1981-01-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the minister responsible for the status of women has stated that an affidavit exists which he tells this House supports his position, and since his parliamentary secretary and the hon. Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), all of whom participated in yesterday's debate, have failed to produce the hidden affidavit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House direct the minister to produce and table the affidavit, which he says exists and to which he has referred.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, owing to the horrifying 30 per cent increase in house burglaries in Canada, police departments are grossly overworked, the courts are unable to deal with the cases and the jails and penitentiaries are insufficient to hold the offenders. Since this massive increase in crime can be tied directly to the poor economic climate in this country and the resulting high unemployment, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Solicitor General of Canada be called upon to convene a meeting of solicitors general of all the provinces to determine exactly what course of action should be taken, apart from the improvement in the general economic conditions, to help alleviate this problem.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the rapidly increasing cost of production in agriculture today, and realizing that farmers have an urgent need for income early in the crop year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the Canadian Wheat Board's proposed market assurance plan, which is very similar to that proposed for wheat by the emergency grain movement task force early in 1979, be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for refining.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to raise a very urgent question.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated in the House that he agrees with Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. to replace the Auditor General with private auditors. Since this would restrict the power of Parliament and do away with integrated auditing principles for Crown corporations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy to reconsider his approval of the order in council appointing private auditors for Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.

January 23, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPPING
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-AIberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the U.S. plans to bring the 188,000 dead weight ton tanker B.T. San Diego into the Strait of Juan de Fuca contrary to American law, and whereas both the Canadian public and successive Liberal and Conservative governments of Canada have opposed west coast tanker traffic, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the House of Commons go on record as unanimously supporting the positions previously and presently held by the Government of Canada opposing oil tanker traffic on the west coast and the entrance of the B. T. San Diego into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.


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


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That this House express its concern over the public-be-damned attitude of the foreign-owned B.C. Telephone Company monopoly in British Columbia which, in spite of three mediation reports accepted by the union, has turned down every proposed settlement, demonstrating that this U.S. outfit, by locking out an additional 230 customer service workers since Monday, prefers to deny thousands of residential, commercial and industrial users telephone service rather than meeting the reasonable demands of its employees; and, further, that this House urge the CRTC not to grant the requested rate increases to B.C. Tel until that company has settled its dispute with its workers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 with respect to a very serious matter involving natural gas. In view of very widespread concern and uncertainty in western Canada concerning the implications of the two natural gas taxes in the national energy policy and the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) recorded in Hansard of January 12 respecting the committee stage of "oil and gas energy legislation where hon. members opposite may call all the witnesses they desire and examine them on the impact which this bill will have on the economy," I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the government take the initiative in seeking the consent of the House for the referral of the two natural gas tax bills to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works after second reading with authority to hear witnesses from natural gas producers and consumers such as the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops and the City of Medicine Hat.


CANADIAN PENSION COMMISSION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I too rise on a matter which is both urgent and pressing. It concerns the length of time the Canadian Pension Commission takes to process veterans' applications. Some veterans have had to wait more than a year to get their cases before the medical advisory branch. As these citizens responded immediately to the need of the country during World War II and as it was patently obvious that the resources of the pension commission would be strained as the veterans aged, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House urge the acting minister to have the same consideration for the veterans as the veterans had for Canada and to expedite the processing of pension applications by all possible means.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 23, 1981

Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian government has announced its intention to provide Barbados with a $6.5 million loan to improve its water supply system so that 98 per cent of all households on that island can receive water service by 1985. While most Canadians should be proud of their ability to aid less fortunate countries in this way, they should also be aware that less than 50 per cent of the homes in native communities across Canada are properly serviced, and even where running water is available the quality is often so poor that it contributes significantly to the already appalling health conditions found on most reserves. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House condemn the government for its disgraceful lack of priority setting where native people are concerned and direct the government to act immediately to improve and upgrade housing and water services on Canada's native reserves, which are currently trailing well behind national standards.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR TABLING OF DEVELOPMENT POLICY-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put a motion before the House. The prospects of expansion in the Canadian mining industry are favourable if sufficient growth capital can be found and made available. As much of the growth capital is self-generated, the House welcomes the policy statement by the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) in an address to the Alberta chamber of resources recently in which she stated, and I quote: "Further, the government has no plan to increase the tax burden of the mineral sector at this time."
As this appears to be firm government policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet):
That the government table in this House within the next several weeks an over-all current mining and mineral development policy paper, including a long-term taxation policy, mineral lease policy, transportation policy, safety policy and manpower upgrading and supply policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Government of Canada has obviously not been listening to the concerns of disabled Canadians, as witnessed by the wage subsidy program announced yesterday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Government of Canada immediately bring before this House legislation providing that all employers having contracts with the government make a provision for affirmative action programs to employ disabled Canadians that will provide them with real job opportunities and promote the realization of the full participation of disabled persons in the social life and development of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in the House the minister indicated, in response to a question from the hon. member for Athabasca, some willingness-and accordingly gave a ray of hope on the part of the federal government-to modify the government's rigid position with respect to the oil and gas pricing agreement and to certain provisions of the National Energy Program. At the same time, the colleague of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, was in the province of Alberta escalating further the confrontation and widening the rift by indulging in yet another vicious attack upon the industry in the province of Alberta, which I must say casts a rather bad reflection upon the sincerity of the minister and indeed of this government.
Since the Minister of Finance now seems to have opened the door somewhat, may I ask him, in the interests of all concerned and particularly in the interest of improving the atmosphere, if he would use his good influence in urging his colleague to refrain from using his traditional inflammatory tactics, and to establish a negotiating stance of common sense and practical reasoning so that negotiations can be renewed and an energy agreement concluded.

January 23, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: I have not had a chance, Madam Speaker, to read all of the minister's statements in Alberta, but what I have read indicates that he is attempting to clarify some facts that have been obscured, that have not been fully understood. I do not find anything in his statements that is inflammatory. On the contrary, the minister has repeated the willingness of the Government of Canada to continue negotiations in good faith and has continuously invited the government of Alberta to enter into negotiations with the same outlook and the same attitude. That has always been the attitude of the Government of Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there seems to be reluctance on the part of the federal government to initiate any new attempt to negotiate. Could the minister enlighten the House as to what progress has been made in terms of establishing a common set of numbers with respect to revenue sharing and supply projections inasmuch as that seems to be one of the basic and fundamental problems in terms of getting back to the negotiating table. For example, the federal government contends that Ottawa will not require any imports of oil by 1990, while the province of Alberta suggests we will be requiring some 734,000 barrels a day. In the area of revenue sharing, the federal government contends that the province's share is 43 per cent; the province contends it is 28 per cent. Has any progress been made in establishing a common set of numbers upon which the two levels of government can agree?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not think it will be possible to make very much progress in establishing a common data base until there is a readiness to have meetings of officials on a continuing basis at which these numbers could be examined. 1 agree with the hon. member that it ought to be possible and an effort should be undertaken to reach a common understanding of the facts, and that can be done only by a resumption, on a continuing basis, of discussions between officials of both governments.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The point must be made that it is the Government of Canada which has exercised unilateralism, so it should be the federal government which becomes the initiator in terms of getting back to the negotiating table. Canadians are finding it increasingly more difficult to understand the hypocrisy of the government. It is attacking an industry in one part of the country and bailing out industries in other parts of the country. When can we expect the government to act with some equality in terms of equal treatment for industries in all parts of the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised the question of the negotiations. It is important to point out that after the Government of Canada released its energy plan and after the budget was delivered, the Prime Minister undertook and expressed a willingness to enter into negotiations with the Premier of Alberta. It is my understanding that at that time the premier was of the view discussions should take place initially between officials of both governments and that it was inappropriate to begin discussions between himself and the Prime Minister; that has been the situation up to the present time. I hope the hon. member's question will encourage all participants, especially the government of Alberta, to come forward more readily to have serious discussions on this problem.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, in view of what seems to be a rather conciliatory approach by the Minister of Finance, would he seize upon the opportunity to become more involved in the negotiating process? As long as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is engaged alone in dealing with the province of Alberta, the division will continue and there will be a further inflammation of the current rift. Will the Minister of Finance seize upon this opportunity to become personally involved in the negotiations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not believe the issues involved between the Government of Canada and the producing provinces are matters of personality.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think they are.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not believe that by shifting the negotiators a solution would occur.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister might be surprised.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In my opinion that is somewhat naive.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last night in Edmonton the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made the following statement:
At least they haven't brought in the CIA like they did in certain other countries.
As our relations with the United States are of vital importance to Canada in areas of defence, fishing, trade, and many others too numerous to mention, is the minister's statement a signal of change in the direction of the attitude of the government toward the United States?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would be anxious to help the hon. member. Could he elaborate? They have not brought in the CIA for what? I do not know what he is talking about.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I hope this is not my supplementary question, but to clarify my question to the Prime Minister, the statement was made with reference to complaints by national oil companies from the United States operating in
January 23, 1981

Canada. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that they always complain, but "at least they haven't brought in the CIA." Is this the signal of a new direction for Canada in foreign affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think one would be stupid to think that.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I have a report from the United States army known as the Gagetown report. It shows that in 1966 our forces at CFB Gagetown participated with the American army in the testing of chemical defoliants, among them the carcinogenic agents orange, purple and white destined for use in Vietnam. Would the Prime Minister tell us why the government has steadfastly denied for so many years that Canadian forces ever participated in such testing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did not understand a word of the question. If the hon. member would speak more slowly and hon. members opposite would keep quiet, I will attempt to answer it.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, my question arises out of a report I have from the United States army. It is known as the Gagetown report. It shows that in 1966 our forces at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick, participated with the American army in the testing of chemical defoliants, among them the agents orange, purple and white, all of which are carcinogens. Would the Prime Minister please tell us why his government for so many years has steadfastly denied that Canadian forces participated in such testing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, something which happened in 1966 is not fresh in my memory. If the hon. member would permit, I will take the question as notice.


Madam Speaker:: One supplementary from the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, my question was: Why has he denied that we participated in anything involved with the Vietnam war? I think that question requires a simple answer, whether he knows the details with regard to 1966 or not. Why does he deny we have ever participated in anything to do with the Vietnam war when I have proof here that we were, indeed, involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know in what way the hon. member suggests we were involved in the Vietnam war. If there were some joint experiences between Canadian and American forces, of which I know nothing, until the hon. member gives
Oral Questions
me time to inquire I have no evidence that they had to do with the Vietnam war. There have been joint NORAD operations. There have been joint NATO operations. I do not think it is sound to conclude that every member of NORAD or NATO was involved in the war in Vietnam, which was a war which involved the United States.


TESTING OF CHEMICAL DEFOLIANTS-MONITORING OF EFFECTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Was her department informed of the Gagetown testing? Has the ministry monitored any possible health hazards to the general population in the vicinity, as well as Canadian personnel involved in the Gagetown operation?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with this case, and I will inquire and get all the details that can be uncovered.


TAXES ON OIL AND NATURAL GAS-REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING POSSIBLE REDUCTION
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to Indian bands in Alberta to the effect that he would try to find ways to reduce the 8 per cent wellhead tax on oil and the 30 per cent tax on natural gas, did he have the assurance of the Minister of Finance that in fact he could do that? Is the Minister of Finance now actively pursuing positive policies which will benefit Indians in this area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not heard the comments of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on that subject. I have no intention of changing those particular legislative proposals, which are already before the House.


LOSS OF REVENUE BY INDIAN BANDS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the potential loss of many millions of dollars in income committed by Indian bands have made because of the revenue they have been receiving from natural gas and oil, is the minister actively making representations to the Minister of Finance about the serious nature of this problem? Is he encouraging him to make some changes?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I have met with

January 23, 1981
Oral Questions
Indian groups about the whole question of the impact this will have upon their revenues. I intend to meet with them again to explore how serious the impact may or may not be. Certainly some of their concerns were allayed in the sense that they thought certain regulations would be prejudicial when, indeed, they would not be. I intend to meet with them again for further clarification. After those meetings are complete I shall be pleased to report to the hon. member. Their concerns are certainly familiar to the Minister of Finance. As I say, we are going through the process of examining whether, indeed, it is having the type of impact which they envisage.


EDUCATION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Under the federal government's established programs financial scheme, the government funnels some $3 billion to the provinces to help pay the operating costs of post-secondary institutions in the country. In light of the government's budget of October 28, which stated that the federal government intends to reduce substantially transfer payments to the provinces in areas under provincial jurisdiction, will the minister advise the House whether the government is planning to withdraw support for post-secondary education in Canada either by pulling out of established programs financing or reducing significantly the post-secondary education portion of that shared-cost program?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I would just add one element to the hon. member's preamble. While it is true that over $3 billion per year is transferred to the provinces for the purpose of post-secondary education, I would like to add that there is also the transfer of tax points which amount to approximately $1 billion and which bring the total federal contribution to post-secondary education to $4 billion.
Of course, we are quite aware of the importance of federal contributions to post-secondary education in Canada. We are committed to seeing an excellent post-secondary education program continue in Canada, but, as in other areas, we are interested in seeing improvements made in the way federal funds are spent.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State; he did not answer my previous question. Since support for post-secondary education under established programs funding is designed in large part to equalize educational opportunities across the country, does the minister realize that any major withdrawal of that support would devastate the quality of university education, especially in my own region of the Atlantic provinces, that it would cause student fees to skyrocket throughout the country, that it would
cripple the economies of university towns and, in fact, would undermine the government's own commitment to increase substantially research and development in the country?
In light of those facts, will the government launch a joint federal-provincial inquiry, review or perhaps even a royal commission to investigate university financing before it makes significant changes to this important area of our public life?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member that federal involvement in post-secondary education in this country has been essential to the development of our excellent educational system. I also indicated that it was in the best interest of both sides of this House to see that funds be expended as efficiently as possible. Perhaps I could draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that on Tuesday next I shall be meeting with the provincial ministers of education and that we will probably touch upon this subject. Also there is no doubt that this matter is of great interest to the academic as well as the political community throughout Canada. An important seminar is to be held at Simon Fraser University on February 12 and 13 and it will bring together representatives of the academic community. My officials and I intend to be in attendance and we shall of course see that federal funds are spent as wisely as possible and that federal objectives are being met.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS OF GREENLAND
Madam Speaker:: May I at this point draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Moses Olsen, Minister of Social Affairs of the Home Rule Government of Greenland.


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


Madam Speaker:: I had also intended to draw the attention of the House to the presence of a delegation of French parliamentarians but I think they have now disappeared from the gallery.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration or, in his absence, his parliamentary secretary. On December 8, 1 informed the minister that unemployment insurance payments
January 23, 1981

were greatly delayed in the Gaspe peninsula offices. This situation has not improved and 200 claimants at the Chandler unemployment insurance office have been waiting for their benefits for eight to ten weeks. I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the situation and what action he intends to take so that these claimants may receive their benefits in the very near future.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question and for having advised the minister's office and the department of this problem. Two specialists from headquarters have been sent to the Chandler office to help local officers solve this problem. We hope that the files of the 200 claimants involved will have been examined and the situation corrected before the end of next week. We shall also be reorganizing the office to ensure that this type of problem does not occur again.


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. We are faced with bank interest rates at or near an all-time high and bank profits averaging a 14 per cent increase this year, with the profits of the Royal Bank up 21 per cent and the Bank of Nova Scotia up 22.3 per cent. At the same time bankruptcies in the farming community are up 79 per cent, business bankruptcies have increased by 16.7 per cent and consumer bankruptcies are up by 17.5 per cent. Does the minister see any relationship between high bank interest, high bank profits and high bankruptcies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there are many interrelationships.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is this. What advice does the Minister of Finance have for the people of Canada-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Pray!


Ian Deans: -who during this year will be faced with about 12 per cent inflation, food prices rising by 13 per cent to 15 per cent, energy costs increasing by almost 25 per cent and wages falling behind the rising cost of living for the fourth straight year? What advice can the minister give the people of Canada in their efforts to cope with this situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the question is too general to be answered on the orders of the day.
Oral Questions BANKRUPTCIES
RE-MOR MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT-C & M FINANCIAL


SERVICES-INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY COMMITTEE OF ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister will be aware of a summons being issued to the Superintendent of Insurance in his department directing him to appear before a special committee of the Ontario legislature which is looking into the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy of Re-Mor Management Investment and the receivership of C & M Financial Services. Would the minister advise the House whether or not he is aware of any other federal officials or appointees who may have been issued a summons, and will he co-operate with the committee of the legislature in its investigation?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I have heard that the Superintendent of Insurance might be called before a standing committee of the Ontario legislature as well as an officer responsible for the trust companies section of the Department of Insurance. I feel, rMadam Speaker, that this situation should be fully looked into. First of all, this committee of the Ontario legislature is considering the issue of a licence by a provincial agency to a provincial corporation, the Re-Mor company, and might eventually consider the issue of a provincial licence to a federally incorporated company. I believe that, according to jurisprudence-and this is the opinion of the legal advisers of the Department of Insurance-a provincial body has no jurisdiction to call witnesses to testify in matters of federal jurisdiction.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, inasmuch as Astra Trust, Re-Mor Management Investment and C & M Financial Consultants are interconnected and since the winding down of C & M Financial Consultants was a condition for the granting of the Astra Trust charter, will the minister co-operate with this committee by allowing it to examine the three RCMP reports on Astra Trust which recommended that a trust licence not be issued?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, 1 find the conclusions of the hon. member very strange. 1 have indicated several times in the House that the incorporation application of the Astra company had been examined closely and exhaustively by the Department of Insurance. As the hon. member indicated at the time, the Superintendent of Insurance had even asked the RCMP to provide some information about the applicants. Following extensive and exhaustive investigations, the Superintendent of Insurance concluded that he could recommend to the Minister of Finance that an incorporation charter be granted.

January 23, 1981
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. During the course of questioning at yesterday's Standing Committee on Transport, CN President Dr. R. A. Bandeen informed committee members that he had proposals for the transport minister regarding the retention of CN Express offices in Charlottetown and other maritime centres. He advised me that he will be requesting a meeting with the Minister of Transport some day next week to present his proposals for the minister's consideration. In view of the urgency of the situation, that being that some CN employees have already received their notices of lay-off, will the minister assure this House that he will do everything possible to allow Dr. Bandeen to meet and present his proposals for the maintenance of CN Express offices in Charlottetown and other maritime centres?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has described the situation very well. Dr. Bandeen is going to tell me the results of his review of that situation next week. Obviously I will react to that. There is something I want to mention which is rather important. A notice of lay-off is a procedural matter which is necessary in order that an employee can take advantage of the relocation, retraining or pre-pensioning system which is part of the retrenchment operations of CN Express. The hon. member should bear that in mind. Something else to bear in mind is that when a person loses his employment with CN Express, and I have proof of this, he often finds his way into working with another company which had rivalled CN Express in the past. Consequently some jobs are moving. They are not being lost to the area as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Melbourne Alexander Gass: At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport on December 18, a motion was moved, voted on and agreed to that "CN Railways continue the CN Express service at the minimum of the 1979 level". I am sure the minister is aware of this resolution. Did the minister consider this and will it be discussed with Dr. Bandeen next week?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is part of the present exercise. The recommendation was that a review should be made and a review is now taking place. The results will be announced next week.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question concerns natural disasters which might occur on Indian reservations and is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Does the department have a policy whereby, in the event of a catastrophe such as a serious flood on a reservation, departmental members will help the Indians?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker. When there are catastrophes of that nature, the department tries to respond as constructively as possible with financial and other resources.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, what I was getting at was whether the department has a special team. A disaster occurred in my constituency several weeks ago and no one appeared for ten days. Are Indian people able to get funding from the federal-provincial funds allocated for these disasters? As the minister knows, they live in a sort of no man's land situation.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, that is somewhat of a hypothetical question inasmuch as the Indians, to my knowledge, have not chosen to go that route. What they have done is communicate a problem which has all the earmarks of a catastrophe of the nature the hon. member is talking about. They should immediately communicate with our regional director-general. I know of examples where he has endeavoured to respond with financial resources and personnel, though perhaps not personnel direct from the department. They may contract people who have the competence, depending on the nature of the catastrophe, to respond in the most effective way possible.
As for the particular case the hon. member talks of in his constituency, he has not informed me, at least orally, about the situation. I will be pleased to look into the matter and will in fact do so.


NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER NEW POLICY WILL BE ANNOUNCED
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
With a view to seconding the support from thousands of Canadians directly involved in international development and co-operation, to maintaining their support for the government initiative in the North-South dialogue, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister tell the House, in light of the two reports which were tabled in the House in July and December by the
January 23, 1981

parliamentary task forces on North-South relations, whether the government is now reviewing its public assistance policies and whether we can expect that in the near future the government will make a statement on the revision of those policies so as to ensure that people will show renewed interest in the Prime Minister's personal endeavour as regards the North-South dialogue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Gloucester and the task force he chaired for the interest they have generated in this issue. I for one believe it is important that the Canadian public be made aware of the recommendations of the committee. Speaking for the government, we are obviously quite delighted to have that report and we have begun to study it. I leave it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to expound on what action the government might take in future. For the time being, however, I can assure the hon. member that besides increasing the funds earmarked for international aid, as announced by the Minister of Finance, I have had several exchanges with the CIDA president, Mr. Masse, and we are steering a course of action which will closely parallel the over-all recommendations of the hon. member's task force.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Only three years ago Mr. Justice Thomas Berger, who was appointed by the Prime Minister, recommended a ten-year moratorium on any pipeline project in the Mackenzie Valley so that the Dene Nation would have time to settle their land claims with the federal government, and yet the EARP report has recommended that the pipeline may go ahead as early as next year. Will the Prime Minister assure this House that he will respect the recommendations of the Dene Nation, Mr. Justice Berger and the government of the Northwest Territories and that no pipeline will be approved until the settlement of claims has been implemented in the Mackenzie Valley?


John Carr Munro: I might deal with the hon. member's question, Madam Speaker. It is true the EARP panel did inject some very serious reservations in terms of environmental dangers with respect to the Norman Wells pipeline. Undoubtedly that will be given very serious consideration by the National Energy Board. In terms of the decision whether or not to go ahead, it would be premature at this stage because, as the hon. member may be aware, the National Energy Board is dealing with the question. According to my information, it does not expect to come in with a finding for at least six to
Oral Questions
eight weeks. At that time a decision can be made by the government as to whether the suggested recommendations be implemented or not. Certainly it is premature to deal with it now; for all we know, the National Energy Board may not approve it.


Peter Ittinuar: I will direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister commit his government to the settlement of claims before the pipeline is built?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, it is my hope, and I believe this is the feeling of the leadership of the Dene, that the claims question can get under way and progress very rapidly over the course of the next year. Certainly Mr. Erasmus, the head of the Dene, indicated he would be ready for the appointment of a negotiator. I hope to be able to do that very shortly and that some real progress can be made on land claims, irrespective of what happens with respect to Norman Wells.


STATISTICS ACT
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services, partly to allow him to pierce the veil of cobwebs that surrounds him during question period. In response to a question by my colleague the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville in respect of the census that is to take place, the minister indicated that traditionally a list of nominations provided by government party MPs and local representatives has been a source for potential census commissioners.
Quite apart from the fact that it is going to be rather difficult for the minister to consult his members from any point west of Winnipeg, I would ask him whether he will now change the policy and take a more impartial view of the appointment of census commissioners? The people of Canada expect impartiality and do not want any tinge of partisanship or the suggestion of partisanship on the part of the people conducting the census. Will the minister now commit himself to change this policy?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: First of all, Madam Speaker, 1 am very grateful to the hon. gentleman for his consideration in the removal of, as he points out, the cobwebs that surround me. I would point out to him that, in effect, the tradition being followed through in this census is one which definitely was about to be adopted by my predecessor in that position in the former government. I would point out to him as well that the quality of the individuals who are to be hired in this process is established through very objective means indeed.


An hon. Member:: Liberal Party membership.

January 23, 1981
Oral Questions


Mr. Blais:: Of course, I have received representations from members of all parties in this House and those representations are being taken seriously.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the minister is certainly not in the category of "might have been", he is in the category of "never was" in terms of what his predecessor might or might not have done. Let me say to the minister that it seems to me this policy is a stinging indictment of the operation of Canada Manpower Centres across this country as well as an indictment of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the capacity of that body to find suitable people to carry out the census, particularly at a time of outstanding unemployment in our country. I simply want to ask the minister specifically whether he will reconsider and allow manpower to obtain these people, so we can be in a position where there will be some impartiality in respect of selection based on merit and not political affiliation?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that I am very serious when I indicate that the quality of the individuals who are selected is tested through an objective process, including an interview.


An hon. Member:: And Liberal party membership.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The system the hon. gentleman refers to is a referral system, namely, how the individuals are referred. I pointed out to him that the referral system is the traditional referral system authorized by Parliament under section 5 of the Statistics Act. In terms of the performance of the individuals, I would point out to him that the Canadian census is recognized internationally as being a superior census and we are going to continue to achieve that end by the employment of individuals who are able to carry forward that responsibility after having conducted a very thorough selection process.


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


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Although I would like once again to draw his attention to the problem of railway services in my riding, this morning my question relates to transport services generally. I would like to ask him whether his department or the Canadian Transport Commission are planning an early review of the full question of regional transportation within the Atlantic area. I ask this while emphasizing particularly the shortcomings in air services in northwestern New Brunswick, the region I represent in the House, of course.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there are two comments I can make on that subject. First, we are making a general review of VIA operations. Two or three years after setting up the corporation the government feels the need for reflection and that will lead to discussions with specialized groups, and with hon. members of course.
Second, several weeks ago I began an exchange of views with the transport ministers of the Atlantic provinces, including Newfoundland, on a concept whereby we would make up an envelope which would enable the provinces, in conjunction with the federal government, to adopt what I feel would be a much more constructive, much more effective and much more intelligent approach to transportation in those provinces. For instance, we might end up by saving money on certain means of transportation and those savings could then be invested in other modes of transportation. It is with that background in mind that some day I would like to reply at length to the hon. member's question.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who on several occasions has promised the House speedy action on introducing a Crown corporations bill similar to that introduced by the Conservative government in 1979. Where is that bill and why has the minister not kept that commitment?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am keeping that commitment.


An hon. Member:: Where is the bill?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it is nice to see that the minister has not lost his sense of humour since joining the treasury benches. My supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board is this. He will be aware that Bill C-42, the bill to create a Crown corporation for the post office, includes a provision which would allow the Postmaster General to give secret directives to the new Crown corporation. In view of the fact that these secret directives are directly contrary to one of the central elements of the previous Crown corporations bill, namely, that secret directives would not be allowed, how is that element of the policy being changed by the President of the Treasury Board, or will it be included in his bill?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, great progress has been made in ironing out a number of difficulties of which I am sure the hon. member is aware. Constructive criticism has been received concerning the prior bill. On that specific point, the provisions of the omnibus bill will, of course, override the provisions of any other bill affecting Crown corporations. That was the intent, so the law will have to be made compatible at
January 23, 1981

some point. I am not speaking specifically with respect to the Crown corporation for the post office, but speaking generally right across government. That is the purpose of the omnibus legislation.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. When the move was made by the air traffic controllers at Toronto International Airport on January 10 of this year to the new centre, they were faced with all new equipment. Since then the travelling public has had to put up with interminable delays because of the system put in there. Will the minister indicate that in fact it is not the joint enroute terminal system, but rather the integrated communications control system and the operations information display system that are causing the trouble, particularly the communications system since there is no adequate back-up, controllers are afraid of it and are, therefore, slowing down the operation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the knowledge I have of these events corresponds exactly with the question that has now been raised; it is a combination of both. My hon. friend's question is "right on."


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, it may be that 1 am "right on", but is it not true that in spite of all this fancy radar equipment we do not have an adequate back-up in communications, and is the minister prepared to make some changes to correct that situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 do not know how to answer that question. The JETS system has been the subject of criticism, particularly on the part of the president of CATCA recently. Is that the question my hon. friend is raising? On that one there is a running debate, and the views of CATCA's president are well known. They are contradicted by others, who say that the JETS system is quite acceptable. One of the advantages it has is that it can be improved upon all the time, but I am not too sure about the direction of the answer my hon. friend is looking for. Perhaps we could have a gentleman's conversation later and straighten things out so that his next question on that subject will be clearer in my mind.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege which arises from the question period yesterday. I note that the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
Northern Development (Mr. Munro) is not in the House at this point, so perhaps I will ask Your Honour not to rule on this until both the minister and I are again present in the House. However, I will outline my question of privilege very briefly so that Your Honour can be aware of it.


Madam Speaker:: I have notice of the hon. member's question of privilege. If he wants to delay it until such time as the minister is in the House, I think it would be much easier to deal with. However, if he does not want to delay it, I will hear him now.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I think it is important enough that I place the question of privilege at least briefly on the record. It arises from a statement made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development yesterday.


William James Kempling: Here comes the minister.


James Ross Fulton: The statement is recorded at page 6452 of Hansard. It was with respect to Amax, and I quote:
-a panel of experts has been set up to look into the matter, notice of which has been communicated to the Nishga tribal chief, Mr. Gosnell.
This is an extremely important issue. I have raised it with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) on numerous other occasions in this House.
I have taken the time to check, and in fact no panel has been set up, and no notice has been communicated to Mr. James Gosnell, president and chief of the Nishga Tribal Council. I am sure that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be able to clarify this. I think there has been an inadvertent misleading of the House, and I would appreciate its being clarified on the record because what the Nishgas have requested and what has been requested on many occasions in this House, and by many church leaders and groups in this country, is a public inquiry.
The media were seriously misled by the statement yesterday, which is recorded in Hansard. I am sure the minister would be prepared to respond to what I am sure was an inadvertent misleading of the House.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. There was no intention on my part to mislead the House. Before I can clarify this matter, I will have to check into it. I will endeavour to make a clarification on Monday.
Subject to checking, it was my information that the scientific panel was constituted. It may be in the process of being constituted, which is apparently at variance with what was said yesterday. I am prepared to check that. I was under the impression that the nature of the panel, its proposed existence and so forth were communicated to Mr. Gosnell. These are the elements I would like to check, and I will clarify on Monday, if that is satisfactory.

January 23, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Shields


Madam Speaker:: I do not feel that this is a question of privilege. The hon. member was seeking clarification, and the minister did give some clarification today, but I think the best way to deal with this question is to try to ask a question in question period.


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 will be very brief. In the oral question period I posed two questions to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) concerning the established programs financing scheme. In reply to my questions 1 believe the minister might inadvertently have misled the House. He probably would not want that misleading information on the public record.
In my preamble I said that under the established programs financing scheme, $3 billion is funnelled to the provinces to help them pay the operating costs of post-secondary education institutions. In his reply to my questions the Secretary of State said that established programs financing included federal funds to provinces through cash payments and through tax points and that I perhaps had not included the tax points in my own calculation of $3 billion. 1 might refer the minister and the House to the Government of Canada's own statement of financial operations for the fiscal year 1980-81, of November, 1980.
That statement makes it clear that the $3 billion figure I quoted includes both cash payments, amounting to a total of about SI.6 billion, and tax points, totalling about $1.4 billion. That is for the fiscal year 1980-81. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to leave those figures he quoted on the public record because they are clearly wrong. The figure is not $4 billion but, rather, $3 billion.


Francis Fox: I would like to verify the exact amounts. I know that they are indeed considerable. If we add to established programs financing post-secondary transfers of funds and tax points the amount of money the federal government puts into the Canada student loans program, the bilingualism in education program and other programs related to education, the amount would remain quite substantial, but I would just like to check the figures and to come up with the exact total amounts transferred to the provinces by the federal government in terms both of tax points and tax transfers.


PRIVILEGE
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I refer to a statement quoted today by me regarding an hon. member who made a statement which I feel
demeans every member in this House in the eyes of the free world. It affects every member's relations with the United States of America, and particularly with the new administration. The statement demeans the members of this House who are members of a parliamentary committee which shortly will be visiting the United States and the new administration. The statement I quoted this morning during question period was as follows:
At least they didn't bring in the CIA like they have in other foreign countries.
I feel that that statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) clearly reflects on every member of this House with respect to relations with the countries of the free world, particularly the United States. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to withdraw that statement immediately so that all members of this House may deal directly with our strongest ally and friend, the United States, in the open and friendly manner we have enjoyed up to this point.


Madam Speaker:: I had to listen to the hon. member in order to know what his question of privilege was. To begin with, it is not a question of privilege. Second, he was referring to a statement made outside the House, which certainly does not constitute a question of privilege. I think the hon. member is stretching the rules quite a lot today. I ask him to read the rules so that he can understand what a question of privilege allows him to do. However, he has made a point.


MR. OBERLE-STATEMENT MADE BY MR. TRUDEAU
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, with your indulgence I would just like to add another dimension to the question of privilege of my hon. friend.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sorry. It is not a question of privilege.
I have already dealt with that matter. Unless the hon. member wants to raise a new question of privilege-he did not give me notice, and his question of privilege does not seem to flow from the deliberations of today-I do not see how he can smuggle in a question of privilege at this time. However, he may have a point.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I have a new question of privilege. In response to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that in speaking to a group of native people in Alberta his minister made a stupid statement which does not deserve comment. That is what I took the Prime Minister's answer to my friend, the hon. member for Athabasca, to mean. The Prime Minister, by attributing stupid statements to him, has certainly affected the privilege of a member.

This is not the first statement of this kind that the minister has made. He made a statement in committee a couple of days ago, when he was questioned about the difference between a 25 per cent government ownership in a certain industry and the practice of other countries, in which he said that this was
January 23, 1981

only the beginning, thus implying that the government intends to assume even greater ownership of the industry. That, in the opinion of some members, was another stupid statement. When the Prime Minister says that some of his ministers make stupid statements and he says that in the House, I would say it affects the privileges and concerns of all members.


Madam Speaker:: I would say that this might affect the privilege of that hon. member in question, but not of all hon. members. At any rate the word stupid is not unparliamentary. Commenting on the speeches of ministers does not enter into the purview of a question of privilege, so I have to say to the hon. member that he does not have a question of privilege.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,059, 1,330, 1,518, 1,573, 1,694, 1,704, 1,811, 1,846 and 1,850.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	Was the most recent annual report of the National Harbours Board published in 1978 for the fiscal year 1977 and, if so, for what reason has there been a long delay in producing a report for the fiscal years 1978 and 1979?
2.	What steps will the board undertake to ensure that such a delay will not reoccur?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. No. The most recent annual report of the NHB tabled on July 3, 1980, was for fiscal year 1979. The annual report for 1978 has been printed but not yet tabled or distributed. The reasons for the delay are: internal NHB delays were incurred by this problem was resolved prior to the preparation of the 1979 annual report. Delays were incurred in the printing process. The 1978 report was ready for tabling immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament in December, 1979. Subsequent events created delays which were beyond the control of the NHB.
2.	Steps have been taken to ensure that delays in publishing the annual report will not recur as evidenced by the early completion of the 1979 report.


Mr. MacKay: With reference to the Commission of Inquiry relating to Public Complaints, Internal Discipline and Grievance Procedures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was action taken to implement the Commission's (a) 32 recommendations regarding the handling of public complaints (b) 13 recommen-
Order Paper Questions
dations regarding a federal police ombudsman (c) 46 recommendations regarding internal discipline (d) 30 recommendations regarding a revised internal discipline procedure and, if so, in each case, what was such action?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Yes, as follows: (a) Thirty-two recommendations regarding the handling of public complaints.
Of these recommendations: 12 have already been implemented through policy, 7 have been modified and are already implemented through policy, 5 are to be implemented through policy, 4 will be proposed for legislation, 2 have been modified and will be proposed for legislation, 2 have been considered but not accepted.
(b)	Thirteen recommendations regarding a federal police ombudsman (external review authority).
Of these recommendations: 7 will be proposed for legislation, 6 have been modified and will be proposed for legislation.
(c)	Forty-six recommendations regarding internal discipline.
Of these recommendations: 4 have already been implemented through policy, 13 have been modified and are already implemented through policy, 5 will be proposed for legislation, 19 have been modified and will be proposed for legislation, 4 have been considered but not accepted, 1 was found to be inapplicable.
(d)	Thirty recommendations regarding a revised grievance procedure.
Of these recommendations: 12 have already been implemented through policy, 10 have been modified and are already implemented through policy, 1 is to be implemented through policy, 2 will be proposed for legislation, 3 have been considered but not accepted, 2 were found to be inapplicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many American ports along the Canadian border other than Morristown, N.Y., is the RCMP observing, or being assisted in observing Canadian pleasure boats stopping for dinner at U.S. restaurants and (a) what is the name of each port (b) how many persons have been checked by the RCMP for not reporting back to Canada Customs on returning to Canada?
2.	If there are no ports, other than Morristown, N.Y., for what reason is Morristown being singled out for special attention?
3.	Was the RCMP Brockville detachment given instructions during the 1980 boating season to specifically check on this matter in regard to Morristown, N.Y. area and, if so, what is the highest ranking official who gave such instructions?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. None, (a) Not applicable, (b) Only statistics available show approximately 400 boats checked.
2.	RCMP does not observe or assist in observing Canadian pleasure boats stopping for dinner at U.S. restaurants.
3.	Brockville detachment was not given specific instructions during the 1980 boating season to concentrate on boats visiting Morristown, N.Y. It is within the authority of the member in

January 23, 198
Order Paper Questions
charge of the Brockville detachment to initiate customs inquiries.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What is the status of the new RCMP "J" divisional headquarters building planned for Fredericton, New Brunswick?
2.	On what date will tenders be called?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The division headquarters building for Fredericton, New Brunswick, is in the early stages of planning. At the present time, RCMP Headquarters have received the division's space requirements and are reviewing their needs to ensure that they conform with force and government policy. Listed below is the tentative planning schedule for the division headquarters building:
Consultant study	1981/82
Plans and specifications	1982/83
Construction start	1983/84
2. Tender call is estimated to take place some time in 1982-83.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Will the bonus amounts payable effective April- 1980-to SM and EX groups be allocated to departments on a proportional basis and will the sums be carried in the departmental estimates?
2.	Has a percentage amount been determined?


Donald James Johnston: 1. The design of the bonus system has not been completed and the rules of application set. Therefore, the method of allocation is not known. Presently, increases in salaries are based on the performance level of each employee. The funds for these increases are allocated to each department's estimates and are based on performance distribution guidelines of no more than 30 per cent of the assessed population being rated above the level of fully satisfactory (i.e. superior or outstanding).
2. No. The percentage amount for bonus payments has not yet been determined.


Mr. Harquail: 1.	Since February 15, 1977, how many applications for citizenship has the citizenship judge decided to recommend an exercise of discretion under section 14 of the Citizenship Act in order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship and how many of the recommendations have been carried out by the minister?
2.	Since February 15, 1977, how many appeals under section 13 of the act has the court recommended the exercise of discretion under section 14 of the act in order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship and how many of the recommendations have been carried out by the minister?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: 1. Since February 15, 1977, Citizenship judges have made 47 recommendations
under section 14 of the Citizenship Act for the exercise of discretion in order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship. Of these, 19 have been carried out.
2. Since February 15, 1977, the Federal Court has made 14 recommendations for the exercise of discretion in order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship. Two have been carried out.
Note: In certain cases where discretion was not exercised to grant citizenship because of special and unusual hardship, individuals have subsequently been able to meet the requirements of the act and to become Canadian citizens.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past three years, how many persons have been engaged by Defence Construction (1951) Limited for a period of less than (a) two years (b) one year and what are the terms for termination in such cases?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: (a) and (b) Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. only engages persons on an indeterminate basis or for periods of six months or less. The number of persons engaged for terms of six months or less in each of the past three years is as follows:
1977-78	100
1978-79	117
1979-80	82
The terms of termination are two weeks' notice.


Mr. Herbert: What amount was deducted from the salaries of public servants in (a) 1979-80 (b) 1980 to date in cases where performance and/or productivity were considered to be inadequate?


Donald James Johnston: Federal public service salary administration provides for the payment of salary increases that are related directly to performance. This administration also provides for the retardation or eliminaton of salary increases where employees demonstrate less than satisfactory performance. The penalty, therefore, for inadequate performance is denial of salary increase; salary administration in such circumstances does not provide for the deduction of an amount from salary. Sustained inadequate performance will have a severe impact on an employee's career in the public service and could lead to demotion or release.


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past three fiscal years, what was the total amount of the votes which were not included in the government motion referring the main estimates to standing and special committees for consideration?
January 23, 1981


Donald James Johnston: The information in the Main Estimates can be divided into two distinct groups, based on the requirement for authorization by Parliament. The breakdown between these two types is provided in the table below. For the past three years, all of the items to be voted and therefore included in an Appropriation Act, have been referred to various standing committees of the House for consideration. However, for information purposes, the main estimates also include the second type of item which do not have vote numbers and do not have to be specifically referred to the standing committees since the authority for these expenditures has already been approved by Parliament through other legislation.
Items to be voted Statutory amounts Total
Main Estimates (S millions) 1978-79	1979-80	1980-8120,753.3	21,240.0	24,938.127,978.7	31,673.4	34,074.948,732.0	52,913.4	59,013.0


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 680 and 1,341 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 680 and 1,341 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Friesen: During the years 1979 and 1980, what is the name of each of the full-length feature films which were viewed by inmates in federal penitentiaries in (a) the Maritime Provinces (b) Quebec (c) Ontario (d) the prairie provinces (e) Alberta (0 British Columbia?
Ways and Means



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Bussières: that a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, tabled in the House on Tuesday, October 28, 1980, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Pierre Bussières: that a ways and means motion with respect to the taxation of petroleum and gas revenues, tabled in the House on Tuesday, October 28, 1980, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Lambert:: On a point of order. Madam Speaker. I want to be assured that the forthcoming bill will comply with the section of the Standing Orders which provides that the bill must be in accordance with the notice of ways and means motion, because this very week an irregularity came up with respect to Bill C-54. This time I want to avoid that by asking the Minister to give us his assurance that there will not be any problem in this regard.


Madam Speaker:: I want to remind the hon. member that the part of the bill referred to did comply with the ways and means motion. It was another part of the bill which raised a problem and on which I gave a ruling. But the warning, I suppose, is well taken.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Return tabled.

Mr. Althouse: 1.	How many prisoners in Canada are presently on some form of conditional release?
2.	What percentage of such prisoners were returned to prison (a) at lease once (b) more than once and for what reasons?
3.	What is the total yearly cost to the taxpayer of the penitentiary and parole system?
Return tabled.


Pierre Bussières: that the ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act (1), laid upon the Table on January 22, 1981, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have liked to read the notice of ways and means motion in this morning's Votes and Proceedings but there has been no distribution. So, in my opinion we are being asked to play blind man's buff.
6512

January 23, 1981
Ways and Means

There was no distribution of Votes and Proceedings so we could not see the content of the motion.


Walter David Baker: Hansard also.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is right. Distribution took place but it was delayed somewhat. Since the hon. member is used to receiving those documents at a certain time he may have thought there was no distribution. It did take place but a bit late. I regret that. I offer my apologies to the hon. member, but I must point out to him that the delay was due to the fact that the ways and means motion had to be printed. Hon. members surely appreciate that it is always somewhat more difficult when the House sits at 11 a.m. rather than 2 p.m.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Fair enough, Madam Speaker. Still I must make a reservation. We are being asked to agree to the introduction of a bill and to have it printed, a bill based on a ways and means motion which we did not have an opportunity to read because the notice was tabled only yesterday. It was to appear in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, but there has been no distribution.
I admit it is more difficult on Friday mornings but the government and the Chair ought to be aware of that. I do not know what time it is but were it left to me I would suggest to the minister that introduction of the bill based on the second motion be postponed until Monday. I do not want to make a fuss but after all we are always asked to give notice. This morning, as it happens, we have not had any notice.


Madam Speaker:: I can understand that the hon. member was indeed waiting for the documents which normally are published and available to hon. members some time before the House sits. But I must remind him that the motion was tabled on January 22 and that even though it was not printed at least it was available. I realize that he was expecting the documents to be distributed this morning and they were not. So again I extend my apologies to him but I hope that given the circumstances we will be able to proceed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Distribution of the Votes and Proceedings enables hon. members to become familiar with the documents. It is their only access because the documents tabled are then- how shall I say-processed routinely and the only way we can have them is to intercept them at that time and have them photocopied. So that is all I am saying. Under the circumstances I think we are proceeding a bit too fast and since I am involved in this I hope we will be given the opportunity to examine the motion published in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings before the minister introduces it this morning to have the bill printed.


Madam Speaker:: According to the basic principles underlying our rules, the availability of a document laid on the Table of the House of Commons is not theoretical. The hon. member could in fact consult the document. I know he is wont to do that by looking at the documents we publish and make available to hon. members, but this particular document was available indeed and I think we might proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Pierre Bussières: that the ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act (2), laid upon the Table on January 22, 1981, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Pierre Bussières: that Bill C-50, to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal the Irish Free State Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, and the United Kingdom Trade Agreement Act, 1937, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill before us on second reading this afternoon-which may be referred to in short as the Customs Tariff Act-proposes a large number of amendments to the Customs Tariff, which the government introduced in three separate notices of ways and means motions. Most amendments in the bill relate to the tariff concessions Canada agreed to in the Tokyo Round trade negotiations which were concluded in Geneva under the auspices of GATT in July, 1979.
In addition, the bill contains provisions to phase out the British preferential tariff on goods imported from Great Britain and Ireland, and to withdraw it on goods from South Africa.
This bill also implements a number of tariff changes which were proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his budget of October 28, as well as certain technical changes which had been proposed by the former government in the December 11, 1979, budget. The bill also transfers the authority for collecting excise tax on imported wines from the Customs Tariff to the Excise Tax Act.
January 23, 1981

In order to indicate fully the importance of the implementation of the GATT agreements to Canada, I shall if I may, Mr. Speaker, give a brief outline of this institution. We may wonder what is GATT. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, often known by its English abbreviation of GATT, refers to the multilateral treaty on trade laying down the rules of international trade and the body in Geneva which oversees compliance with the treaty and its promotion worldwide. The main objective of this treaty is to liberalize international trade and put it on a stable basis in order to contribute to the general development, growth and well-being of all the peoples of the world.
The GATT rules, Mr. Speaker, govern trade and trade relations, representing more than 80 per cent of world trade, among the 85 signatory countries. From time to time the signatories agree to undertake a round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations-MTN in short-with the ultimate objective of updating the original treaty. The last round, begun in Tokyo in 1973-and therefore known as the Tokyo Round-and completed in Geneva in June, 1979, was by far the most complex and longest of the seven negotiating rounds held since GATT was established. The general objective of the final agreement was the expansion and greater liberalization of international trade.
I would like to review briefly, Mr. Speaker, the history and background of this institution. GATT has its roots in the post-war reconstruction period. At that time, a number of countries were trying to develop a charter for the International Trade Organization or ITO, which was to have been established as a United Nations specialized agency.
However, because of the slow pace of ITO negotiations, certain countries decided to develop multilateral trade negotiations, given the name of GATT, in order to show in advance what tariff negotiations might be under the charter for the ITO. In January, 1948, nine countries, including Canada, agreed to bring the agreement into force. Since the charter for the ITO was subsequently abandoned, GATT became, by force of circumstance, the only multilateral framework for international trade. As a result, GATT has for over 30 years played the role originally intended for the ITO. After this brief review of the background of GATT, one may wonder about its importance for Canada. Since the vitality of international trade is of the utmost importance for Canada, the agreements governing international trade share in this importance.
We should not lose sight of the fact that, although Canada's domestic market is relatively small, we rank ninth among the world's trading nations. Canada stands alone among the most highly industrialized nations in lacking de facto access to a large domestic market such as is enjoyed by the United States, Japan or many members of the European Economic Community.
Customs Tariff
We can thus grasp the full importance of an agreement such as GATT which enables Canada to overcome the disadvantages inherent in its relatively small size, or in the relative concentration of its population, by giving it access to foreign markets in accordance with well-established rules. That is why Canada would have suffered a great loss today had we witnessed a strengthening of protectionism and restrictive trade practices at the last multilateral negotiations.
Now, what were Canada's objectives at the Tokyo Round negotiations? Canada, Mr. Speaker had essentially three objectives: first, to promote the development of industry, agriculture and fisheries in Canada and to increase the national income by expanding export opportunities, while ensuring an appropriate level of Canadian tariff protection. The second objective was to avoid a resurgence of protectionism and trade restrictions that adversely affect the interests of an exporting country such as ours. And the third objective, Mr. Speaker, was to improve and strengthen the international trade framework on which we depend heavily.
With these objectives in mind, let us examine the outcome of the Tokyo Round for Canada. The results of the Tokyo Round, from the Canadian point of view, show that significant progress has been made in consolidating Canada's status as a major trading nation. Besides reaching agreement on a broad package of tariff reductions averaging about 30 per cent, the negotiations took an important first step in establishing a number of agreements aimed at dismantling non-tariff barriers to trade.
Canadian tariff reductions for the vast majority of products will be phased in gradually, in such a way as to take into account the competitive position and potential of the various sectors of the Canadian economy. The effect of these reductions will be to lower the cost of the factors of production of Canadian industry, as well as the cost of a wide range of consumer goods. But let us not kid ourselves, these reductions will also challenge Canadian industry to become increasingly competitive on world markets.
The results of the negotiations are therefore of particular importance to Canada. Canada depends upon international trade for its economic well-being to a gj*eater extent than most of its trading partners. The concessions obtained in the multilateral negotiations can, if fully exploited, lead to increased production and employment in Canada. The new, expanded and more certain export opportunities that are being opened up as a result of the negotiations should bring benefits to each region of Canada and to all sectors of the economy.
In short, Mr. Speaker, in so far as trading policy is concerned, the Tokyo Round concessions should establish a solid basis for future growth in a competitive and efficient Canadian economy over the next two decades. Now, let us see how these new measures resulting from the Tokyo Round will apply to Canadian trade. As 1 have just stated, there are two important aspects to this effort to liberalize world trade, namely, the

January 23, 1981
Customs Tariff
reduction of tariff measures and the lowering of non-tariff measures. Before discussing the tariff measures we propose to include in the Customs Tariff which are covered in the bill now under study, I would like to explain briefly to the House the second aspect of the GATT agreements, namely, that of non-tariff measures.
Certain of Canada's commitments with respect to the lowering of non-tariff measures were the subject of a discussion paper which I tabled in the House on July 16, 1980, and which was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study on October 9 last. This paper deals with the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties and emergency safeguard actions. 1 must say, Mr. Speaker, that 1 am anxious to see the work done on this paper and the standing committee report.
Second, since Canada had undertaken to revise its legislation on customs valuation, on August 29 last 1 asked the Tariff Board to initiate a review of the draft legislation and to study the impact it would have on customs duties in Canada. Third, there are certain agreements that can be brought into force in Canada without legislative change-most notably those relating to government purchasing practices and technical barriers to trade, which are also part of the non-tariff agreements we signed within the general framework of GATT.
I would like now to deal, perhaps a little longer, with tariff measures. As regards the purely tariff measures, the amendments set out in section 7(1) and schedule II of this bill would implement the tariff concessions Canada agreed to in the Tokyo Round trade negotiations. Canada approved the results of the tariff negotiations in June, 1979, and signed, subject to ratification, two GATT tariff protocols which commit participating countries to the new most favoured nation tariff rates negotiated in the Tokyo Round trade negotiations.
These protocols also set out the rules governing the phase-in of these reduced rates. They require, as a general rule, that participants reduce their tariffs in eight equal annual instalments with the Erst cut taking effect January 1, 1980. Each country negotiated a number of exceptions to this rule. For example, tariff reductions on steel will not begin until January 1, 1982, in Canada, the United States and the European Community.
Other variations were negotiated for particular products. Canada's tariff reductions are being phased in no more quickly than required by the protocols except in a few cases where there is a clear consensus in the Canadian industry for accelerated reductions. For example, the tariff reduction on computers is being implemented in five annual steps instead of the period provided for in the agreement, and that for brass band instruments is being implemented in one single step. So much so for the cornet players.
The provisions of this bill relating to the outcome of the trade negotiations are the same as those proposed by the former government in a notice of ways and means motion tabled in the House on December 12, 1979. Following the dissolution of Parliament on December 14, an order in council was passed to give interim effect to the first stage of the tariff reductions. The order was revoked when the motion was reintroduced in Parliament on June 2, 1980. In addition to implementing the agreed tariff cuts, the bill provides, in section 5, authority for the government to withdraw concessions in the event other countries should fail to fulfil their obligations under international trade agreements.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with our proposed amendments to the list of beneficiaries of the British preferential-BP-tariff. This bill also incorporates proposals made by the Conservative government for phasing out the British preferential tariff on goods from Britain and Ireland and withdrawing the British preferential tariff on goods from South Africa. It also revokes three acts of Parliament relating to the preferential trade agreements with these countries. Upon termination of the British preferential tariff treatment, imports from these countries will be subject to most-favoured-nation tariff rates.
At this point I would like to explain a bit further the phase-out schedule for the British preferential tariff. This phase-out schedule for British and Irish goods is as follows:
Where the existing British preferential rate is lower than the final most-favoured-nation concession rate-that is the rate that will apply in 1987 when all stages of the agreement will be completed-the bill proposes that the rate of duty on goods from Britain and Ireland would be increased to the MFN level in not more than three stages commencing on June 3, 1980, and ending on January 1, 1982. The result is that in many cases the rates on British and Irish goods, although higher than at present, will be lower than MFN rates until January 1, 1987, because the MFN rate reductions will be phased in gradually over the period 1980-1987. Where the BP rate is equal to or higher than the final MFN concession rate, the BP rate will remain at its current level until the MFN rate is reduced to that level.
Now, a few words concerning the measures in the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance. The tariff measures proposed in the budget of October 28, 1980, are incorporated in part IV and schedules VI to IX of the bill now under consideration. These provide duty-free entry for a range of antiques, collectables and hobby equipment as recommended by the Tariff Board in its report on reference No. 156. Included are motor vehicles over 25 years of age and parts for restoring such vehicles, amateur radio equipment, mountainclimbing equipment, astronomical telescopes and other things. Free entry will also be provided for sports equipment meeting
January 23, 1981

international standards required by international-calibre ama-'teur athletes.
The bill would also implement a number of tariff changes based on the recommendations of the Tariff Board in its report on the dutiable status of scientific and educational equipment, known as reference No. 155. The Board had recommended that the current duty-free provision for such equipment be restricted to apparatus, utensils and instruments used directly in teaching or research that are not available from Canadian production. These changes will come into effect on July 1, 1981, to give eligible institutions, as well as the importers, distributors and dealers involved as well as customs officials sufficient time to adjust their administrative procedures.
Most laboratory glassware, which schools and research institutions can now import duty free, will become dutiable on July 1, 1981. Duty-free entry is being continued for printed matter, films and recordings used by schools, research organizations, libraries, museums and churches and for diagnostic chemicals not produced in Canada.
Duty-free entry is also proposed for a range of goods, including plant bulbs, television captioning devices used by the deaf-this will certainly please the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who is greatly interested in these matters-as well as apparatus used to collect oyster eggs and expanded perlite, an industrial filtering agent. An existing duty-free item relating to kits to convert retail scales to the metric system is being extended until December 31, 1983, and a duty-free provision under the general preferential tariff for shop towels is being expanded.
The bill proposes the introduction of a new tariff item to provide a single rate of duty of 15 per cent for shipments containing two or more different chemicals. This item will be used only at the request of importers and should result in reduced paperwork both for importers and the government. The bill, Mr. Speaker, also includes a number of amendments to restore tariff levels which were altered as a result of changes in tariff interpretation. For example, dental prostheses and filling materials are being excluded from a duty-free tariff item and amendments are proposed in the French-language version of several items covering printing plates.
I would like to say a few words about the measures which were included in the December 11, 1979, budget. The miscellaneous tariff proposals which were contained in that budget and which are being proposed in schedule III of this bill include the following: first, the removal of the tariff on certain nursery stock; restoration of a 10 per cent rate of duty on processed nuts; provision of duty-free entry for Bible recordings; and an increase from $15 to $25 in the value limit on gifts which can be sent or brought into Canada duty-free and tax-free.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, also provides for the transfer of authority to levy the excise tax on imported wines. In fact, this amendment is contained in part III of the bill which was introduced in a notice of ways and means motion last April 21.
Customs Tariff
The removal of authority to levy such a tax from the customs tariff means that the excise tax on imported wines will be imposed in the same manner as that on Canadian wines. In this way Canadian and imported wines will be taxed under the same legislation, that is, the Excise Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give a very general picture of the situation without going into the details of this bill which, as may be seen, is a sizeable and relatively technical measure, and I wanted to give the hon. members not only a general outlook but also a rather specific idea of the content of the bill.
I am very pleased that the hon. members readily recognized the importance of this bill and co-operated with their parliamentary leaders to have this bill passed promptly this afternoon. I thank the hon. members as well as the House leaders. It is therefore obvious that the passage of this bill is of paramount importance if we are to consolidate Canada's enviable position within the ranks of the world's great trading nations. I trust that the members of the standing committee will give us their support in the same manner as all members of the House were willing to co-operate, so that we may dispose of this bill promptly and efficiently in committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like first of all to thank the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres), who is here today, I am not sure in what capacity, either as acting or assistant minister for his colleagues since this is not his bill-


Pierre Bussières: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This should not be his bill since under this Liberal administration, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) is at the head of the pack. He is the minister who does not speak except when introducing a paper at budget time. For any other legislation, his colleagues have to take over his bills and pilot them in the House. However, I know the minister quite well, and I believe that we shall be able to work together in committee as I support the decision made by the House and our parties to amend our normal procedure concerning a motion and a bill on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) has risen on a point of order.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that the bill has been introduced in the name of the Minister of State for Finance and comes within the responsibilities delegated to me by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I am responsible for the review of tariffs. While this might surprise the hon. member, this is probably why the bill is in my name.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will excuse me, but we now have a minister of state who used to be responsible for financial institutions and who is now responsible for finance, which means that we have a Jack-of-all-trades minis-

January 23, 1981
Customs Tariff
ter in finance. Very well, we can accept him as such. And now, as I was saying, I am happy that we shall be able to sit together in the finance committee because quite frankly a detailed examination of customs tariffs is enough to put angels to sleep. Furthermore we would not even have a quorum in the House, because in years past we were lucky if three or four members were interested in the details of such bills and could even understand the schedules and appendices of such bills. I believe that we shall therefore be better off than in previous years.
I do not want to go into the statement made by the minister as we are nearing the time of adjournment for lunch, and I would simply say that I hope in a few minutes, after the House resumes after lunch I shall have the opportunity to speak about the progress that has been made following the GATT negotiations. We now know the facts and the reasons why we are repealing, in the case of Great Britain, Ireland and South Africa, the provisions concerning the British preferential tariff which have applied in Canada for the past 50 years.
The minister referred to a certain item. No. 605, if my memory serves me right, which concerns scientific equipment and materials for teaching institutions in Canada. This item is very controversial. We have had a whole report from the Tariff Board on this matter. This shows how willing the Department of Finance under the previous administration and this government has been to accept the recommendations of the board concerning the claims of the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the universities themselves, as this can considerably affect the budget of universities.
At this time universities are in a tight squeeze. First of all, they are being pressured by provincial governments anxious to restrict their budget; second, the federal government also wants to restrict its budget for post-secondary education, and finally, in view of the practically uncontrolled inflation tolerated in Canada, universities and learning institutions have seen their cost of operation nearly double in the last five years. How then can they balance their books and also provide acceptable teaching services? On the one hand, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) has emphasized that the government, industry and learning institutions must upgrade their level of teaching and research, while on the other hand, the government is imposing customs tariffs, which means that an excise tax will follow.
What is the situation of these institutions? Mr. Speaker, I hope that after recess we can deal with this issue a little deeper and 1 intend to discuss the matter at that time, but I shall be brief and the only spokesman for the official opposition this afternoon as I dearly hope that this bill can be referred to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs before 3.30. May 1 call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for Edmonton West. Pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like now to turn to some consideration of the minister's remarks before the lunch hour recess when he was talking about the effect in Canada of the Tokyo Round under GATT. Some aspects of this matter will be discussed by the finance committee in relation to a different matter, namely, the discussion paper on the question of the imposition of anti-dumping, countervailing duties and emergency safeguard actions.
It was not clear from the minister's remarks, and it is not clear from the bill, whether clause 5 will give the government the power to act effectively when there is need for action. It starts out as though that were to be the case, because clause 5 of Bill C-50 amends or adds to section 8 of the present Customs Tariff Act. It says:
Where at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the governor in council on a report of the Minister of Finance, that any foreign country has imposed or increased duties on goods the growth, produce or manufacture of Canada, or has in any other manner restricted the importation of any such goods, with the result that tariff or other trade concessions previously extended to Canada are impaired, and has not made equivalent new concessions in respect of imports from Canada, the governor in council may, by order-
O)
It goes on. This is precisely something we missed in the armoury of weapons or resources the government should have had to deal with certain countries. The government should have had that when we found ourselves suddenly confronting seemingly arbitrary or capricious actions by certain countries. I am afraid our friends to the south have been guilty of that on a few occasions, and it has come out with retaliatory measures as far as Canada was concerned.
Even the threat of those retaliatory actions has oftentimes given pause to the actions of one of our trading partners, and I know that in so far as Canada is concerned both government and industry, particularly government, have been very reluctant to act in certain fields in anticipation that the American treasury would take compensatory action in other fields. To that extent the Americans have had a considerable advantage over us. I have always felt that it was unfortunate that we did not have the same kind of legislative equipment available to our government. It is not that I want to invite tit for tat or a retaliatory battle because, gracious me, I think it would be the
January 23, 1981

height of folly for Canada to begin a campaign of retaliatory action against the United States. I think sanity should return to the bargaining table.
Such campaigns would be self-destroying because the size of the armoury in the United States is much greater than ours. We might fight a good fight for ten minutes, but in the eleventh minute we would sustain a knockout blow and lose the fight. We will be able to examine this at much greater length in the committee, but I think this is a step in the right direction.
In these matters I do not think anything of a particularly partisan nature will be said. I have not detected any great partisan proposals from one party or the other in this particular field, although I think there might be a tendency in the opposition, particularly in the field of horticulture, to wish for speedier action with respect to special duties when fruits and vegetables, particularly from the United States, arrive here, due to the advantages of climate, and thoroughly ruin the market for Canadian goods coming onto the market, which should have the benefit of a good, active market, but the market is so saturated by American produce that the buying public is satiated and no longer interested. 1 am thinking of some of the soft fruits such as apricots, peaches, strawberries-


Mr. Lewis:: Avocados.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and a number of other things, but I leave that for the people from the Niagara area and British Columbia, because I know that over the years they have been making very serious representations here. They have not been able to get very far in getting the machinery set up in the Department of National Revenue so that it can move almost as quickly as can the produce involved. Usually the machinery of government takes about three weeks to get cranked into action. Then, of course, it is far too late.


Walter David Baker: We were just getting started at that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am glad to hear that when he was minister, my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), was able to look at this and get it started. I hope his successor has continued, although there seems to have been a curtain of inaction over certain changes in the Department of National Revenue. I once had a fairly intimate knowledge of where things stood in that department. There are now great gaps between talk and action. I do not know whether that is because the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) cannot get his cabinet colleagues to agree with him, or whether the machinery is structured in such a way that an idea or proposal takes an eon getting the final approval of cabinet. It is not necessarily the fault of the minister. It is often the fault of the structure of the cabinet machinery and the operations of the Privy Council.
The other matter to which I want to refer is the nature of the implementations of the staged changes in tariff which come under the Tokyo Round. I am all too conscious of the
Customs Tariff
absolutely nefarious effects of actions of one former minister of finance, Mr. Benson, following the Kennedy Round. We had a five-year period rather than an eight-year period under the Tokyo Round. There was also an ineffectual measure taken by the then Trudeau administration in about 1970 to combat inflation. This was the time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was running up and down the country talking about having wrestled inflation to the ground.
Following his 1969 television address in mid-July and then other things, with a stroke of a pen Mr. Benson proposed that the remaining three-year cuts in a number of Canadian industries be telescoped into one. The industries themselves were hurting for having been picked out by Canada as those to suffer cuts in tariff protection. I am talking about heavy chemical manufacturers, fine paper producers, and a number of others. They suddenly found one day that what they had looked at as a five-year program had been cut to something like two and a half years. There certainly was "no joy in anybody's-ville" when it came to the effect of capricious changes by government. Those changes were not thought out. The program was an unmitigated disaster.
Canadian manufacturers had to sharpen their pencils and cut their prices in order to meet foreign competition. The program had nothing to do with competition. Foreign competition was coming in, in any event. All the program did was give a leg up to foreign competitors so that they could really clean out the Canadian market in competition with people who were already struggling hard. This points up one of the difficulties with which we are faced at the present time. Canadian producers and manufacturers are helped by unnaturally low fuel costs or energy costs. They enjoy an advantage of almost 60 per cent because at the field the rate for Canadian fuel is from $16.75 to $19.75, while the world price can reach well over $35.
[DOT] (M20)
It is said by those in central Canada, and I will repeat it, that, somehow or other, if they go to 75 per cent or 85 per cent of the North American price, that is the Chicago price which is a factor of the world price, they will suffer disadvantages and Canadian industry will be driven further behind. I have never heard such arrant poppycock. The difficulties with Canadian industry lie in other sectors, that is in lack of productivity, lack of management skills, and management unit costs that are too high. Also, one of the difficulties is the scale of the market. But who says we cannot compete with people in the external markets?
In the United States they are paying considerably more than we are for their petroleum products. The Europeans are paying three times as much as we are, and then we turn around and say that we cannot compete. There has never been such a crybaby argument for insisting that other Canadians make an unnaturally heavy contribution to this so-called inefficient fight against foreign competition, and all we are doing now, of course, is to drive Canadian industry into the ground by cutting back heavily on the one industry which is showing

recommendation No. 155 which deals with exemptions from duty on goods for certain institutions. This chiefly concerns items Nos. 69605-1 and 69610-1. It is a question of whether the items in No. 69605-1 will continue to enter Canada duty free. These items are used for research and teaching throughout our entire schooling system. The proposition is that they shall not enter duty free if they are made or otherwise available in Canada. This brings to mind two considerations. First, who will find out where they are made? There are thousands of items. Are they comparable? Is sulphuric acid really sulphuric acid? There are different levels of purity in these various chemicals and products. Who will determine whether the goods are actually or might be available in Canada? Will it be the Department of National Revenue? How long will it take?
Second, if they are deemed to be subject to duty, then the costs to educational institutions will rise tremendously because not only will the goods attract the duty, they will attract sales tax. These goods must be unavailable from production or potential production in Canada, and they must be used directly in teaching and research.
Let me refer to the example of a computer which is not manufactured in Canada. A university will use the computer for 50 to 60 per cent of the time as a teaching aid; for the balance of the time it will be used for administrative purposes. Because of the recommendation of the Tariff Board, if the computer is not used 100 per cent of the time in teaching and research, it will attract customs duty and sales tax.
Who will monitor the use of computers? Will the Department of National Revenue send out snoops to various teaching institutions? What about computers being used in commercial research? I think these difficulties will surface in the administration and the implementation of the recommendations contained in the bill.
In any event, this will be looked at much more closely in committee. There are hundreds of pages in the annexes by the very nature of the tabular print, which will be examined in committee. I invite hon. members to search these matters out. Perhaps they could draw to the attention of committee members some unforeseen effects of these proposed changes in their various parts of the country. After all, it is only with the input of industries and businesses that we will be able to learn about the effect of these various changes and to enter caveats, if necessary.
This is not an area in which one discusses the behaviour of Canadian customs officials greeting returning Canadians at international airports. This does not come under the customs tariff; it will have to be discussed under the Customs Act at another date.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House proposes a large number of amendments to the customs tariff arising from the concessions to which Canada agreed in the last round of negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva. As the minister pointed out, the
Customs Tariff
general objective of the final agreement was the expansion and greater liberalization of international trade.
Economic developments in Canada since the last round of negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that is. the Kennedy Round, which was concluded in 1967, must lead any thinking person to conclude that Canada has very little to gain from a more liberalized trade policy.
Canada's unemployment rate has risen from 3.8 per cent in 1967 to 7.5 per cent in 1980. The inflation rate was 3.5 per cent in 1967 compared with 10.1 per cent in 1980. Real growth in the total output of our economy averaged over 5 per cent in the last half of the 1960s, while the real rate of growth in 1980 was .2 per cent.
In 1967 the Canadian dollar was exchanged at an 8 per cent premium over the U.S. dollar. Recently, our dollar has been discounted by over 19 per cent relative to the U.S. dollar. Canada's deficit on current account was $500 million in 1967 compared with a deficit of $137 million in 1980. These figures may lead some people to reject completely the suggestion of any further move toward a more liberalized trading agreement.
However, in my view the experience resulting from the Kennedy Round of GATT negotiations is a poor test of the potential benefits which could be derived from free trade agreements. I say this for two fundamental reasons. First, I question to what extent trade was liberalized after the Kennedy Round of negotiations. The Kennedy Round did not directly address the question of non-tariff barriers. To a large extent the lowering of tariff barriers following the Kennedy Round was counterbalanced by increases in non-tariff barriers, or what has to be called the "new protectionism". Second, even if there had been a significant degree of trade liberalization following the Kennedy Round, a country could only reap the benefits of that liberalization if the country had also undertaken a process of industrial planning geared toward a full employment strategy.
Indeed, a full employment economy is the best adjustment program conceivable in the context of approaching liberalized trade. In my view it is essential that the issue of employment must be the paramount issue in trade negotiations. I venture to say the time has come to change some of the traditional ways of looking at international trading agreements. In Canada's traditional trade structure our imports are considerably more labour intensive than our exports. Canada has been exporting our natural resources, a large part of which are non-renewable resources.
If trade balances were calculated in job terms rather than in dollar terms it would be shown clearly that our performance in international trade negotiations has been less than effective on behalf of Canada's work force. I am concerned that the dimension of jobs in international negotiations is not given the consideration it should be given by our negotiators, or by those who advise them in those trade negotiations. This government in particular has shown itself to be oblivious to the problems of
6520

January 23, 1981
Customs Tariff
unemployment and the effects it has on Canadians. I believe most Canadians would support policies or initiatives to establish national trade agreements to liberalize trade through the process of multilateral trade negotiations, such as GATT.
Having said that, Canadians want fair trade in the true sense of the word. They want to know that in the process of trading with other countries they will not end up holding the short end of the stick at every turn. Canadians are a fair-minded and realistic people who know and understand that in any set of negotiations there is a certain give and take, that you win some and you lose some. We know that and accept it, but we will not accept being on the losing end at every turn. Internationally, we have gained the reputation of being patsies in those negotiations. The relaxation of tariff barriers has been the objective of all GATT countries for decades. We know that. This government knew at the outset, when discussions began in Tokyo back in 1973, that there would be considerable pressures to reduce tariffs on a whole host of products. The government knew this and it had a fairly good idea of what it was prepared to give away in these negotiations, but it did nothing to prepare Canadian industry for what was coming.
Many of those industries, which are existing on the sole basis that their products are protected by tariffs, may now expect to suffer severe hardships and perhaps even collapse, as a result of the government's performance in these negotiations. Since then I have seen no evidence of any government measures to assist either those companies which are affected by the outcome of those negotiations, or the people who rely on the continued operation of those companies in order to earn a livelihood.
Mr. Speaker, I see no evidence that the government even recognized the effects its performance is having on the economic life of our country. I see no evidence that the government remotely recognizes that embarking on a free trade policy now will no doubt hasten the transition of our branch plant economy into that of a warehouse economy, where we will simply be a storer of goods for distribution to our domestic markets, rather than manufacturing those goods ourselves for our own security. As effective negotiators, this government fails on every count. As economic managers, this government fails on every count. As a government responsible to those it claims to govern, this government is a failure.
To bring before this House measures such as this, without also bringing forward an industrial strategy to develop an independent Canadian manufacturing base, is a sure way, at least in my view, of guaranteeing that Canada will continue to sell off our raw materials and import the finished goods we require in our country.
Perhaps I may have been a wee bit too harsh in my criticism of the government. Perhaps there is still hope. Perhaps the government has something up its sleeve which it will produce soon and not wait for the next election. Perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) was sincere and meant every word when he spoke on GATT in the House on November 5, 1979, as reported in Hansard. He said:
The process of parliamentary consideration of these changes should begin as soon as possible. As part of this process, it is absolutely essential that this government presents to the House, at the same time as it presents the measures to adopt the changes arising out of the GATT tariff negotiations, measures of adjustment assistance, measures to assist not just the industry affected by tariff changes but also the workers in that industry to cope with the effects of these changes.
Perhaps in the course of this debate the government will introduce the other measures promised and will table them in the House, perhaps by Monday next. My mind boggles at the thought.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-54, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned several days ago I was in the middle of debate on Bill C-54. I would like to pick up the debate today with a brief reference to some of the things that I had an opportunity to mention, and then to bring into the discussion additional comments which I would like to make.
Perhaps the most significant issue which we were considering several days ago related to the Small Business Development Bond. I would like to emphasize at this time some of the points I made with regard to that bond and the confusion which arose because of the way the bond was not introduced after initially being brought forward in our budget of December, 1979. Then in April, 1980, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) through a ways and means motion, put the bond into effect. There was a great deal of confusion, particularly at the local branches of the banks which did not have specific instructions, or perhaps there were limitations on the way in which funds were to be provided to small businessmen and farmers in the rural areas. As a result of this confusion, people who would normally have been able to take advantage of this bond did not take advantage of it. On that basis the government should extend the March 31 deadline into the coming year.
Reference was made to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the fact that it was submitting a brief to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and the Minister of Finance in the hope that the ministers would look at the issue of farmers
January 23, 1981

who are not incorporated. The size of a farm really has nothing to do with whether or not a farmer is incorporated.
There was also the question of whether or not this funding should be available for investments which are not new capital requirement, and whether or not the inventories or the equity which a farmer has in his property could provide the basis for a loan. I would like the government to look at these important issues with regard to the small businessmen and farmers throughout the country.
Another topic which was mentioned several days ago dealt with spouses. I find that the area of allowances paid to spouses of small business operators or farmers is surrounded by a lack of information at the local level, and the financial people involved at that level really do not know what should be done. The question arises of whether or not there is a retroactive capacity within the law for the small businessmen or farmers, who would normally have taken advantage of this program but who did not because they did not have access to the information.
I also made mention of the fact that I was pleased to be among the many members on this side of the House who supported the previous minister of finance in his efforts to extend the deductions which are allowable to firemen. I am pleased to see that this matter was dealt with in the present legislation. Finally, we mentioned the grants for conversion from oil to other forms of home heating. The question arose at that time as well as to whether or not the taxable nature of these grants would inhibit the full utilization of the program. The taxable nature of the grant would determine the incentive for people to get into the government's off-oil program. We would like to have this matter reconsidered with the idea of making the grant non-taxable.
I would now like to deal with areas which were not included in the legislation. There is the question of tax credits for energy. 1 raise this matter, not because we as a government were looking at the issue but because there is a social need which is increasing daily as energy prices rise. If the government had been successful in maintaining significantly lower energy prices, there would be a justifiable argument for not introducing a tax credit. But with gasoline having risen by approximately 30 cents per gallon to date, which is roughly the rise proposed under my government's energy package, the need grows day by day for some action for people who are on low incomes and fixed incomes to have some relief from higher energy prices.
Another exclusion from the legislation is capital gains tax provisions. The government suggested in its elective campaign promises that it would introduce provisions for capital gains tax relief, particularly on behalf of farmers. A white paper on this particular issue was brought forward, but it did not even mention farmers. Indeed, farmers were almost totally neglected in the budget. This matter must be addressed quickly because of its economic impact on farmers today. This situation is having a great effect on the young people who are trying to take up farming and are finding it increasingly difficult and, as a result, they are abandoning their efforts.
Income Tax Act
Consequently, we end up with very large corporate farms or a low productivity level on the farm land which is currently available.
The Minister of Agriculture has been questioned in the House on several occasions as to whether or not relief would be provided to farmers, for example through lower interest rates or increased funding to the Farm Credit Corporation. The minister has suggested that such programs would not be equitable to provide relief to the farm community, because the farm community is not that badly off now, and that it would be inequitable to propose such a program for the farmers and not for other segments of our economy. This indicates a lack of understanding by the minister of the real point. The point is that farmers in different provinces who are receiving assistance from the provincial governments through a number of federal subsidization programs are being assisted in an inequitable way. There is no co-ordination of these programs. While the farmers are receiving assistance, it is not at the level which will allow them to survive.
The Ontario government recently carried out a study into the future of the family farm in Ontario, which was released several days ago. I would like to quote from the London Free Press an article which describes that study.
It found that while the low rate of return on investment and low net earnings are considered by many to be the main deterrents to young persons wanting to farm, more young people than ever before are beginning to farm and there is a general feeling of optimism about the future.
What I have just quoted brings us to the point which I wanted to make through the article, which reads:
And, it says, a tax credit similar to the home ownership credit program to help them should be contemplated.
This is the kind of assistance these young farmers need in order to survive. It costs in the neighbourhood of $300,000 for a young farmer to establish himself today.
One topic which often comes up in such a debate is the question of the assistance the provinces are providing to the different segments of the economy. The established program funding and the co-operation and co-ordination of the programs of the federal government and of the provincial governments are very much in the limelight today and seem to be gaining increasingly in importance. The question also arises of the level at which the federal government will maintain its funding to such programs, and whether or not there will be continued assistance to all provinces, particularly the so-called have-not provinces. This question has arisen with regard to the areas of health funding and university funding.
An hon. member earlier today pointed out that if the government continues with its current plan, it is very likely that university funding will be cut to the point where some of the universities in his area of Atlantic Canada would be forced to close their doors. The same situation holds true in the area of funding for health care. The provinces are caught in a situation where they are not able to provide the necessary funding to maintain the services because of the cutbacks in government funding. Clearly, the provinces that are able to provide this funding should assist where possible, but the

Income Tax Act
federal government should not avoid its responsibilities to programs which it was responsible for instituting in the first place.
I would like to speak about the way the government is looking at its priorities, not only in this bill but in many other bills. I shall quote briefly from a letter written by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Chretien) dated October 15, 1980. It says:
Dear Colleague,
Please find enclosed a list of surveys sponsored by the Canadian United Information Office.
Results of the three surveys made since May 20th, 1980, will be made public at a later date. For the time being, we cannot disclose the details of those three surveys as disclosure could be injurious to the conduct of federal-provincial affairs.
I do not know exactly what was in those final three surveys. However, I would anticipate that what was included was a question on priorities and what people in the country at large felt about the way the government was approaching not only the question of the constitution and government priorities but whether or not it was addressing things in which Canadians themselves were interested. It is my impression, and polls have shown this, that people in Canada are interested in jobs and in employment. If I may, I will refer to the comments made by the minister at the opening of his statement in the debate on this bill. Approximately $350 million is to be dedicated to employment and to an industrial strategy. The minister mentioned a larger figure, but I do not believe we have the dedication of a larger figure anywhere. What we have is support of some industries and a job-retraining program.
In the last nine months of this government there has been a decrease of approximately 43,000 manufacturing jobs. That is in the manufacturing sector alone. While there has been an increase in total jobs, these have been in a non-productive area, namely, the service sector. They have not been in the manufacturing sector. Over the long term there is no doubt this creates tremendous problems for Canada.
It would be interesting to find out what the results of those other surveys were, not just on the basis of the constitutional discussions, but also to find out what the people at large are thinking about the priorities which the government has set for its legislation and where it is putting its energies.
The second part of the priority discussion would have to deal with research and development. Of interest to everyone was the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made on New Year's Day about the dedication which this government will have to research and development and the many opportunities it can provide to this country. I found it passing strange that it should be the Prime Minister on New Year's Day who would make a statement like that when during his tenure the dedication of finances from this government decreased from 1.25 per cent of the gross national product in 1969 to less than 0.9 per cent at the present time. I know that some additional efforts have been made lately, but efforts have been feeble in comparison to the real requirement to get back on
a sound economic basis and be competitive with countries around the world. We should not build our economy on the basis of cheap natural resources. We should not take our cheap natural resources and channel them into non-productive and inequitable systems. Rather, we should build on the basis of providing efficiency, on the basis of providing world-scale products through research and development. Through good management we should bring our products into line with what is economic for the rest of the world.
In conclusion, I think members on this side of the House are optimistic about the opportunities we have in Canada. However, we do not see priorities being taken by the government now to take advantage of these tremendous opportunities. The real needs of this country are not being taken care of; namely, energy, social development and, on the broadest scale, on the unity questions which are important to all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate to deal with the amendments to the Income Tax Act arising out of the budget of last October. I must say the document is quite large and weighty. You would think from the size of it that it promised a great deal. It certainly promises a great deal, but I do not think it delivers much at all.
Because of the experience over the last several months since the budget was brought down, it is clear to everyone by now that the budgetary policy of the government is not working. Our economic experience since last October has been negative, disruptive to communities and to people. Present forecasts are gloomy and negative as well. Hon. members do not have to take my word for those forecasts, they come also from objective and reputable sources. For example, forecasts from the Conference Board of Canada for economic activity in 1981 indicate that we Will have poor growth, high inflation, high unemployment, and low housing starts. Obviously, we will have a continued increase in the number of bankruptcies as well. This is not a picture of an economy that is well managed. It is not the result of the actions of a compassionate or an effective government. The actions which have been undertaken so far are clearly inadequate. That is why I make reference to this weighty document which promises so much, but is delivering so little.
Not only are these policies not working in general as economic policies, they are not working specifically in terms of the programs or the specific areas of the economy they are suppose to be helping. In other words, they are not working at the general level of policy, nor at any specific level.
Although the Small Business Development Bond has been extended for a period of time through amendments to the Income Tax Act, the reason for this extension is not a newfound interest in economic activities on the part of the government, but is a result of the government's slipshod administration. When the government originally announced the introduction of Small Business Development Bonds, which were meant to help small business with the extremely high interest rates we
January 23, 1981

now have, it was very slow to make the information about them available to small business people and to the banking community. At the beginning the government simply did not get the program off the ground and now it is extending the program because of its own administrative mess. Clearly that program is not doing the job. What we really need to do is to convince the government to put its heart into this matter and to re-examine its monetary policies. This country cannot continue to throw oil on the fires of inflation. Goodness knows we are giving away all the oil we have, so why throw oil on the fire of inflation?
The Small Business Development Bond program should continue, and where it can help it will be appreciated, but it is totally inadequate as an economic policy and as a small business policy.
There are other areas which substantiate what I am saying about these policies not being effective economic policies or being effective specific programs for different sectors of the economy. For example, the amendments to the Income Tax Act contain MURBs which are really the tax write-offs and giveaways that enable large corporations to build more bachelor apartments in our cities.
What we need are measures which would lead to affordable family housing. But tax write-offs continue to allow income tax to be inequitable. In other words, people who earn high incomes are able to claim write-offs and so avoid paying their fair share. There is no guarantee MURBs will meet the housing needs which exist in the community. In fact, the program does very little for the real housing need in this country, the need of families to be well housed at affordable prices. This government's monetary policies continue to make that impossible. They do nothing about it.
Those are two simple and straightforward examples of the ineffective policies of this government. That is not the end of it; only the beginning. For example, there is the investment tax credit program with its system of write-offs and giveaways to corporations. It is another version of a previous tax write-off program for designated areas. Not only is it expensive for the public treasury, but it does not achieve the objective of assisting regional economic development in the poorer areas and creating the jobs and wealth to which we are all entitled. It is a giveaway to large corporations which can add it to their profits. They invest that money elsewhere, however, rather than in the region, which makes this program very expensive and ineffective. A new approach is needed in this area.
I want to give an example of how expensive this is. The program which this one replaces, the graduated tax credit program which graduated taxes from 7 to 20 per cent for regional development, in 1980 in the manufacturing sector cost us $170 million, and $125 million in the resource area.


Gary Michael Gurbin: What did it produce?


Cyril Keeper: That is the question, what does it produce? It certainly costs a lot. Transportation and equipment cost
Income Tax Act
another $40 million and research and development, $45 million. It has done very little to encourage Canadian-owned business.
This is not a new policy. Even though it is ineffective and is clearly a giveaway, as far back as 1963, Walter Gordon, then Liberal finance minister, was acting in the very same fashion. He introduced an identical write-off measure for designated areas which cost the taxpayers great amounts of money and produced very little. Even though such policies have been followed since 1963, there are still regions of great disparities in this country. Nothing has changed. Inequities continue under the policies being pursued by the Liberal government in a non-thinking manner.
The story goes on. Again, that is not the end. The government continues with similar inequitable and ineffective policies. I want briefly to touch on some of them. In the area of corporate taxation, the level of corporate taxes which companies should pay in this country, the nominal corporate tax rate, is 46 per cent. However, the real tax rate is much lower because of various forms of write-offs.
I wish to put on record some facts and figures which come from a finance department study, and are not something 1 dreamed up. Compared with the official corporate taxation rate in this country of 46 per cent in 1977, the manufacturing sector paid 20 per cent, and oil and gas 11 per cent. I am sure it is even less than that now. According to the 1977 study, the mining sector paid 10 per cent and the banks 9 to 13 per cent. We should all own a bank. The average was 18 per cent compared with the official rate of 40 per cent.
The government has moved to extend the 5 per cent federal corporate surtax introduced last April in an attempt to rectify the situation created by a declining rate of corporate taxation. It has acknowledged the problem created by the write-offs, deductions and other forms of incentives it created, including the investment tax credit which I have already mentioned.
The government recognized the problem and took a hesitant step forward, but has not gone far enough. A 5 per cent level of taxation is not enough. We as individuals would certainly like the government to give us that kind of deal, but it is not about to do so.
I want to refer briefly to the taxation of chartered banks. This bill gives another break to the banks, which now pay a tax rate of 9 to 13 per cent. In future banks will be able to deduct from taxes, bad or doubtful debts; if a bank makes a bad business deal, it may deduct the amount involved from its taxes. This can now be done during the year it appears on their books. However, with the change, they can defer this deduction, carrying it over from year to year. This is an additional benefit to them. In addition to increasing their profits, they may now profit from business failures. Imagine the possibility of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce profiting from the failure of Massey-Ferguson. That is economic insanity and stupidity which boggles the mind.
I come back to the question of regional development and the need for economic development in the less-developed areas.

January 23, 1981
Income Tax Act
Earlier I referred to the ineffectiveness of the investment tax credit and the fact that it does not do anything for the poorer areas of this country. With the set of amendments in this heavy document, the government is doing something about regional disparities and regional economic activity. 1 come now to the provisions with regard to marginal manufacturing. The 9 per cent federal sales tax on marginal manufacturing is being expanded and will include assembling, mixing, cutting to size or packaging when done other than in a retail store for sale to customers. This is supposedly being done to overcome inequities. The real impact of this measure is that it extends the federal sales tax to a sector of small business which has a high bankruptcy rate and, therefore, can least afford it.
I received a letter from a firm in Manitoba detailing the inequities and injustices of the extension of this tax. It points out that this measure will call for additional record-keeping by small businessmen. If there is one message that small business people across this nation have consistently been delivering to governments over the years, it is to cut out all unnecessary red tape and paperwork imposed on small business. As I said, this measure will increase it.
This tends to put small businesses in a non-competitive position with companies which import prepackaged products. In other words, it makes things more difficult for the company which packages materials, in this case in Winnipeg, Manitoba, than for the company which imports materials already packaged. That is a clear injustice which will increase unemployment and encourage us to export jobs. It also tends to centralize packaging within our own domestic market in Canada. In other words, it would tend to be advantageous to do packaging in industrial Canada, in Ontario and Quebec, and it would be disadvantageous to do packaging in a region like Winnipeg which has slow economic activity at this point. I think that is directly contrary to the government's policies of sound regional economic equity.
Clearly we should not be introducing a measure that is going to export jobs and shift jobs from slow-growth regions to the industrial heartland. I have a concern about industry in Ontario and Quebec. My party has long and well spoken of the need for an industrial strategy in our country. That is the way to keep Ontario healthy and keep jobs here. But let us not rob Manitoba of jobs for Ontario. That clearly is injustice carried to the extreme. I am glad businessmen from Manitoba took the trouble to write me.
What we are dealing with today are amendments to the Income Tax Act arising out of a budget. One of the things about the Income Tax Act is that it is progressive, at least that is what we have always been led to believe. It is a means to promote equity and justice in the country in terms of the distribution of income. I want to talk a bit about the distribution of income and the impact of these amendments on that distribution. Clearly, from what I have said up until now, the impact of these measures is to promote inequity, to give gifts to the rich and to destroy the progressiveness of our taxation
system. In other words, those who have the most will pay their fair share-will pay the most-and those who have the least will pay what they can afford-pay the least. I want to talk a little bit about income distribution.
Let me draw to your mind and attention to the book "The Canadian Fact Book On Income Distribution". This is a book I find very enlightening and one which I have been careful to read, particularly after hearing about the concern in this House for the incomes and pensions of such people as judges and others in that category.
This book gives the picture of income distribution in this country. We have the bottom fifth of the population earning roughly 4 per cent of the wealth with the top fifth earning something like 40 per cent of the wealth. Can you imagine that the poorest people in this country earn one tenth of what those with the top incomes earn, while those at the top of the heap earn ten times as much as those at the bottom? What kind of income distribution is that and why should we continue to promote that kind of distribution through the Income Tax Act, and in fact make it worse? That is what concerns me.
The level of distribution of income in this country has been steady since 1951 according to this study, which appears to me to be a sound and good study. Clearly, after the world depression and the years of the 1930s we took a step forward. We introduced social welfare measures and we introduced an income floor.
I am not challenging the idea or the notion that we have redistribution of income in this country. We do. We have a floor and this study demonstrates that the people earning the least do benefit from the transfer of payments we make in this country. That is well'and good. What I am pointing out now is that the disparities of the distribution of income in this country have not changed significantly since 1951 and this shows we have not moved toward a more just and equitable society since 1951. That is sad when you consider that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came in on a wave of hope that we could have a just society. He has failed dismally to fulfil that hope and he continues today to play Liberal politics by introducing, in effect, unjust taxation measures.
Let me quote from this study with regard to taxes as paid by the rich and the poor in this country. At page 52 in a statement relating to the distribution of income after all taxes, it states that in a study for the Royal Commission on Taxation in the 1960s it was first demonstrated that the over-all tax system is not progressive, and in fact it taxes the poor very heavily.
A little further down the page it is stated:
-the bottom income class still pays the highest rate of taxation.


An hon. Member:: They still do.


Cyril Keeper: They still do and that is shocking. It is not necessary in a country such as ours. It certainly should not be allowed to continue and we should not be promoting it. That is what is being done with these measures, I suggest, and it is being done in the name of income management, an income
January 23, 1981

management which has been demonstrated by our own personal experience in this country since last October to be ineffective. It really has no final justification.
Let me touch briefly on the energy program. In my view the energy program of the government is a sham. I do not want to go into detail about it because I know my colleague, our energy critic, has dealt with the program adequately. I mention it because there are measures in this bill in relation to the program. It is a sham. They call it Canadianization, but in fact it is continued control by multinational corporations. Our energy critic labelled it "Lalondization". 1 take him to mean by that a Liberal trick, rhetoric without action, sleight of hand without substance.


Walter David Baker: A shell game.


Cyril Keeper: Indeed, a shell game.


Mark Willson Rose: And a Gulf game and a Texaco game.


Cyril Keeper: It certainly is not a program which meets the needs of our country nor one that will work.
Let me touch upon pricing of oil as outlined in this program. The Liberal government, like the Tory government when it was in office, is moving toward a price equal to 85 per cent of the world price. That is clear from both budgetary documents. This is the fact on the Tory side in spite of its proposed tax credit on oil, even taking that into account the pricing policy remains similar, by and large. The approach to the pricing of the product is the same. I must say 1 feel we need an energy policy on pricing that will result in justifiable prices. We need an oil price review commission. We need some public body which will examine price increases so that the public can see clearly that any increase in price is necessary and not just for the good of the multinational corporations. Price increases must be reviewed in public.
1 would make the same suggestion with respect to oil. The base of our activity must be a public corporation. The simplest way I can illustrate that for you, Mr. Speaker, is to use the example of Autopac in Manitoba. It is a public corporation that offers auto insurance at a price related to the cost of delivering the service.
The people of Manitoba clearly understand this because they have experience with Autopac, and 1 suggest that the same rationale for a public corporation exists in the energy sector as exists in the car insurance sector. One of the things such a corporation would do is keep the energy dollars each of us pays every day for heating our homes and driving our cars, in an energy account. It would not let any government siphon off those dollars for any other purpose, and it would not allow multinational corporations to siphon them off for their own profit or investment in land deals or any other investment in which they might be interested. I know that the energy program illustrated in these amendments is inadequate and a sham and allows continued control by multinational corpora-
Income Tax Act
tions. It is "Lalondization". Let us have an end of Lalondization.


Mr. Smith:: On Canada "londs"?


Mark Willson Rose: He looked that up in a dictionary.


Cyril Keeper: I looked it up in a west coast dictionary. I am learning a great deal from my west coast colleagues.
I want to move back again to the budgetary policies which are illustrated and reflected in this document and which came out with the budget. I will mention some things which I think are missing.
It is clear now that we have a recession in this country. The only distinction about this recession is that we also have a very high rate of inflation with it. That is the only distinctive achievement of the economic policy of the government across the way. With the recessionary situation we are in now we really need public investment to stimulate and get the economy moving again, to provide jobs and to create wealth. By creating wealth we create a source for taxes in order to get the deficit down.


Mr. Evans:: Where will you get the money?


Cyril Keeper: Let me illustrate the need for investment. I suggest that a good place to invest would be in the area of urban transit. We clearly must do something about energy conservation. The government has an energy program. Let us invest adequately in mass urban transit. This would create jobs. If we develop transit systems in this country, we can sell them not only to our own cities but also to American and European cities.
We can create high technology jobs in this country through investment in mass transit. We could conserve energy by doing that. We could promote a better living environment in the cities, where most of our citizens now live. We could provide a convenient method for people to go to work in cities. I think that is important. We need public investment now which, as it works its way through the economy, would create wealth, and that investment should be in urban transit.
I mention this specifically today because toward the need of next week there will be a national conference in Winnipeg which representatives from cities across the country will attend. The theme of that conference will be energy and urban transit. Let us send a signal from here that this government is concerned about energy, about urban transit and about the economy. This should be in the budgetary policy of the government, but it is not.
Since we are dealing with an income tax bill, I point out that action is needed in other areas as well. For example, there should be changes in the Income Tax Act to promote the rehabilitation and preservation of heritage buildings. I am very familiar with this subject because I have served on the city council in Winnipeg and worked in the designation of heritage buildings. This is a subject which is close to my heart. Present income tax laws encourage the demolition of heritage build-

January 23, 1981
Income Tax Act
ings rather than their rehabilitation. There must be changes in the Income Tax Act soon so that we can promote a positive effect on the shape and nature of our cities. We do not want to live in cities made up simply of steel structures which do not reflect the history and experience of our people. We must promote the rehabilitation of our heritage buildings so that when we live, walk, play and work in our cities we can have a sense of the experience of our people and a sense of our history.
However, changes in the Income Tax Act in this respect would achieve not just those goals only, but would also promote employment. Rehabilitation is job intensive. Rehabilitation would create a whole new industry.
This is not just another airy-fairy idea. It is not pie in the sky. It is not impossible. I have with me today a number of studies. I also have specific proposals for amendments to the Income Tax Act. These proposals are from Heritage Winnipeg, and I will be raising them again in this House at the earliest opportunity. These studies examined the American experience and demonstrated that what I am calling for has been done. It has not been done in some far-away nation upon whose approach we might cast some doubt but by our closest neighbour, the United States.
These studies of federal tax changes in the United States show that a system of saving heritage structures can work. Employment, wealth and economic activity can be generated by this kind of activity. The tax laws we presently have encourage demolition and leave our cities as dead places where there is nothing of value from the past. We are a young country, and it is a good time now to start to preserve our history for today's generation as well as tomorrow's. I will be raising this issue again in this House. I just want to flag it now to let the government know that I will be pursuing it and urging the government to act on it in a positive way.
This government has some good policies. One of these policies is followed by the Department of Public Works. Parks Canada has a responsibility for heritage in this country. It is my understanding that there is a policy which encourages Parks Canada to locate heritage buildings in cities across the country. That is a good, positive policy. However, in Winnipeg today this policy is being administered poorly. The Department of Public Works and Parks Canada propose to move into a marginally historic structure in Winnipeg rather than into a first-rate, top-notch historic building.
If Parks Canada were to move into that first-rate, top-notch historic building, it could be preserved for generations to come. Instead, just because the government presently owns a marginally historic building, it will not move into the first-class building and preserve something which is of real value. That is poor administration. When a government goes so far as to establish a good policy, it should follow it up with good administration.
1 will conclude. I just want to say I am glad I had this opportunity to participate in this debate. I think that we must conclude that the changes to the Income Tax Act are just not good enough and go in the wrong direction. We need an
economic program, an economic policy, economic management in this country. We need a tax policy which works toward the specific objectives for which it is intended; one which promotes economic activity, which is equitable and just, which promotes a fair distribution of income in the country, and which also deals with the problem that is on the minds of people in Canada today, a policy which deals effectively in the area of energy. So let members on the other side of the House wake up, face up to the real problems of this country and get moving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to let the last remarks go by without saying anything on the subject. I find it passing strange that every time we have problems in the country, the NDP comes up with a solution which involves public investment, as if it were the only way to solve them. Someone has to pay the taxes. We have found in the past that it is the private sector which is always paying the taxes for this public investment which attempts to solve the problems which we would not be encountering had we not had to contribute to that public investment.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) also spoke about the energy program and called it "Lalondiza-tion". In Alberta we call it nationalization. He spoke about rhetoric without action. I wonder if the action of all the Canadians who are being put out of business, of all the people who have lost their jobs in the oil industry, is what the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James calls rhetoric without action. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get carried away on the subject of the oil industry for the moment. Perhaps I will speak about it later if I have the time.
We are dealing now with the income tax measures in Bill C-54. It is a large bill. I suspect it is large because we have not dealt with any income tax measures for some time now. A number of budgets have been brought down since 1979 when we last dealt with those measures. That was the budget which was defeated. Many of the proposals in that budget have found their way into the budget which was brought down last fall, and we welcome their return.
This country needs economic leadership by this government now more than ever before. As I mentioned in my introduction, people are worrying about their jobs. It is astonishing to discover, as the Gallup poll has shown us, that 60 per cent of the principal wage earners in the families across this nation are now afraid for their jobs. This is obvious as you read the papers and find that various companies are no longer able to compete or are driven out by the policies of this government. So we need economic leadership badly.
The most substantial elements in this budget were delivered in the spring mini-budget, as it was called, but basically they were a reintroduction of elements in the budget which was brought down by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) some time ago, because this government had to admit
January 23, 1981

that these were excellent proposals which should have been considered at the time. However, many others were left out. We did not find them in the mini-budget or in the last budget, nor do we find them in the bill before us. Some of those are important elements in the new energy plan for this nation which raised the price of fuel. I know it was considered terrible that we had intended to raise the price of fuel by 18 cents per gallon, but if you look at the increase in the price of fuel since the defeat of the Conservative government, you find that it adds up to much more than 18 cents per gallon. In fact, many people are saying that it adds up to an increase of 26 cents or 30 cents per gallon. Any time that you perpetrate upon the people of this nation a large increase in the price of something as essential as energy, which everyone needs to heat their homes, run their cars, to manufacture fertilizer or chemicals needed by farmers to produce food, it has a tremendous impact. We all budget our incomes and we decide how much we must set aside from our salary to make certain expenditures, and when we find that one item in that ledger increases more rapidly than we anticipated, then we find it very difficult to economize in other areas. Some of us are fortunate enough to be able to do that, but many people are not.
There is nothing in these tax bills or in the budget which would assist people whose incomes have been drastically reduced as a result of having to provide for the necessities of life, to meet the increased cost of driving to work, heating their homes or growing food. We find that the energy tax credit proposal, which economists in this country are calling the most advanced proposal in the decade, is missing in this budget. What would that energy tax credit have offered? It would have offered relief in home heating costs, the cost of gasoline for driving a car up to 20,000 miles, and assistance to farmers in meeting the costs which they incur in producing food.
The difference between taxing gasoline and taxing the total volume of oil and natural gas is quite obvious. When the price of gasoline goes up, an individual has an option. He can buy a smaller car, he can take advantage of the tax credit up to
20,000	miles, if it is available, he can use public transit, he can use car pools-there are many choices available to him. But there is no choice when it comes to heating his home. Perhaps if we had foreseen this problem, we would have put renewable energy programs in place, but we have not done so. So people either have to use natural gas or heating oil.
When the government puts a tax on a barrel of oil or a cubic foot of natural gas, this does not give an option to individuals who have to heat their homes-they have no alternative but to pay for the heating oil or natural gas. As we all know, the cost of heating homes is high. I filled my propane tank and found it cost me $135 more than last time. I realize that somebody who has no money left over at the end of the month is placed in a terrible position when his bill is increased by that amount. So our tax credit proposal was a significant proposal, and I simply cannot understand why it has been constantly rejected by this government.
The other issue on which I should like to comment is relief from capital gains tax. As a farmer representing a farming
Income Tax Act
community in the riding of Wetaskiwin, I am fully aware of the significance of relief from the capital gains tax. I was lucky. My grandfather decided to pass the farm on to me and the Canadian government decided that that was allowed and the transfer would not be taxable. But what about the problem of farmers whose sons and daughters are not interested in farming and want to pursue other goals in life? A farmer may work his entire life building up his equity, his land and his machinery, and then when he decides to retire, he wants another person to take over the farm so he sells it, but the government comes along and grabs 26 per cent or more of the wealth he has built up. Very often such farmers have deprived themselves of many things in order to buy the necessary machinery to make their farm productive or to increase their land base just to make a living, but then when the time comes to retire, the government grabs a large percentage. We know that land prices are going up, but so is the cost of housing, and now that life expectancy in Canada is longer, the rising costs of essentials pose greater and greater problems to these people.
This leads me to another item which I believe was so important in the budget presented by the hon. member for St. John's West. It would have provided Canadians with an opportunity to invest in companies. One might say they have such an opportunity now, but in most instances the people taking advantage of that so-called opportunity are using it in the United States or some other country. Our citizens are not being encouraged to invest their savings in Canadian corporations and companies. The plan which my party proposed would have allowed Canadians to invest in Imperial Oil, Shell Canada and Gulf Canada. It would have allowed them to purchase more of the interests of those companies so that Canadians would own and control them. Most of the people working for those companies and comprising the management of those companies at the present time are Canadians. So, in a sense they are controlled in this country, but the principal ownership still lies in other countries.
Since we are striving for self-sufficiency it would make more sense to ask Canadians to invest in Canadian companies. Also, they could be asked to invest in foreign companies in order to make them Canadian. They could then be taxed and the money could be used for the purposes of finding more oil, rather than having Petro-Canada which does not find a single barrel of oil with the money used to buy them out.
The government simply takes the cash capacity of the country and puts it into a non-productive base. I agree with the plan to Canadianize the industry, but I question whether the method being proposed is the right one; I say it is not.
The Small Business Development Bond could have assisted small Canadian businessmen and entrepreneurs to become established. When I travelled my riding during the election campaign and proposed the Small Business Development Bond, it met with the approval of every citizen who found himself in the position of needing more capital to revitalize his small business or to start a new business which he thought would be

January 23, 1981
Income Tax Act
productive and would provide him and his family with a means to live. The details of the bond were set out in the budget which was never passed; then in the mini-budget which was not passed either. The numerous small businessmen who are in dire need of relief from astronomically high interest rates do not know the regulations surrounding the Small Business Development Bond. As a result, the bond has not been used by the majority of citizens who should be using it. The bill should be passed by the House and the regulations established so that citizens can take advantage of it.
I should like to refer to one problem with legislation before the House. We receive the basis of the legislation which we put before the people of the nation, many of whom are pleased that we are trying to assist them. But, when the legislation is passed by the House and the regulations are in place, we find many of the suggestions that even we thought were contained in the bill, are not, in the final analysis. This is why many banks have been reluctant to use this bond program. Many members have suggested that it should be extended, that it should not be in place for only a specific period of time but rather until interest rates have dropped to a level acceptable to small businesses and farms. Members have also suggested that it be used not only for new capital requirements but for the maintenance of inventories. If a farmer goes into a large business establishment for the purpose of purchasing a new part for his combine, because the weather is holding and the old one has broken down, and finds that the firm is not capable of keeping an inventory because of high interest rates, he realizes how important it is for a program to be in effect which assists businesses in times of difficulty.
Now I should like to turn to the area of energy conversion grants. Many of us are concerned about the direction in which Canada is going, as far as conversion to renewable forms of energy or abundant sources of energy are concerned. I would like very much to make a speech on oil and gas although, of course, I realize that soon there will be other energy bills to provide that form. An $800 grant is contained in the budget if one converts one's furnace to a renewable form of energy or natural gas. That is desirable; we want to encourage Canadians to take advantage of the many forms of available energy. But, there are two ways of doing it. The first is the grant, but the regulations are not available. There is something about a 50 per cent reduction in the amount of oil being consumed in one's home before one can apply for or receive the grant. So, there are difficulties until the regulations are defined. The second is a tax credit. Which is the better way to encourage Canadians to convert their furnaces? Is it through the grant system or through the tax credit system?
I have had many occasions to talk to the members of renewable energy committees across the country in the last number of years. In fact, my party suggested a tax credit to encourage individuals to convert their furnaces to the use of renewable forms of energy; we suggested a $3,400 tax credit for this purpose.
Instead of paying taxes on that portion of their income, Canadians could have used it to put in place solar water
heaters, wood stoves or perhaps windmills to generate electricity or to heat their homes; also, it would have applied if one wanted to convert from oil to natural gas. There is a lot more incentive when an individual can take his own money, on which he may not have to pay taxes, to put a system that he understands fully into his building or house. He does not merely hire someone to instal a system which he does not know how to operate or is helpless if it should break down. Some people do not know the many requirements of installing and operating wood stoves. I have read stories about individuals who purchased and installed wood stoves, threw in some wood and wondered from where all the smoke came; they did not even realize that they needed stacks! Perhaps it is funny, but it happens. One must know how to utilize an alternative form of energy or the effort will just fail.
If the government is convinced that it must go the tax grant route, we in the opposition do not have the numbers to stop it. Surely an educational program should be put in place to assist Canadian citizens in learning about the various types of energy and their use. If there is no tax benefit, there is no encouragement for citizens to take advantage of it.
I think it would be a good thing to look at a tax credit system. It is a revolutionary system which was first introduced in the child tax credit which has worked very well. The Crosbie budget proposed a tax credit in order to allow citizens to better handle the increased costs of energy. It should be used as it is being used in many parts of the world, particularly in the United States, to encourage people to change to renewable forms of energy.
I realize my time has run out. There is a lot more about this bill which I would like to say, but I must save it for another time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: that Bill C-303, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of Senators), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say, first of all, that I was somewhat surprised to find myself called upon to speak this
January 23, 1981

afternoon, mine being low on the list of public bills to be debated. This goes to emphasize that a great many bills which are presently on the Order Paper and which are not printed would indicate that the member is not particularly interested in proceeding with the subject or that there is some problem in putting the bill into printable form.
Be that as it may, I am very pleased to take this opportunity to discuss Bill C-303, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867. It concerns the tenure of senators. I am pleased to be able to discuss it for two reasons. First, I have my own ideas on reform of the Senate. Second, I think it is particularly appropriate at this time, when discussions are taking place amongst senators about their particular responsibilities and about the part they will play in the passage of the constitutional proposals, to bring it forward for discussion at this time. Later in my speech I will discuss the problems of clause 44 in the constitutional proposal, as the senators see it.
I would like to start with the bill itself. Bill C-303 states:
1.	Section 29 of the British North America Act. 1867 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"29. (1) A senator shall hold his place in the Senate until the d/y of the general election next following his completion of ten years as senator.
(2) Where the application of subsection (1) would result at any time in a greater number of vacancies than thirty-four, the senators beyond that number who have the least seniority shall not vacate their seats but shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been summoned to the senate exactly ten years prior to the day of the general election."
I shall read from the explanatory note, if I may, for the record:
The purpose of this change in the British North America Act is to limit the tenure of senators to a period not exceeding 15 years.
The purpose in bringing this bill forward for discussion is to allow everyone an opportunity to discuss not only the reform of the Senate but the responsibilities of the Senate and senators. I looked at the list of bills which are on the Order Paper and was surprised to find there are only five other bills which deal with the Senate, apart from my own. There are the standard two in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), one dealing, as he has in past sessions, with the elimination of the Senate entirely, and the other dealing with financial interests. I notice that another member of his party has two bills on the order paper which, by their titles, are probably intended to accomplish the same purpose.
Apart from those four bills there is one other bill on the Order Paper, No. C-304, put forward by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). It deals with the elimination of sittings on Mondays, both for the House of Commons and the Senate. I suspect his motivation is directed more toward the House of Commons. So, there has not been any great interest-at least there does not appear to be from the business on the Order Paper-amongst members of Parliament about doing very much about the Senate. This means, I think, that they are probably relatively satisfied with what is done-or it might be contended what is not done-in the Senate.
Over the years, an enormous amount has been written on the subject of the place of the Senate in our parliamentary system. I have been reviewing some of this material. I note, for
Tenure of Senators
example, in a report to the Senate of Canada on certain aspects of the Canadian constitution made in November, 1980, the Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the Hon. H. Carl Goldenberg, Q.C., in that report says:
-a second chamber is needed-
This, of course, is the opinion of senators themselves.
-a second chamber is needed not as a mere replica of the House of Commons but as a complement to provide "sober, second thought", and to do what the House of Commons cannot do efficiently ... the Senate's role should be to revise legislation, to conduct investigations on specific matters of public interest, to reflect regional aspirations and to protect linguistic, minority and individual rights.
-it is preferable to have an appointed rather than an elected Senate.
The report goes on:
-an appointed Senate would be in a better position to accomplish the complementary and largely advisory roles it should have in our democratic and parliamentary system where the House of Commons should be the supreme legislative authority.
I think there is some significance to that last passage. The senators themselves recognize the House of Commons as the supreme legislative authority. The report goes on:
It would be less partisan and more independent; it would have greater continuity and more expertise-
That is, of course, on the basis of appointments.
It is argued that an appointed Senate lacks credibility and legitimacy. We submit that a Senate elected by proportional representation, with the complementary roles and the limited powers that a second chamber should have, would suffer from the same defects and would accomplish its specific mission less efficiently.
The report goes on to suggest appointments for a ten-year term and that the legislative power of the Senate should be limited to that of a suspensive veto.
I was happy to read that into the record. I would like to add that the Hon. Carl Goldenberg is my own senator. He is the senator who represents that region of Quebec which can loosely be described as the west island of Montreal and west to the border of Ontario. I say this very sincerely, I am very proud that a man of the character, competence and calibre of Mr. Goldenberg is in our Senate. Quite honestly, I believe we have several senators of that standing and this is not intended to be any sort of criticism of the rest of the senators. There have often been suggestions that a relatively small percentage of our senators carry the load. Be that as it may, I do not think that suggestion changes very much, since one can make the same comment about the House of Commons.
I would like to comment on a couple of remarks which have been made in connection with the Senate. There was a very interesting article written by a Mr. Edward McWhinney from which I would like to quote:
If the present Canadian federal Senate is to be reformed, let it be a bona fide reform, and this excludes ... a provincial patronage-appointed Senate. If we are to retain a federal Senate, then let its members be directly elected, possibly on a proportional representation basis within provincial boundaries, and for a specified and limited term of years.
A duration of two successive terms of the House of Commons-which could be as long as eight years or else very much shorter if the House of Commons should be dissolved prematurely-seems reasonable-

January 23, 1981
Tenure of Senators
Gordon Robertson, who is well known for the part he has played in the administrative aspects of government over the past few years, comments in an article in the June-July issue of Policy Options:
The Senate has been a favourite target of proposals for reform as well as for abolition.
Here is the statement which I have underlined in the article:
If the Senate were to be abolished and the House of Commons were to become the only chamber of the Canadian Parliament, Canada would become unique among federations.
The Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat put together a document entitled "Proposals on the Constitution 1971-1978". 1 believe it is apropos to this debate that I put on the record a couple of paragraphs for the benefit of many who may read Hansard although I am not sure how many people in the country do. Section 17 of the BNA Act reads:
There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House, styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
The act then goes on to describe in section 18 the privileges, immunities and powers to be held by the Senate and the House of Commons. Section 22 reads:
In relation to the constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions:
1.	Ontario;
2.	Quebec;
3.	The maritime provinces ...
4.	The western provinces... which four divisions shall... be equally
represented in the Senate-
The Special Joint Committee on the Constitution (1972) recorded that the present full veto power of the senate over legislation should be reduced to a suspensive veto for six months. I shall be talking about the six-month time-period later in connection with article 44 in the constitutional proposal. The Special Joint Committee on the Constitution (1972) also said:
The investigative role of the Senate, which has gained more importance in recent years, should be continued and expanded at the initiative of the Senate itself, and the Government should also make more use of the Senate in this way.
One of the characteristics which I appreciate about the Senate is that it has power to continue the discussion of a subject, which we in the House of Commons do not have. I have lobbied for some time for the government to bring in changes which would enable the members of the House of Commons to discuss in committee, subjects which we consider important enough to be worthy of committee study. In that regard and without wanting to digress too much, I should refer to three reports which I have mentioned frequently in this House, which have been tabled, upon which all members are awaiting some action from the government and which we would like to discuss further in committee in an effort to speed the passage of further legislation. These reports are, and I will use their popular names, the Finkelman report, the D'Avignon report and the Lambert commission report.
The point is that senators have the opportunity to decide on subjects for discussion and thereby to produce invaluable reports. In fact, while I am on the subject, I have been looking at some of the Senate works of the recent past. Although they will not appear in Hansard, I have in front of me quite a stack of books composed of works which I commend to any member of the public as being worth while studying.
These books cover a tremendous range of topics. There is the very recent report called "Child At Risk", which is a report of the Standing Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Science. There is also the report of the Special Senate Committee on Retirement Age Policies entitled "Retirement without Tears" and there is an excellent report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty in Canada. There is a report by the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on growth, employment and price stability and a report, which obviously had an effect on the government, by the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on Information Canada. Of course, Information Canada no longer exists in the form in which it existed when the study was made.
There is the report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on Canada Manpower which resulted in some reorganization. Here is a report by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture which is entitled "Recognizing the Realities of Beef Import Policy for Canada". Here in an excellent four volume work entitled "A Science Policy for Canada", which is a report by the Special Senate Committee on Science Policy, the chairman of which is the Hon. Maurice Lamontagne.
Here is a report in which I have taken a special interest. It is presently two volumes, but undoubtedly there will be more volumes. It is entitled "Canada-United States Relations" and it deals with trade relations with the United States. It is an excellent work. Whether one disagrees or agrees with the content of these works, they provide much food for thought, and they set down their subjects in excellent fashion. I laud the senators for the work they do in this regard.
I do not believe that we give enough publicity to the work performed by the Senate. On looking at the order paper of the Senate and the business proposed for next week, aside from the senators who will be working on the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution which sits all day, every day, and which is doing an incredible job there is much activity. Whether we agree or disagree with the subject under discussion, no one can deny that the members of this committee, both those from the House and from the Senate, are doing a standup job in continuing, day after day, with this rather difficult discussion under the scrutiny of the media.
But also in the following week I notice that there will be a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on National Defence, the committee dealing with standing rules and orders which is examining the procedure to be followed upon the presentation of the report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada. Obviously they are preparing themselves for the time when they will have to study this most important resolution. There will be
January 23, 1981

a-meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to study the subject matter of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments for a review of statutory instruments. Finally, there will be a meeting of the internal economy, budgets and administration committee. All these meetings will take place next week. In other words, apart from the regular meetings of the Senate, there is considerable activity in the committees.
In the one or two minutes I have remaining, I would like to refer to section 44 because it will be a contentious area. As the opposition leader in the Senate, the Hon. Jacques Flynn, said concerning the constitutional proposal:
-if tfyis address goes to Westminster and becomes law, thereafter any amendment to our constitution, including the abolition of the Senate, could be made without the Senate having a word to say about it.
Of course, this is a concern of the senators. I believe that we should think sincerely about their complaint as to whether or not this is the objective. I have looked at comments made to the special joint committee by the different groups. I have found only two groups which are frightened at the thought of the abolition of the Senate, the Canada West Foundation, because it believes that westerners see the Senate as the best means of representing all the regions in the central government and the Inuit Committee on National Issues, which is concerned because of its desire for representation in both Houses of Parliament. The amendments to the Constitution which were proposed recently lengthen from 90 days to 180 days the time which is contained in paragraph 44. The 180 days corresponds roughly to the six-month period to which I referred earlier.
[DOT] .(1620)
In my opinion we have a group of hardworking senators. We receive from the Senate a tremendous amount of important material. Excellent studies are done by the Senate which are invaluable to the country. This indicates to me that there should be no contemplation of abolition of the Senate. But if there is to be continuing discussion of representation-and I know this is a very difficult thing to say-then Canadians from across the country should be able to sit down and decide on the way that body can be composed so that everyone is satisfied not only on a regional representation basis but on the basis that the Senate is exercising the function for which it was intended, that of a good regionally representative body of sober and second thought.
' Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on the complimentary nature of his address and on the tribute he has paid to much of the work which comes from the other House, the Senate. He has given us a list of papers and studies which we will find valuable. I agree with him that the structure of the Senate is such that similar armament in terms of expertise and in the strengthening of committees of this House would go a long way toward resolving many of the problems we leave on the table and do not get time to finish.
Tenure of Senators
I do not mean to be unkind with my next remark but any private member's bill is a vehicle to draw attention to an essential and important issue concerning many of us. He has outlined the concern that other members have for the Senate, either complete abolition, restructuring or changing the membership thereof.
I would like to take a few minutes to point out that the bill itself is something like a shingle nail trying to hold Canada together, and I do not mean this unkindly. If we have one major problem that we are failing to resolve as a parliament, it is the problem of regionalism. By regionalism, I mean not only western Canada, Upper Canada or Ontario, Lower Canada or Quebec and the Atlantic union, but I mean you can have regionalism in Metropolitan Toronto, and out in British Columbia. There is an article in The Globe and Mail about Labrador. In reading that article one can see the extent of regionalism which exists in Labrador. Even many of the people in the high north do not want to talk with one another or get into regional frictions. It seems to me that regionalism is a subject matter on which we should be spending a great deal of time if we are to design a federalism which gives the nation the strength that we all talk about but do not get down to addressing.
I am speaking in a rather impromptu manner to this bill because I am deeply concerned about this one issue: What are we going to do to address the regionalism, other than to improve the vehicle of communicating with each other? We are not a melting pot as is the United States. We call ourselves multicultural. We have people who used to call themselves Canadians but who are now more proud of their ethnic origins than they were say, five or ten years ago of being Canadian. I had a charming lady tell me at lunch that she was extremely proud of her father's ancestry. She is a well-educated person from this province, but the strong feeling about her ancestry has happened to her recently.
This trouble exists in the minds of many of us, indeed, altogether too many of us. It is easy to attack the ruptures which arise in our society. For example, look at the people who want to separate from the central part of Canada. It is easy to attack the West-Feds and the Western Canadian Foundation. It is easy to attack those who want to join the United States. It is easy to attack and put down those who feel aggrieved, but that grievance is still there. We still have not addressed or used this vehicle of government or given it a structure that will allow us to communicate and talk this situation out.
If we are talking about doing anything to the Senate we have to strengthen it in its armament to represent the regions and to address regionalism in Canada.
The trouble with the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker- that heritage which has come down to us from the British parliamentary system-is that it represents population centres. It gives power to the population centres. In our form of government, whoever has the greatest number of seats in this chamber becomes the government, and the government is the power and the decision-making base. The decision-making

January 23, 1981
Tenure of Senators
base we have seen in the last two parliaments does not represent the regions of the country.
The question comes back to the structure of federalism- how we are going to bring about a structure which strengthens the regions and allows more bottom-up input into the federal structure instead of talk-down direction. As long as we have this strengthening of talk-down direction, or this strengthening of centralism, we will have more and more ruptures.
This is a massive land. Canada is the envy of the world in terms of its land, its resources, its people, its educational system and its health services' system. We are the envy of the world.
We have a good working spirit. I would like to see us put legislation in place which would enhance that working spirit rather than dampen it. But I think we will have to talk about an upper house with an elected senate having incentives strong enough to qttract the very best minds which the regions can deliver. We will have to think about giving rewards to those people who are prepared to dedicate their intellectual talents to the betterment of the country and, somehow or other, allow them some tenure upon election to the Senate. If we are to have regionalism, we must get the Senate away from political appointments. The Canadian Senate is letting the nation down because it is overloaded politically. It does not have a political balance. The Leader of the Senate has expressed that as a genuine concern to me and to others. If it is an elected Senate, then it truly represents the regions and the rewards and qualifications of running for the Senate should set a very high standard so that the regions are represented well.
But we have regionalism within regions as well. We have to address that if we are to be a happy, strong land and if the people in the faraway places of Canada are to feel that they and their interests are truly represented here.
My colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) spoke during question period today about one of the largest Indian reserves in Canada which suffered massive damage as a result of a flood. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which has a horrendous budget of something like $.7 million and a large staff, has not even sent anyone out to look after the Indians who are in real dire trouble. This causes alienation and antagonism and the centre is not serving the whole. If we had a stronger upper house which represented the regions, we would have had somebody out there immediately. I acknowledge that the leader in the Senate, Senator Perrault, went out to that flood area, but the Indian reserve was totally overlooked. The department at the centre did not telegraph a concern into that region.
All of us want this country to stay together. We want to be proud of it, and we want it to be strong. However, that will not come about with top-down direction from the centre. We have to gather in the parts and make it look as if it is bottom-up in terms of creation of a federal structure here. The Senate is essential to it.
I do not agree with those who say that the Senate should just be a vehicle for a second look. If the Senate is truly going to represent the regions of this country, it will have to be a strong organization. It will require muscle in terms of western resources and will need to have fingers out to the multicultural and racial groups in this country so that we can keep the dialogue going and resolve the pockets of friction. It will not serve this country if it is just a vehicle for a second look, to be overruled in six months and have its work returned here.
If the Senate is going to be strong, it should have the full power of veto over legislation which passes through this House. If you want to continue the growth of alienation in this country, just have the population blocks at the centre of this country continue to tell the outbacks how to live, work and manage and control their resources. That will cause nothing but resentment.
I sit here as a very frustrated person because I like to be positive. Sitting in the opposition, I do not get a chance to be as positive as I was born to be. This kind of frustration should be addressed because all of us are here to serve, and we are here as a result of our love for this country.
When Bill C-303 comes forward to amend the British North America Act for the Senate, we should be talking about strengthening the upper house so that we can really address regionalism, which is the anchor of dissent that exists in this country. We should consider facts such as the fact that I come from a region where there are 11 federal boards upon which there are no citizens of British Columbia. I make an appeal in these few minutes to try to bring about an awareness of the anxieties which exist and the challenge that we as elected members of Parliament have to address this problem.
It is hard for those at the centre of Canada to get the gut feeling that exists across the prairies, in the north and in British Columbia. We pay 130 to 165 per cent of world prices for our consumer and capital goods for the benefit of payrolls and industries at the centre of this country. We are a customs union and we accept that. However, we want at least 75 per cent or better of world prices for the delivery of resources from the outback.
If you think that central Canada can keep this country together by imposing what is considered to be a plunder of our heritage, it is not going to happen. The country will disintegrate. It is in this federal structure we can talk this out. I think it is beyond politics now. We have to talk it out as Canadians representing our regions, getting our concerns out on a fulltime basis. There is nothing more important than talking about a resolution on regionalism, a way in which western Canada can sit as an equal at the table, with Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic region.
We should have a full input into the departmental decisionmaking process. When talking about immigration, western Canada should have its representative for immigration sitting with the immigration minister at the council table so that the problems of that region as a result of immigration can be considered.
January 23, 1981

Even my own colleague, when he was minister of finance, forgot all about the housing problem on the west coast in the MURB decision contained in his budget of December, 1979. Had that region had an input, that item, which caused unbelievable dissension out there, would not have been in that budget. The vacancy rate was below one per cent and it needed a government stimulus. There should have been regional input.
The four regions I mentioned should have input at the decision-making tables when definitions are made with regard to bioscience as it applies to resources, to fiscal policies, monetary policies and so on. Only then will we start to resolve the intense alienation which exists in this country. I plead with those who represent the population centres of this land to give this suggestion serious thought.
Do not label people like me non-Canadian. You will not get away with that. My life and my record is the other way. However, I am prepared to fight for my region in an attempt to build a stronger federation, a bottom-up federation, a federation which represents the regions of this great land.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could begin by saying to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that his bill goes in the right direction. At the present time, apart from the few older senators who are there for life, those who are appointed to the Senate stay there until age 75. Under Bill C-303, their term would be cut to a period of anywhere from ten to 15 years, but no longer.
I say that goes in the right direction. I would go further. I would cut their tenure to five years, then one year, six months, and then cut them out altogether. In case I seem to be putting my tongue in my cheek when I speak of the bill going in the right direction, let me make it clear that I do not think the bill touches the problem of the Senate as part of our democracy at all. I do not think it is an answer to the view that many of us hold, that there is no place in our parliamentary democracy for a body that is not elected, not responsible to anyone and that as the Senate now stands it should be abolished.
I was greatly interested in the speech made by my hon. friend. I kept waiting for him to give the reason for the proposal in his bill. Indeed, I kept waiting for him to refer to it. He did read the clause about the tenure. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) had the same feeling of expectation. I thought he summed up the hon. member's speech very well when he said that even with all the fine things he is telling us about the Senate and how good it is, its members are good for only ten years.
As I say, I do not think it gets to the heart of the problem at all. I might say to my good friend the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), who always makes his point very clear, that we appreciate the problems he has discussed again today. We appreciate his deep concern over regionalism. By the same token, I do not think the Senate is any answer to that set of problems.
Tenure of Senators
Before I get a little more directly into the question itself, may I say I welcome the fact that once again we are discussing in the House of Commons of Canada a bill to amend an act which is not in this country at all, the British North America Act. Of course, my hon. friend is doing that, as I have tried on a number of occasions with amendments to the British North America Act, under the provisions of section 9(1) which says that the Parliament of Canada may make amendments to the British North America Act in respect of matters that are exclusively federal. We have exercised that right on a number of occasions, and the rationale usually is that our statutes are enacted by the Crown, and since the British North America Act was enacted by the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria it is being amended by the Crown in the person of Queen Elizabeth on the advice of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada.
Referring to that amendment to the British North America Act which was passed in 1949 I am disposed to make a comment all of us often make, namely that the accidents of history can be very strange and can have long-lasting effects. I had sufficient conversation with Mr. St. Laurent, who was Prime Minister at that time, to know he was very anxious to complete the process of the Canadianization of our Constitution. Section 91(1) was the first step to bring to Canada the right to amend the Constitution in respect of matters exclusively federal. That was done in 1949.1 knew Mr. St. Laurent well enough to be able to stand here and say that his hope was that before his term of office as Prime Minister finished he would be able to get the agreement of the provinces and to take the necessary steps to bring the amending of the rest of the Constitution to this country.
Unfortunately the Korean war broke out and other things followed and the well-laid plans of Mr. St. Laurent got set aside. I think it is really quite an unfortunate bit of our history. We might have been able to do all of that in the 1950s with a lot less of the contention, ill will and all the rest of it we are having at the present time. However, that is the way history goes and we have to take it as it comes, doing the best with the situations with which we are confronted.
What we have before us now is this proposal to sweeten the Senate a little bit so we can keep it. We have heard today the usual litany, especially from the hon. member for Vaudreuil, about the fine people over there. They are fine people and I know many of them. They are good Canadians and they work hard, or some of them do, as the hon. member says. Just as in this House there are some one sees around on the job all the time, and there are others one does not know who they are when they turn up.
I recognize the difficulty one gets into by naming anyone at all, but I should like to support what the hon. member said about Carl Goldenberg, a great Canadian who has made a tremendous contribution in a number of fields. I say the same thing for David Croll. I think his contribution in the Senate has been great as was his contribution when he was a member of this House. I should like to add names such as Renaude

January 23, 1981
Tenure of Senators
Lapointe, Florence Bird, Jacques Flynn and Duff Roblin, all of whom I regard as friends. I am sure others would like to add other names, but at least I want to get it on the record that there are persons in that other place whom I like very much and who in my view are sincere and earnest in what they are trying to do.
However, Mr. Speaker, even though one can assert that there are fine persons over in that other place, and they never speak of us as the other place, they speak of us as "down in the House of Commons", even though they have produced a number of excellent reports, and even though some of them work hard, as is the case with those who are now on the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, the fundamental fact of the Senate is that its members are not elected. They do not fit into the idea of democracy and they are not responsible to anyone. They get their appointments on the recommendation of the prime minister of the day and after they have been appointed by the prime minister they are not even responsible back to him, or back to her, if the picture changes.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Neither are we.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are responsible to the people who elected us and we have to go back every five years, four years, three, two or one to find out whether we have carried out our responsibilities. Senators have no responsibility to anyone and I submit, though that may have seemed a reasonable way to set things up back in 1867 when the public believed in democracy, but not all the way, in the 114 years that have gone by since then surely we have come to the point that we really do believe in democracy.
I was interested in the quotation from Gordon Robertson that if we had a one-House Parliament we would be unique as a federation. I do not see anything wrong about being unique. There are lots of other ways 1 would like Canada to be unique and there are ways in which I think we are unique. I have not had time since I heard the quotation to go somewhere to check on the facts of the situation, but, as a matter of fact, 1 suspect we are unique in this area already, certainly among federations in the western world, in that we have a second chamber which is appointed rather than elected. It is that which is wrong about the whole situation.
The reports my hon. friend referred to are good reports. The senators have done a lot of work. I remember a debate I had on radio some time ago with then Senator Eugene Forsey. We got into these usual arguments, and at one point I suggested to him that only about 25 members of the other place carried the load, did the work. He not only accepted my figure of 25, he said perhaps it was a bit high.
We have 20 or 25 people doing good work making reports but we keep on full pay, good pay with pensions and all the rest of it, 104 or 106 individuals who get the nod from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Of course, every time there is a vacancy there are lots of others looking for the nod, and not only political persons. I am interested in the number of times I find columnists in newspapers taking advantage of the fact
they can get in print that they do not want to see the Senate abolished, they want to get into it.
If we want 25 people on staff to do good work such as the 25 active senators do, okay, let us set up such a body, but to have 106 on full pay, giving that group of 106 the same legal power over legislation that elected representatives have, I think is for the birds. I think it is completely out of the picture.
Let me say to the hon. member for Vaudreuil that he renders a service when he asks this House to consider the Senate and what ought to be done about it, but surely it requires more than just what the hon. member for Capilano calls this one little shingle nail in the present structure.
One of the comments I will make about the hon. member's bill is that if it did go into effect, it would immediately cost us more money. At the present time senators stay over there until they are 75, but under this bill they would be retiring at whatever age they might be when the tide ran out. They would retire at 40, 45 or 50 and go onto pensions, whereas now we have to pay only the senators who are there. The ones over 75 do not live very long. We not only would have to pay the ones there but we would also have to pay those with 10, 12, 14 or 15 years' service who earned fairly good pensions.
My hon. friend's motive in producing a discussion of the Senate is good but his suggestion really does not touch the basic problem, and that is that we need a Parliament which is fully democratic and responsible to the people out there who elect us.
My hon. friend, the hon. member for Capilano, is quite right in expressing the problems of regionalism we have, but his theory of increasing the strength of the Senate we have now no more meets those problems than my friend's bill meets the problem of a representative or elected Senate. I think we have to find ways to solve the problem of regionalism.
We have to find a way to work a measure of proportional representation into this House of Commons so that a government will represent all of the regions. I think we will have to work hard politically for the kind of government that is concerned for the people in all parts of the country. I think we have to strengthen the committee structure. We do not need just to strengthen it; we have to scrap it and build a new one which gives members from all parts of the country a chance to have an input into the solving of the problems which affect them in the various areas. I say with great respect that neither this 10 to 15-year limit nor the stronger upper House about which the hon. member for Capilano talks will solve the problem.
I should sit down. The last word I want to say is that I wonder how much longer we will let people talk about needing the Senate for sober second thought. That is a real insult to this House of Commons. My experience here is that in this House we are sober.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, if only for the final
January 23, 1981

eight or ten minutes left this afternoon. I commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing this bill forward. As has been said, there are perhaps not so many private members' bills on the Senate at the present time as there have been in past years, but I think this is still a very important subject. It was one of the 12 major subjects discussed all summer by federal and provincial representatives before the first ministers' conference last fall. It was in the same category as changes to the Supreme Court of Canada, resource ownership, offshore resources, equalization, a charter of rights and all the other of the 12 subjects which the provincial and federal people were trying to negotiate last summer and which were discussed at the first ministers' conference in September.
The Senate, or second chamber of some sort, is not just an anachronism that is just dying away slowly. I suggest it is right here and part of current political thought, and the question in the next few years will be what really can be done with the second chamber. The bill in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil gives us a chance-in a small way, perhaps-to discuss some of the aspects of this question.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). His comments were with respect to the problems of regionalism not just within the four regions of the country but also in the regions within the regions. In Ontario, from where I come, traditionally there have always been problems in northern Ontario. I see that the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) is here. The people of northern Ontario consider theirs to be a region unto itself, and in many ways for very good reason. The people there feel that they are disadvantaged. We in southern Ontario, and particularly the Toronto area, hear about this all the time either in a political party sense, in a financial or economic sense or whatever.
The hon. member for Capilano mentioned the problems within his own province of British Columbia. The problems of the interior are different from those on the lower mainland. The people of the different parts of the Northwest Territories have a difficult time getting to know each other better because of great distances.
While a new second chamber may not be the only answer to the problem of regionalism, considering the way discussions are going and the way political thought in this country is going, it will be a significant factor in giving the regions better representation in the future.
While the regions are very important, while they certainly must get more representation and while they must also be seen to get more representation and a fair chance, we still have the other side of the coin, which is the one person, one vote principle. Some of us from central Canada perhaps have a difficult time with that. While acknowledging the problems of the regions, we still have difficulty giving away the one man, one vote principle. If three quarters of the people-or whatever the percentage is-live in central Canada, the question is
Tenure of Senators
whether central Canada should have just half the votes rather than somewhat more or some other percentage. However, in spite of everything there is no question that with all the discussions going on in Canada in recent years, the regions in one way or another will be getting much more representation.
It is interesting to be back in the House with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As hon. members know, I was here between 1968 and 1972. During those years I think at least once a year the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for whom I have a great amount of respect, would get up on at least one occasion and give a speech somewhat similar to the one he gave this afternoon. He has been here in this House almost continuously since, I believe, 1942, and over those nearly 40 years he has made his points on this subject very clear. He has made good arguments.
Arguments on proportional representation and other things will be discussed in the future, but I think the argument of the hon. member for Vaudreuil regarding the fact that almost all federations have two chambers is quite a telling argument. The hon. member for Vaudreuil also mentioned the excellent work, which is acknowledged on all sides of the House, of members of the Senate in preparing reports of various kinds. There have been reports on poverty, retirement, science policy, a policy on the media and others, all of which are well known and acknowledged to be excellent.
As always happens, I am in the unfortunate position this afternoon of having two prepared speeches. One was prepared with the help of my excellent researcher, and one is from the Department of Justice. Two minutes really is not enough time in which to give either of them. However, in the years to come I think we will see that the subject of a second chamber will come up on more than one occasion. I hope it will come up not just in private members' hours such as this-which is a good chance to air some of these questions-but I presume we will also be discussing government proposed bills respecting new constitutional reforms in the future. Some of us will, in any event. We will talk about a second chamber because, despite the opinions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and many members of his party-opinions which are shared by some in other parts of the House-as I mentioned before, I think the realization is coming to more and more of us, including those of us from central Canada, that a second chamber, whether it is the Senate or whatever it will be called in the future, can have a significant role to play in the future of our parliamentary life.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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

Monday, January 26, 1981