1 officer at the inland port must do all the work to introduce a student into the country. He must handle all spontaneous applications for landing a new immigrant, those who come up to the border crossing and say that they have relatives whom they are bringing into the country or that he or she has married an alien and wishes to bring that person into the country. The PM-1 officer must do all the paperwork involved in this type of situation, which is about a four-hour job. The PM-2 officer, the senior officer, even though he is junior to the PM-1 officer at the inland port, gets only a few of these cases, thus avoiding all the paperwork. The skills activity evaluation that the so-called study group did gave this four-hour job four points on the activity scale.
In April, officials rewrote the job descriptions of the officers at Vancouver International Airport, making them counsellors. The same month they wrote a letter saying that these officers will not be doing any counselling because they happened to be PM-2 officers.
In his answer to me as reported in Hansard at page 10012, the minister said that these evaluations "were achieved in very close co-operation with the workers themselves." Mr. Speaker, I suspect the shadows of the evaluators passed by some of these employees, because they never saw them. It is strange that the border passing point at Douglas dropped from number four in activity to number 14 on this new scale of evaluation. How it got ten points below that mausoleum known as Mirabel is beyond me. Douglas, and Pacific Highway processed a total of 258,497 secondary examinations in one year. These officers

June 4, 1981
Adjournment Debate
are PM-Is. I have three questions to pose to the parliamentary secretary tonight, Mr. Speaker.
First, will a PM-2 be transferred from the Vancouver International Airport to an inland centre as a PM-2?
Second, will or can a PM-1 be transferred to be reclassified to a PM-2 position, and what will happen? Does the officer remain a PM-1?
Third, in order for an inland border PM-1 to transfer into a PM-2 office position, must he compete for a position that was granted to a possibly junior employee and, furthermore, be insulted in the process?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put by the hon. member, especially since last week, when the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration scrutinized the estimates of the Department of Employment and Immigration, the minister had an opportunity to reply to the hon. member. Understandably, to the hon. member this matter is of tremendous importance, especially since it involves his constituency. But he must also understand that the decision to classify positions at five large Canadian airports, namely Dorval, Mirabel-to which the hon. member referred-Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, all major ports of entry into Canada, is based on a comparison of examiner workloads involving specific criteria, according to a formula under which are measured the work diversity, complexity and hazards inherent to errors at each point of entry into Canada. As explained by the minister, the formula was developed in total objectivity and with the full co-operation of labour leaders. It is normal in my view that within a department such as ours, studies be undertaken, in co-operation with public servants concerned, in order to determine whether it is possible to arrive at objective criteria to avoid discrimination between the major and problem ports of entry across Canada.
Clearly, when Mirabel is compared to certain border points of entry into Canada, it is realized that conditions there are much more complex. There is no question there of immigrants or visitors from the United States, but complex cases from abroad. The Treasury Board has approved the formula, which meets current criteria in the classification standards for groups PM, PM-1, PM-2 and PM-3, as well as classification principles in force in the Public Service. A review of conditions in all points of entry will be made in April 1982, two years after the implementation of the new formula. Certainly, the Department will consider representations such as those made by the hon. member. The situation is very well understood, and everything will be done to ensure that there is no discrimination against people, whether from his constituency, from an airport, or from a port of entry into Canada where problems may be somewhat easier to solve.


NATIONAL CAPITAL-DELAY RESPECTING RIDEAU CENTRE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on March 5, I directed a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) concerning the long awaited and much needed Rideau Centre development in my riding. My question had been prompted by press reports to the effect that the Rideau Centre development had been put off once more because of legal and administrative problems. The Rideau Centre has been the subject of several interventions in the House by myself of course, as this is my riding. I must say that this development has received the almost unanimous support of hon. members from both sides of the House, Liberal as well as Progressive Conservative, in the national capital area, at least on the Ontario side.
Hon. members have often heard me deal with this subject over the past eight or nine years. The least people can say about the Rideau Centre is that it remains an audacious, original and extremely complex project which seeks to revive an important part of the very core of our national capital. The idea to develop federal lands, in co-operation with the private sector, has progressed considerably over the past eight or nine years. The Rideau Centre project was introduced at the initiative of the National Capital Commission and approved by cabinet in July 1973. Therefore, it is nothing new. Over the years, all levels of government have been consulted and involved, and have co-operated with citizens' groups and representatives of the industry in the study and preparation of the general plans for the development of the Rideau Centre. There was no lack of publicity about the project, especially when they had to cope with difficult problems and it appeared to be in danger. Indeed that is what prompted me to ask the minister the question on March 5, because certain media were saying that the project was again in the throes of death. The problems have been numerous. All groups at all levels had to be conciliatory. There were intensive consultations on the ways and means to carry out this very important project the purpose of which is to revitalize a very fashionable neighbourhood of Ottawa which is in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier.
In fact, the aim of all those who support the Rideau Centre project is to reverse the North American trend of letting city cores decay or even die. Everyone involved in this project has worked toward a general design, making the downtown area stimulating and prosperous. For this to happen, it must be a people's place, a place people can call home, living and working here in peace and security. The city core as an attractive and vibrant spot should be a magnet for visitors.
Statistics published in 1971 convinced the federal government it had a duty to help transform downtown Ottawa. In 1961, the central business area of Ottawa accounted for 65 per cent of total department stores sales in the national capital
June 4, 1981

region. Ten years later, this figure had shrunk to 31 per cent, and by 1976 the latest statistics we have, the figure was 22 per cent. This decline in spite of increasing revenues, salaries and population in the region demonstrated to us, at least, that downtown Ottawa was dying.
During times of economic difficulties as we are experiencing at present, it is not easy to mount a scheme costing hundreds of millions of dollars and create several thousands jobs. The Rideau Centre itself will create 2,000 or 3,000 jobs on site and off the site. It will stimulate the economy of Ottawa and the region. As well, it will provide an attractive, stable and yet lively milieu.
In a way, the Rideau Centre began with the renovation of the historical section, Sussex Drive and the Byward market. In this zone, new shops and apartments are already occupied. Restored old buildings have been put to modern use, several restaurants and boutiques are prospering, and I am convinced that the Rideau Centre will bring new economic and social life to the district. The Rideau Centre project offers possibilities for employment diversification. For example, it will create further employment opportunities in the tourist industry. The construction of a congress centre will attract various groups and associations throughout North America and hopefully Europe, for meetings and conventions here in Ottawa. Tourism provides spin-offs in many areas, other than those directly related to hotels, restaurants and transportation. Retail and wholesale trade and other commercial and business services benefit from tourism.
I anticipate something constructive happening with this project. I want to thank all members who have assisted and supported this project, but special mention must be made of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for his constant support. I think he joins with many of us in hoping that this project will come to a successful conclusion and that it will alleviate the economic and other difficulties we have in the national capital at this time.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to point out that, from an economic standpoint, the construction of the Rideau Centre will create several thousand permanent jobs. The Centre will bring in several million dollars annually in taxes and property taxes at all levels of government. It is a challenging project, but not easy to carry out. I know that the Minister of Public Works and all his colleagues who held that portfolio before him have worked very hard to see this project through. I also know that for over a year now legal complexities have often jeopardized the success of this project and I was told that the minister has worked unremittingly in attempting to find a satisfactory solution. Therefore I would like to hear the minister bring us up to date on the situation of the project and perhaps pass along encouraging and interesting news.
Adjournment Debate


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to reply to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that after seven years of hard planning and negotiations, the signing of the documents will take place tomorrow, thus permitting the Rideau Centre project to proceed.
As the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has said, the centre is a large real estate complex to be developed largely on Crown lands. This 14-acre site within view of Parliament will become the nucleus of a much larger plan involving major improvements to municipal infrastructure services, vehicular, public transit and pedestrian systems, not to mention several private sector commercial developments in the Rideau area. In this instance the Crown has sold its lands to the private sector and has retained certain air rights over the project. The Crown has the right to repurchase its lands with all of the buildings for $1 in 52 years.
Our objective was to revitalize the eastern core of the nation's capital, to create permanent employment and to work for the construction industry in addition to promoting the use of idle federal lands. In addition to the hotel complex described by the member and in addition to the 650,000 square feet of retail space, which includes the Eaton department store and the Congress Centre, there will be 1,500 parking spaces, a transit mall and pedestrian walkways.
The project will create approximately 2,000 person-years of construction work on the federal lands between 1981 and 1983 and another 1,000 person-years work for the construction industry in general for this region as a spin-off in the support industry. This project will create permanent employment for approximately 1,500 people.
The federal participation is $19 million from public works and $11 milion from the National Capital Commission. The private sector and other levels of government will contribute over $173 million to the project.
I would like to acknowledge the very significant role of the chairman of the National Capital Commission, the Hon. Bud Drury, former minister of public works, in the project and the support of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the hon. member who has asked the question. As well, credit is due my officials in the Public Works and other ministries who have demonstrated resourcefulness in bringing this project to fruition.
In summary, the Rideau Centre will be an attraction and a boon, not only for the residents of the national capital region but for all residents of Canada and abroad who visit our national capital. Most important, construction begins on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 4, 1981
Adjournment Debate EMPLOYMENT
(A) TRAINING AGREEMENTS WITH INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS (B) NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WITH LABOUR UNIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the early part of May, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced agreement with the coal mining, shipbuilding and aerospace industries for co-operative programs to train skilled workers in order to meet the shortages in those industries. The press briefings which were provided with the announcement said that these are "endeavours by industry, labour and government" to meet the needs of the industry for skilled workers. My question arises from the fact that I was unable to find, when the announcements were made, that there had in fact been any consultation or discussion with the unions representing the workers concerned. All of these industries are industries in which virtually all the production employees are organized and belong to unions. The government has repeatedly indicated it wants the co-operation of business and labour.
We have had intensive studies by joint government, industry and labour committees of a series of individual important industries in Canada. We have had a major study done by labour and management committees into the needs to meet the financial and human needs for the megaprojects we expect to see in the next two generations.
Yet when it comes down to the actual planning, the department by design or by omission completely ignored the unions which represent the workers now in the industry.
Let me quote for a moment a couple of clauses from the agreement with the coal association. I quote as follows from the general agreement:
That employment and career opportunities created will be made available, firstly, to employees of the respective member companies in which the opportunities are created, and secondly, to Canadian citizens or other permanent residents;
If you are going to make opportunities available for skills or upgrading of employees now working in the companies which are organized by unions, this cannot be done without consultation with the unions which represent the workers. I say that not to have brought the unions in right from the beginning was an error of major proportions.
There is a clause which states:
That Affirmative Action/Special Measures will actively be promoted among participating member companies, whenever possible.
Again, that certainly cannot work in a friendly co-operative spirit without the co-operation of the unions. That was not done and to my knowledge it has not been done until now.
I asked the minister a second question having to do with an earlier announcement last January that there would be a $350 million industrial training program for hard-hit areas which included Windsor, Sept-Isles and Sydney, Nova Scotia. Again, when that program was announced, in checking with unions I found they had not been consulted. That was last January. When I raised the question on May 20 I was told by the minister that whatever had happened in the past, the community committee in Windsor where the auto workers are so vitally involved was working.
Just in the last day or so I spoke with the representative of the auto workers' union in Windsor, and I can tell the parliamentary secretary to the minister that he is completely dissatisfied with the role which the union is being permitted to fill. Today I received a report from a senior member of the steelworkers' union of the national office in connection with the two other cities involved in that industrial adjustment program. He reported that in Sept-Isles there was some talk about a committee being set up and a chairman appointed, that there might be involvement with the union but that so far there has been no action. In Sydney, he says, there is no news. Some initial announcement was made, but there was no real follow-up, and the little information they received was considered "a bunch of junk".
I say that this program is doomed to failure unless the government is seriously committed to doing what it has always said, and that is to encourage and to require the full co-operation of unions, not after the plans are made and not after the contracts are signed, sealed and delivered, but right from the beginning when the idea is conceived and when the government department begins to consult with the industry. Just at the same time the government must begin to consult with the union. Otherwise the programs are doomed to failure.


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, I hope you understand that we are in complete disagreement with the hon. member because, as Your Honour knows, and as has been stated in the House by the minister, officials of the labour organizations were immediately contacted concerning-I will start with the second case-the cases to which the hon. member referred regarding Sydney, Sept-Iles and Windsor. The officials were contacted right after the March 16 announcement designating Port-Cartier-Sept-Iles, Tracey-Sorel, Sydney and Windsor for special adjustment assistance.
More specifically, for the community of Port-Cartier-Sept-iles-

With respect to Port-Cartier and Sept-Iles, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Canadian Paperworkers International Union, local 1125, the Federation des travailleurs du Quebec, local 8399 and the United Steelworkers of America were all consulted on their involvement in the community adjustment aid committee for Port-Cartier and Sept-Iles.

In Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Cape Breton Labour Council and the United Steelworkers of America were contacted concerning their participation on a community adjustment committee for that community. The Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux, La Federation de Travailleurs de Quebec and United Steelworkers of America were contacted in relation to their participation in the projects for Tracey-Sorel.

In Windsor, consultations were with the Windsor and District Labour Council, the Canadian Council of United Auto Workers and the Essex and Kent County Building and Construction Trades Council, which are members of the community adjustment committee for that community.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said to this House on May 20, 1981, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg-North (Mr. Orlikow) that the conclusion of agreements with the aeronautical industry and the coal mining and other mining companies regarding manpower planning is one of the most important initiatives ever taken by this government for efficient human resources planning in order to fullfil the need for skilled manpower in some industrial sectors.
Both management and labour unions, contrary to what the hon. member said, actively participated in the negotiation process through the two members of the Employment and Immigration Commission, one acting on behalf of the unions, the other on behalf of industry.
Adjournment Debate
I should like to point out, however, that manpower planning is usually the responsibility of management, and that those agreements are intended solely to serve as a general framework within which government and industry can co-operate. The provisions for training are meant to give the companies involved information on the training programs offered by the commission. Specific manpower planning and training programs will be implemented by each company and in every case, as in the past, Mr. Speaker, both unions and employers will be consulted. I believe this refutes easily the allegations of the hon. member. I am sure those programs will be implemented without delay: we can then find out whether or not the communities involved were consulted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 5, 1981